The Fifth Estate only shares one side of the story they are airing!! Shame on them. They are definitely controlled by the powers that be. I believe they are funded by our government. Their story on the Coutts border blockade was totally one sided. They lied about the men that were charged and only showed one side of the situation. The RCMPs side and our corrupt government and legal systems side. They didn't bother talking to people who were actually at the blockade or others that know the people that were arrested. Why is that?? Who paid for this broadcast? Hmmm....were they biased by the people who control them? When they find out the whole truth and nothing but the truth, will they own up and apologize to those involved and unjustly accused? I doubt it very much.

I enjoy the soundtrack and the performance of Daniel Brühl is excellent and i am in love of Alicia Vikander.

A propaganada piece which paints Julian Assange, who is a true hero, as a villain....sad that Benedict Cumberbitch agreed to do this movie

It's such a mess. This is a lot of things but the biggest thing is this is, it's a wasted opportunity. Everything is bogged down by subpar execution and a unfocused script. This should've just focused on the major leak that led to the escalation of the info war with the U.S.A. not all the backstory on the organization, Daniel, and barely getting any backstory on Julian who sometimes is the main focus and sometimes isn't. That the other thing I can't tell you if Daniel, Julian, or the Info War plot is the main focus as it feels terribly unfocused. Before the major leak it shows all the results of multiple other leaks and it feels terribly jumpy and doesn't flow well at all. It feels like just random events and makes this feel very convuluted. The cinematography is shot lifelessly, pointless shaky cam, obnoxious camera angles every now and than, all over the place different styles, weird abstract scenes, and sometimes the scenes are so convuluted you don't even know what's happening. This does get better in the second half though and the best part is the inital leak and receiving of the papers which actually was well done and came very close to something out of the Bourne movies. Than it starts bouncing around again and loses focus but not as bad as first. The music isn't good either alternating from boring and generic to out of place international pop numbers. They never help build tension or suspense at all. This can't decide if it wants to be a biopic about Julian or a political thriller and never full develops either. Finally, Cumberbatch isn't good in this as Julian and comes across as wooden, stilted, and not kind of whiny at times. We never get any backstory on him really either despite this trying to be a biopic about him and his rise. This needed to really start and focus squarely on the leak simliar to something like a combo of All the President's Men and a Bourne movie hybrid and drop all the unfocused backstory and abstract stuff to simplify the plot and make Julian less wooden and stilted. Skip This and read the book instead. What a missed opportunity.

Ok movie, Benedict Cumberbatch was a great Julian Assange, very dramatic. Good ending but just too dramatic.

Not even the acting is passable in this mess of a biopic.

If you're someone who came for the actors and the way they carry out their performances, its very engaging. As for keeping up with the overall story to pay attention to what's happening AS WELL AS knowing the actual REAL and informative proof of the "true story"... that's a truth the film does not want to fully explore within a concise and organized dimension.

The film can only be called good thanks to the game of Cumberbatch. However, the storyline itself is very poorly developed. Even a child already knows that personal data, once on the Internet, remains there forever. And getting this data is easier than easy. I'd love to see a movie about people who use reliable applications like Utopia p2p and deliver a lot of inconvenience to a hacker. Hmm, maybe I should write a script?

This movie is a MUST-SEE for whoever needs a good introduction to the whole Wikileaks issue. The actors play incredible well (Benedict Cumberbatch's acting is astonishing) and it will keep you on the edge of your seat until the very end- a remarkable achievement when treating such a complex and technical topic !

A nice techno thriller with a good cast that beneficially asked Cumberbatch to lead but couldn't sack various secret files neatly in muddled deliverance, despite performing the basis provoking in equally demonstrating the propaganda pros and cons on the WikiLeaks' political and social stance when getting to at least know their objective. (B) (Full review TBD)

slow moving but not bad Benjamin is a top notch actor. They could've done a much better job with storyline and character development. instead it treats the viewer as an amateur and thus makes the storyline lame.

A lot of the shows "action" consists official expressions as someone types or reads a computer screen. The controversies (exposure of whistle-blowers, rape allegations) were compressed into the last half hour or so. Dissapointing

Early in the film, Assange (played brilliantly by Cumberbatch) describes a childhood partly spent in a horrible religious cult. I don't know about the real Assange, but listening both to him and his character in this, I see a resemblance between the cult leaders we know and him. The ego. The conviction. The smugness. The intelligence. The manipulation. It depends on where you stand, but these people either draw you in or repel you. I would never have drank Jim Jones' CoolAid in the jungle. Likewise, I couldnt spend an hour in the company of this megalomaniac. I don't know much about wikileaks but I understand the role it's played and how it has exposed both the guilty and the innocent in equal measure. It's a blunt instrument but an important one, I suppose. But important doesn't equate to interesting and this is one tedious film. Like Assange, it either draws you in or turns you off. I have a suspicion it would have been better served by a lower budget 온라인카지노추천 outing. As it is, the stellar cast just don't seem to have enough to do.

i thought this was a pretty good movie on wiki leaks

The Fifth Estate is based on the stories leaked by the website Wikileaks. It portrays leaks founder Assange played by Benedict Cumberbatch as the bad guy who exposed hundreds of US agents from around the world. The movie was not thrilling nor was it suspenseful, I felt I was watching a documentary with little to no major plot. Great cast, but it was very odd to watch, I couldn't wait for it to end, just too boring. I do not recommend this flick.

Pooh-poohed by Julian Assange and critics aside, this tell-all chronology of the notoriety of WikiLeaks is undeniably a titillatingly divisive controversy about the morality of unfiltered news delivery from the watchdogs of journalism, a fellowship which the title refers to.

GREG: (Greg Smith, Founder of Agile Writers of Richmond, VA) Just when I was getting used to the Fourth Estate, here comes The Fifth Estate SCOTT: (Dr. Scott Allison, Professor of Psychology, University of Richmond) Let s see if this movie was good or in estate of confusion. GREG: We meet Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) who is recruiting Daniel Berg (Daniel Br hl) to help his organization leak information from whistleblowers. He needs Berg to verify the information that has been leaked about the Julius Baer Group, a Swiss investment bank. When the leaked information is posted on their website (Wikileaks.org) the bank comes under indictment for improper tax evasion strategies. SCOTT: Suddenly Wikileaks begins receiving anonymously leaked information about the misdeeds of businesses and governments from all over the world. There are revelations about Sarah Palin, Scientology, and British politicians. Assange and Berg are making enemies, a fact that worries Berg but thrills Assange. Soon Berg writes a book about Wikileaks, which greatly upsets Assange. All hell breaks loose when Wikileaks experiences its greatest coup -- a massive leak of incriminating American military videos, strategic information, and identities of informants involving the war in Afghanistan. GREG: The Fifth Estate does for WikiLeaks what The Social Network did for Facebook, but not nearly as well. We re given an inside look at what kind of mind creates a website that protects the person uploading the information - so long as that person is smart enough to redact his own name. In fact, a couple of African whistle blowers forgot that and were killed after exposing the leader of their country as a human rights violator. The information no sooner hits the streets and they are murdered in their car. Julian Assange is painted as a near Autistic and a survivor of a right-wing political and religious cult. As a child he was beaten and forced to take psychological drugs. These factors are played to the hilt as we learn that he is a paranoid with delusions of grandeur. SCOTT: Greg, The Fifth Estate covers some fascinating and controversial topics freedom of speech, transparency of information, and privacy issues, to name a few. The star of the movie is information itself. Unfortunately, information is boring to look at. About a third of this movie is devoted to showing people huddled over their laptops, peering at their computer screens. Sometimes they are typing messages to each other. Dull, dull, dull. This doesn t mean that the movie is a total waste. Far from it. Cumberbatch does an extraordinary job portraying Assange. We saw Cumberbatch play the role of Kahn quite capably in Star Trek Into Darkness and, interestingly enough, in The Fifth Estate he pretty much plays the same character. Like Kahn, Assange is a dark, damaged, loose cannon. Cumberbatch is absolutely brilliant in these complex roles. GREG: Actually, Scott, that is one of my complaints about Cumberbatch. I was introduced to him as the newest incarnation of Sherlock Holmes in the BBC 온라인카지노추천 recreation Sherlock. In it he portrays Holmes as a brilliant though near autistic personality. Not unlike Kahn or Assange. Cumberbatch s next role needs to be something different. We get it Benedict - you can do intense. Now let s see something more. Another complaint I have is the game we ve been playing since the summer was over: Hero, Hero, who is the Hero? We re given two characters to root for here: Assange, who is the most flawed of heroes; and Berg, who starts out naive and ultimately becomes schooled in the ways of manipulation. Neither makes for a very good hero character and the movie suffers for it. SCOTT: You re right, Greg, and that s why I wasn t kidding when I said that information itself is the star of the movie. One of the film s themes is that in the modern age, information has undergone a transformation, making Wikileaks controversies even possible. But if I were forced to identify a human hero in this story, it would be Daniel Berg. At the beginning of The Fifth Estate, Berg is a fawning sycophant to Assange, and by the end he has found his voice and grown independent. Overall, the main problem with the movie is its length. This story could have been told much more effectively as a one-hour documentary, or perhaps a one-hour made-for-온라인카지노추천 program. Stretching events to two hours truly stretched my patience and attention span. I was literally nodding off in the theater, which is a shame because the performances here are all first-rate and the story itself raises social issues that need to be debated. GREG: Because this is a retelling of actual events, I feel liberated to expose the ending. It s the release of a quarter million cables by US Army Private Bradley Manning that asks the question if WikiLeaks goes too far. None of the cables were redacted making their release not only an embarrassment but potentially life threatening for many in the US State Department. WikiLeaks didn t have the staff to fully tease the identities from the body of the text. Ultimately, the film does what it appears to set out to do. And that is to show that a new way of getting information has evolved. Secrets can be released to the public in their original form with no way of revealing the source. WikiLeaks has ushered in a new era of complete transparency and even the highest of the high are exposed. (I loved the opening credits showing us a montage of the rise of information from cave paintings to the Gutenberg Press and the modern Internet.) For dramatizing a complex topic and shedding light on a modern Pandora s Box, I give The Fifth Estate 3 out of 5 Reels. But for a confusing hero s journey (albeit well-acted by the leads) I award only 2 Heroes out of 5. Movie: Heroes: SCOTT: The Fifth Estate proves that you cannot make a successful movie whose main scenes show people communicating with each other over computers. While it did not entertain me at all, The Fifth Estate did make me think deeply about information privacy and transparency. This movie is therefore only a partial success and for that reason I award the film a mere 2 Reels out of 5. And for all the reasons Greg mentions, the film deserves 2 out of 5 on the Heroes scale as well. Movie: Heroes:

Not sure if this is the real character of Assange or it's been Hollywoodnized but the movie exploiting him as a Weirdo self involved hacker that his mission was destroying governments even on the expense of other people's lives

great story such a unique film

The critics are a bit harsh. I found this film very absorbing and could not stop it for the whole two hours. Not a dull moment. Excellent acting. The light seemed well put on Wikileaks and reveals the issues and tensions between the ideas and the people. The film ends with Wikileaks being squarely betrayed by Daniel Berg and the french guy in charge of the servers. Wikileaks was very important to reveal how much of assholes the powerful people really are. From the soldier to the chief in command and all in between. Assholes doing crimes all the time and only a few aware and able to leak i.e. inform the world. National security is always in danger when the people in charge keep jeopardizing it while pretending they provide security. If they were providing security without relying so much on power and violence, there would probably be much less dangers to security around the world. I am not just talking about the governments, but all forms of power. It seems there was unfortunately a grave lack of information about what happened with ISIS, leading to such misery over there. It feels a lot like the situation was allowed to rot to the point where the military was given carte blanche to extirpate ISIS. I think the military victory is not a convincing argument in itself. It's simply the most powerful one(s) making the rules.