The Fifth Estate
The Fifth Estate
R | 18 October 2013 (USA)
The Fifth Estate Trailers

A look at the relationship between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his early supporter and eventual colleague Daniel Domscheit-Berg, and how the website's growth and influence led to an irreparable rift between the two friends.

Reviews
Sabre Ryder

Its been a while since i found a thriller that i enjoyed. was made all the more interesting by the fact that this was around real events. the leaking of truth that so called western democracies would rather have buried, such as the US helicopter killings of 2 reuters journalists and dozens of civilians is just one of the groundbreaking stories that has been broken to the public by the whistleblowers. its also an insight into the relationships and tension between the various founders behind this global organisation.

... View More
Scarecrow-88

Critics were divided and theatrical turnout was small for this look at the "birth of WikiLeaks", built (supposedly) by Julian Assange (Cumberbatch) and Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Daniel Brühl) as a means to get the truth about corrupting global influences (governments, tyrannies, political figureheads, etc) out in the information superhighway so that the public at large, through the use of the internet and eventually the media who follow after this release with questions on all that is revealed. Whether what we see is altogether accurate or not depends on whether you can accept Daniel's (and Hollywood's) retelling of events surrounding the accounts regarding WikiLeaks. As a film, directed by Bill Condon, I found it compelling enough, and Benedict Cumberbatch is so sensational, I can only imagine Assange was more than pleased he could be presented by such a charismatic, incredible presence on film. Although, it depends upon how you feel regarding Assange and Daniel's agenda, and if Daniel's accounts are real or fictional in ways that makes him look positive (I have to admit that I felt the film does tend to paint Daniel as a noble tech wiz with a morale that is tested by Assange's ego), I did consider this film really intriguing and even entertaining on the level of "here are two tech geniuses with the ability to change the way information effects the behavior of large global entities, soon coming to odds when sources and lives are potentially threatened (whistleblowers are to be protected, right?)". Assange wants to do whatever it takes to call out those irresponsible with lives and corrupt in their behavior and how this affects innocent lives, but the film questions how this could be detrimental to innocent lives. So if you believe that message is okay and that Assange willingly involved himself in that questionable mishandling of information (Alexander Siddig's character in Kenya is a casualty of the release of information that put his country's leadership under the microscope), this could be food for thought. I liked it on the level of two young men who develop a bond over doing something significant through the use of the internet in order to hold corrupting influences accountable for their misbehavior. Then, as time continues, they meet a crossroads when it comes to how information should be shared and brought to light that erodes what they had. Soon Assange considers his (Daniel's) hiring a mistake, although the film itself seems to inform us that he was essential to the success of WikiLeaks. Is there an agenda by those who made this film? Well, at least they allow Assange to claim in an interview at the end that this film wouldn't be an accurate detailing of events, so maybe we will truly never quite know. Condon really tries, bless his heart, to get a lot in two hours, but it is quite a task. I think he does lay on the "they're out to get you, Julian" a bit thick, but that can be expected considering the use of confidential information at their disposal. The film certainly casts an indictment on those responsible for wrongdoing and allows the WikiLeaks folks to be a type of crusade against injustice. It isn't a dismissive recollection of accounts where global computer terrorists use information provided to hurt those undeserved of such a fate. It examines how to use information that exposes criminal activity. Big role for David Thewlis of The Guardian who wants to work in concert with WikiLeaks in order to release the information and protect the sources responsible for the exposing of corruption. Anyway, the film does show both men as superstars who are revolutionaries in a sense and worthy of awe, so I can't say this isn't purposely manipulative. Still, this held my attention even if I wasn't altogether convinced what it was telling me wasn't guided by a willingness to glamorize its characters. Stanley Tucci and Laura Linney are members of the US government trying to hold the country's secrets from unveiling, ultimately proving unsuccessful. I left feeling like this film didn't even truly touch the surface of what could be truly fascinating regarding Assange himself.

... View More
David Allen

"THE FIFTH ESTATE" (2103) IS WONDERFUL! 10 STARS FOR THIS GENIUS MOVIE! HERE'S WHY......! ------------This movie is good for two reasons....It depicts unusual people working as computer experts using their skills for political and social purposes, and also it shows the strange and exotic world and lifestyle these computer expert revolutionaries live in....mostly a world of night, fog, and "film noir" personality. Both of these are worth learning more about.A 2013 feature length documentary titled WE STEAL SECRETS was made about the same subject area covered by THE FIFTH ESTATE (2013), and that documentary is a good companion video to screen back to back along with THE FIFTH ESTATE. Actual persons part of the story covered are shown and some are interviewed in WE STEAL SECRETS, and parts of the overall complicated story are covered not covered in THE FIFTH ESTATE, but useful in understanding the larger, complex story. Both movies are worth seeing. This movie was made to be watched AT HOME while the viewer sits alone on a comfortable couch, paying attention to the many important details of the movie and enjoying it's brilliant cinematic presentation, including it's good direction and screenplay, along with the actor work so widely praised, deservedly.It is a movie made by genius filmmakers about genius characters (I pass no judgment here on whether the genius depicted is used for good or evil.....the characters portrayed are clearly possessed of genius worth studying...and enjoying!).First, it depicts the strange and exciting night time, film-noir (in color, since it was made in 2013) world of computer hacker criminals who are do-gooder, revolutionary types always praised by poets, always written about by novelists, and ALWAYS subjects of thriller movies made by Hollywood studios which want to make profitable pictures. Our lives in present days (2015) are influenced by computers, the Internet, and the World Wide Web and its many websites, including "news leak/ whistle blower" websites like WikiLeaks.Com and OpenLeaks.Com.Political and criminal revolutionaries of the present and future will do their work using computers, hacking, and the Internet, and most people have no idea what this is all about, no expertise or understanding of what it takes to use computers, hacking, the Internet to impact the world.THE FIFTH ESTATE (2013) shows what that world is like (mostly a night-time world where "the action" takes place indoors while perpetrators face computer screens which cast eerie blue/green upward lights onto the faces of the down looking hero/villain computer users.)Normal people, average people never see this world....but they CAN if they watch this movie. A good two hour education in what the world of computer geeks/ revolutionaries looks like. Worth the price of the video for that alone.In addition, we see a portrait of a driven, genius (for good or ill...I pass no judgment about that here, I repeat) computer expert who is also a politician, excellent communicator, and intellectual to an advanced level.....well read, well experienced at dealing with a broad variety of important people from the top to the bottom of society (all societies).The Julian Assange character portrayed in this movie is the result of 60's/70's era counter-culture hippie types.....a second generation hippie/revolutionary, but with up to date skills and ambitions.Similar, if you will, to the TERMINATOR TWO hero child (aged 12 in the TERMINATOR movie) played by Edward Furlong.This movie cannot be understood (or enjoyed) unless the viewer does his/her homework FIRST. Read the Wikipedia biog profile article about Julian Assange, and the Wikipedia article about WIKILEAKS first (read it away from the computer so you can think about it, go back to it later....print out goes to 62 pages if you enlarge the typeface so it's easy to read. Worth the money spent in paper and computer ink!).The population of the world is now 7 billion people (it was 2 billion plus as recently as World War II years....70 years ago). That is incredible.The world is now (predictably and logically) CROWDED. Nobody has privacy in crowds. Good things have happened due to the population increase and changes to accommodate it, but privacy has gone and will keep going.Privacy of the sort people commonly experienced in the past and expected is simply no longer possible, and people better get used to that.This movie is all about privacy, and the fact it is disappearing (I pass no judgment on whether this is a good or a bad thing).The world is now filled with many more smart, educated people than ever lived on the world before (just as it filled with more rich people than ever before, more doctors, more plumbers, etc. etc.......seven billion people worldwide means more of every category of people).This movie is FOR smart educated people (who must do their homework before seeing the movie, and know how due to their advanced formal education), and ABOUT smart educated people (who run everything in the present day world, and are the only ones who can). The heroes, the villains, the cops, the robbers, the government types, the revolutionary types are ALL smart, educated people.The movie is filled with the faces of intelligent people saying intelligent things (and making references nobody who fails to do advanced research about the subject and people depicted in the movie will or can understand).Do your homework FIRST, before seeing the movie.Bad reviews this movie got were not written by people who did their homework first. Ignore those reviews! This is a 10 star movie for sure.

... View More
herbqedi

I enjoyed it quite a bit. Cumberbatch was PERFECT as Assange, nailed him - and so piercing. Excellent supporting performances by Laura Linney, Stanley Tucci, Alexander Seddig (Dr. Bashir from DS9), Anthony Mackie, and Michael Culkin. Yes, I said Laura Linney - who I consider the most overrated actress ever and whose performances I always despise. Here she was beyond perfect in her timing, dialog, expressions, and nuances as a State Department Official who has some conscience, thinks she is a pragmatist but needs periodic reality checks from Stanley Tucci, and certainly won't sacrifice her own neck for principle when it comes down to it. Tucci underplays his part to great effect. Culkin and Seddig are both very interesting in their two scenes. The direction was fast and well-paced with amazing sets and a most appropriate score.I haven't mentioned Cumberbatch's co-star, Daniel Bruhl, who gets just as much if not more screen time, as co-Wiki-leaks Founder Daniel Berg. Nor did I mention the female lead, Alicia Vikander, who played Amke, Berg's girlfriend. Berg provided the source material use for the film and he is the voice of conscience with which we are supposed to sympathize - especially when Assange fires (expels actually,since no one at WIki Leaks got paid) both of them for insubordination and brands them as delusional traitors. I say we're supposed to sympathize with them but I came away feeling them more self-pitying and whiny than heroic and I'm not sure whether it was the writing, the acting, or a combination of the two. I'm not saying that I could pinpoint anything wrong with the performances; and I'd have to see other work to see whether my reaction to the two came from he script. Those two characterizations/performances make this a 3.5-/4 instead of 4/4 (8/10 if you prefer). I thought it was very good - especially if you have an interest in the media's role in politics and intelligence agencies.

... View More