I began this movie, with high expectations, expecting a thought provoking drama with good acting and dialogue. I find the story for the WikiLeaks owners life to be quite interesting, and when I found out there was a movie about that, I grinned in excitement. The owner for WikiLeaks had an interesting life, and could actually be made into a masterpiece of a movie, if the director does not mess up. I was hoping the director for this movie would not mess up. I was telling myself, "Come on, it is a movie about WikiLeaks! It'll be great!"I was gravely wrong.One of the things I hate in some movies is the infamous shaky camera and quick cut clichè. It drives me nuts, because I am not able to focus on what is going on in the scene. But sometimes, the shaky camera and quick cuts, if not used excessively, can be used quite well.Almost every shot in the first half of this movie used quick cuts and shaky camera poorly.I told myself, "Come on, keep watching the movie. It will get better!"It did, sure. But that isn't saying much.Also, there was a try-hard "emotional" scene near the start of the movie, where we get a brief glimpse into the owner of WikiLeaks's childhood. The scene felt very forced, and soon enough I think the wall was bashing his head on mine because of how painfully awfully forced that scene was. That scene could of been sad, if there was a build up to it, instead of some shaky quick cut shots of technology.This also tried to act stylized. You know, like how Wes Anderson and Stanley Kubrick have their style. But, the thing with their styles, is that they are not forced. The style in this movie was forced. Forced with a capital F."Your cows seem a little depressed."Thats a line from this movie. There is more intelligent dialogue like that in the movie, don't worry.I don't know. Maybe if you are a huge fan of Benedict Cumberbatch speaking in a Australian accent, you'll enjoy this. If you are not, I suggest you don't watch it. If you have an IQ of nine, you may say "Shut up! I will decide if I like this movie myself!"Okay, decide if you want. But I am warning you.5.6/10.

The movie does injustice to the actual people whom the story is based upon by showing them in the negative light. The movie is based on books that have been severely discredited due to the inaccuracies and it only builds on that. The best part of the movie was Benedict Cumberbatch's brilliant acting and only that made it worthy of enjoying the movie. Even the other actors Daniel Brühl, David Thewlis and Alicia Vikander have acted very well to make it watch-worthy. Towards the end of the movie, (SPOILER ALERT) the concept of whistle-blowing is shown in a negative light as if Julian had committed a crime and endangered people by exposing the truth. These people clearly deserved for their past actions and I hope future movies would try to portray truths more better than expressing their own deviation of it.

In Medieval Europe, the First Estate was the clergy, The Second Estate was the nobility and The Third Estate were the commoners – basically, what we would call today "the 99%". The term The Fourth Estate emerged later as a designation for a group of people who aren't large in numbers, but are great in influence – usually the news media. This leads us to the title of the 2013 film "The Fifth Estate" (R, 2:08). What if there were another group of people, further outside the older classes of society – a group that was an offshoot of The Fourth Estate, smaller in size, but greater in influence? In this, The Information Age, the internet has created such a group, a group that plays a role similar to The Fourth Estate, but does it completely independently and with no accountability. It's a group that is influential enough, and different enough from the established media, that a new name seems appropriate to describe this group. This is The Fifth Estate, and there is no better example of The Fifth Estate than the WikiLeaks website, publisher of documents leaked to the site by people within corporations, military and government organizations who feel that they have a responsibility to expose corruption, questionable practices, lies and policies and practices with which the leaker simply disagrees. Calling a movie about WikiLeaks "The Fifth Estate" begs the question: Can people who work with such an organization really be called journalists, are they lawbreakers, or are they something new and different, something that defies definition? It's an important question and it's what this film asks its audience.WikiLeaks went online in 2007 and was the creation of one man, Australian computer hacker – turned activist and publisher Julian Assange. Benedict Cumberbatch does a remarkable job portraying the enigma that is Assange. In Cumberbatch's hands, Assange is a brilliant visionary… as well as arrogant, rude, manipulative, paranoid, self-righteous and definitely lacking in the social skills. He makes Apple Computers co-founder Steve Jobs look like a puppy dog. Daniel Bruehl plays Daniel Berg, a computer genius who hitches his wagon to Assange's rising star. Berg believes in Assange's goal of revealing the truth about powerful organizations, especially those corrupt, scandalous, embarrassing, or just uncomfortable truths which Assange, Berg and a small group of friends believe can make a difference if exposed to the light of day. Over time, however, Berg comes to see Assange for the man he really is and grows increasingly upset over what he sees as Assange's recklessness in publishing hundreds of thousands of leaked U.S. military and State Department documents and communications without redacting names and other information that, if made public, could endanger the lives of all kinds of people all over the world. That's where Laura Linney, Stanley Tucci and Anthony Mackey come in, as government officials trying to limit the damage from WikiLeaks releasing the biggest treasure trove of documents the website (or any organization) has received from a single source. That source was former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, eventually convicted of violating the Espionage Act and other crimes and sentenced to 35 years in prison (and has since assumed the identity Chelsea Manning).This should be seen as an important movie, regardless of one's opinion of the people and events portrayed. First off, WikiLeaks (along with the connections established among people around the world on social media websites) helped lead to the Arab Spring and other significant political changes in many different countries over the few years following Manning's actions. Secondly, whether you agree or disagree with Assange's approach to journalism (or whether you even consider him a journalist at all), this movie raises important questions that existed before the world even heard of Julian Assange, will exist into the foreseeable future, and may never go away. When does the freedom of the press enshrined in the U.S. Constitution conflict with the basic human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness promised in the Declaration of Independence? Is there any way to hold people who post news on the internet accountable without violating our most treasured freedoms? Where is the line between whistle-blower and traitor – and who decides where to draw that line? This film suggests the importance of asking all these questions and more without coming right out and asking them. This film also avoids suggesting that there are any easy answers. As entertainment, many will find "The Fifth Estate" a bit dry, a bit long or both. The director does his best to keep the film engaging by getting the best out of his talented cast, editing and scoring the film to create tension and using creative settings and camera work to represent certain concepts and events in the story. However, the real strength of this film is in its educational value and its ability to get the audience to think about some significant issues that face our country and our world - right now, today - and aren't going away any time soon. At the end of the day, isn't that one of the things that we want (and really need) movies to do – at least some of the time? That is a question that I think this film does answer and that answer is a resounding "yes"! For the significance of this film, its execution and its overall entertainment value, I give "The Fifth Estate" a "B".

This film tells the story of the founder of Wikileaks, and the core volunteers work in building a secure platform to help whistle blowers to expose injustice."The Fifth Estate" starts off very impressive, with a collage of news and ways to deliver news in the last hundred years. It is like a journey through time, and it even looks very cool. Unfortunately, things go downhill after that, and the plot becomes plain. It lacks the captivation and dramatic buildup to keep suspense. Only the very last part of the film, when the biggest ever leak is happening, is thrilling. By then, I have already formed an opinion of the film.It is marketed as a thriller, but I think it's more appropriate to say it's a biographical film because most of the screen time concentrates on the relationship of Julian and Daniel.