Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Dave McClain 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".

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.

blaxand Good movie, but:"So, what?" Very good cinematography, great editing, great constellation of actors. Sorry guys, you will not get Oskar, that's for sure. The plot is finally not absolutely brainlessly hollywoody, what really leaves good aftertest. You fight for your idea, you run, may be you hide, and what you have at the end? Who can do - they do, who can not do - they teach, who can not do and can not even teach - they are in power. Well, probably, there is a reason. To talk about secret knowledge - how many of Americans know names of American officials like Victoria Nuland or Geoffrey Pyatt, or Jenn Psaki? They are not CIA or NSA, and you never heard of them? Search them on youtube. And you saying leaks... It's all on the surface, just see what you see, not what other told you to see.

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.