• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

WikiLeaks Starring Benedict Cumberbatch & Joel Kinnaman

Looks really good. I'm a huge fan of Cumberbatch and this might be his best role to date.
 
still freaks me out how much Cumberbatch looks like Bryan Singer

hD2C18DE7
 
i wonder how will the movie end. will they show him like the good guy or bad guy.
 
It's not a Superhero movie I don't think they are going to show him being the good or bad guy.
 
I could see Cumberbatch getting some nominations like a Golden Globe or maybe an Oscar.

100% chance he won't win but a nomination is a step in the right direction.
 
Good guy - Thomas Nast (a beautiful mind), bad guy - the founder of Facebook in Social Network. With people having a distrust in the government still these days, I'm thinking a heroic genius figure albeit with some character flaws - but I don't see a Social Network kind of direction.
 
Last edited:
I think dark_b meant "will the film portray Assange in an appreciative or critical light?"
 
thats what i meant with my bad english hehe :)
 
The film looks great but I still don't like that picture.
 
Cumberbatch looks so creepy with that hair, lol. Props to him and the filmmakers for doing pretty much everything they could to make him look like the real Assange.
 
That poster should have just consisted of an actual WikiLeaks doc.
 
Julian Assange Writes Letter to Benedict Cumberbatch, Slams ‘Wretched Film’

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange may be a fan of Benedict Cumberbatch, but the controversial activist isn’t happy with the actor’s new WikiLeaks film, “The Fifth Estate.”

Cumberbatch, who portrays Assange in the DreamWorks drama, had apparently reached out to Assange before shooting the film, but the WikiLeaks founder later declined and went on to explain in a new letter why he refused to meet with the British actor while again voicing his displeasure with the film.

“I believe you are a good person, but I do not believe that this film is a good film,” Assange wrote.

“Your skills play into the hands of people who are out to remove me and WikiLeaks from the world…I believe that you should reconsider your involvement in this enterprise.”

This isn’t the first time WikiLeaks has criticized the the Bill Condon-directed drama, which is partly based on the book “Inside WikiLeaks: My Time With Julian Assange and the World’s Most Dangerous Website,” by Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Last month, the controversial site blasted the new film for its inaccuracies and depictions of the WikiLeaks staff.

“Most of the events depicted never happened, or the people shown were not involved in them. It has real names, real places, and looks like it is covering real events, but it is still a dramatic and cinematic work, and it invents or shapes the facts to fit its narrative goals,” the org wrote.

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/julian-assange-writes-letter-to-benedict-cumberbatch-1200709062/
 
What's funny is that Wikileaks published that letter.

Though I think it just gives the movie bigger publicity.
 
ADDING: Note, since it may confuse some people, unsure, where I say Daniel I mean Daniel Berg.

The movie is interesting and the performances are good.

HOWEVER, I do state to see the film accurately one should go in having seen and read as much as they can beforehand:

- Underground: The Julian Assange Story
- We Steal Secrets documentary (here too, read up on, and I'm pretty sure you can similarly see the slant)
- Wikileak's notes on the inaccuracies in Fifth Estate

It doesn't give a complete view, but it does give some sort of insight more into it. The film, you could definitely tell was trying to play Assange up as being a "cartoon baddie" going so far as to play disturbing music at certain moments (that if no music at all played would have come off as more neutral or in-favor). Also in an interview the director said he thinks Assange is the villain (he says he made the film neutral, but you can definitely see it leaning more that way). The screenwriter however is more neutral with inaccuracies (the negative slant mostly comes in from the direction, tonality of the film, and the music choices used).

So, just take in mind that it is as neutral as Bennedict was able to keep it. He plays Assange as a complicated character and more of a neutral one working against the premise of the director's film about this "cartoon baddie." I think they should have went with a different director here. The script had it, Bennedict had it - some inaccuracies, sure; but it definitely seemed like the director had his angle.

With that said though, filtering through everything - the film is interesting and entertaining. 7/10 (would give it an 8, but you could definitely sense that there was a divergence taken in the portrayals - Bennedict's and the screenwriter's movie and the director's).

Also an interesting thing is if you know more about Daniel and that Anke is a made-up character, you'll really be able to see into this guy and he is definitely a villain.

He made up large portions of an interview that's brought up in the movie such as being with Assange from the ground-up with Wikileaks. So, the guy actually comes off as somewhat of a perpetual liar to get attention that he didn't from his father - he got his nickname from a cat his father ignored (somewhat comes off as telling or suggesting that the father ignored Daniel). I'm unsure if this was intentional or not, but you can definitely see him as the kind of guy who would write a book filled with many inacurracies and lies to come off bigger than he was - he did it before with the interview.
 
Last edited:
Box Office numbers will take this film out of Awards Contention
 
I went with my Dad and it was the first time we've ever had the theater to ourselves (and this is the first time I've ever had the theater to myself -- and I go two to three times a week, so that's saying something).

I put a thread on here for it -- but for anyone interested in wikileaks, give Mediastan a watch. It goes in-depth into the processes of trying to get people to sign off on releasing documents and how America literally owns foreign news more or less - really creepy. I knew America might have some pull, but not that much. Basically every free information publication has to be accepted by Americans first.
 
The issue just isn't that big of a deal over here. It was a cool story for a while, but now it's like, "whatever."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,264
Messages
22,074,791
Members
45,875
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"