The Fourth Estate (2013)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837703/

I've been looking around, but it seems nobody has started a thread on this yet.

They painted him as nothing more than some unpredictable, lying maniac.
Julian actually sent an open letter to Benedict Cumberbatch, begging him not to take the part: http://wikileaks.org/First-Letter-fr...n-Assange.html

The whole film is just an intimate deep dive into Julian, while everything else—including the actual purpose of WikiLeaks—is relegated to the background.
Honestly, the title should have been "Julian's White Socks and Messy Hair". We all know what audiences are really hungry for... a little bit of yellow journalism, right? 🤷

What's your take?

Didn't Julian end up distancing himself from the movie after all?

The film leaves out some pretty heavy hitters—things like the alleged assault and stuff like that. It paints Julian as this modern-day hero with a slightly darker edge, but they totally gloss over the more controversial details.

Did they leave out all the juicy parts? 😕 They threw everything they could from his private life into the mix, claiming his mother is part of some cult, suggesting he’s on the spectrum, and even mentioning he has a kid living in Los Angeles. They brought up rape allegations too, though Cumberbatch playing the role of J. A. denies everything—which is a bold move considering the film waits until the very end to reveal the truth, right when the audience has already been conditioned to see J. A. as nothing more than a pathological liar.

I honestly don't see how anyone could actually enjoy that movie unless they spend twenty-four hours a day glued to a computer screen or think they're some kind of self-proclaimed hacker... it just felt so incredibly dull and repetitive to me...

So far, the film has been quite lively! I guess it’s really just for fans of this specific genre, though.

It’s clearly just a stunt to drive up the stock price.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if it's any good!

For those actually interested in the whole WikiLeaks and Julian Assange situation, listen up.

I’ve never been much of a Woody Allen fan myself, so I don't bother forcing myself to sit through his stuff. What's the point?
Or is everyone just falling for the marketing hype and Benedict Cumberbatch's face without even glancing at a plot summary to see if it's actually worth their time? If you approach movies like that, how can you be surprised when you end up disappointed?

I am preparing myself to watch it. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he subtly, or perhaps even overtly, casts him in a negative light, given how many people he’s offended and everything he’s dragged into the public eye...

Imagine if David Fincher had taken on these biographies, or even those regarding Edward Snowden, instead of some mindless Facebook algorithm...

Betty Hayes10 said:Did they leave out all the juicy parts? 😕 It feels like they threw every single scrap from his personal life into the mix just to be provocative—mentioning everything from his mother’s involvement in a cult to his neurodivergence and even having a child living over in Los Angeles. They even brought up allegations of sexual assault, where Benedict Cumberbatch plays the role of Julian Assange, who denies everything. By the time you reach the end of the film, the director has already successfully painted this picture of Julian as someone who simply cannot stop lying.

Exactly. They even included that one incredibly specific detail meant purely to discredit him—the hair dye. 😁

The movie itself feels rather superficial, biased, and unevenly paced. However, I have to say the soundtrack is absolutely fantastic, as is the acting.
It’s honestly such a shame to see talented actors sink their teeth into a subject that hasn't been handled with much depth.
Just a little thought.

Just finished watching two more movies.
One was a documentary that reminded me of the fifth estate—starting off with this polished, positive image before slowly unraveling into total negativity, leaving you sitting there thinking, "What is wrong with this crazy Australian?"

The third film is a completely different beast. It follows Julian during his younger years and provides some context for his activism, which led me to conclude that he isn't nearly the lunatic people make him out to be.

Betty Hayes10 said:I finished two more films.
This documentary follows a trajectory similar to the fifth century, where it starts by presenting a positive image before gradually spiraling into negativity until everything falls apart, leaving the viewer with nothing but the impression of "this crazy Australian."

The third film is quite different from the rest. It tracks Julian during his younger years, providing context for his activism. My takeaway is that he isn't the lunatic some people attempt to portray him as.

It’s definitely worth watching 👍

Honestly, the only true madness in his biography is that he managed to expose much more dangerous lunatics—both specific individuals and entire influential interest groups—who present themselves to the public as god-fearing saints.

You have to be either incredibly naive or deeply entrenched in corporate interests to criticize him. When you weigh what this man has accomplished—literally putting his life on the line to uncover the filthy, shameful games played behind the scenes by Western power brokers and elites—it honestly makes me wonder if his white hair is natural or just dye used to deceive people. 😁