gamay9 I looked up Sarah Shaw (Laura Linney character) and Sam Coulson (Anthony Mackie character) on Wikipedia and couldn't find them. They are supposed to be U.S. government bigwigs, the former being the under secretary of state under Hillary Clinton. They don't exist but have key roles in the film. Contrary to some reviewers, Laura Linney has a major role, but we never see Hillary. Yet, we have a film (W) which scours George Bush's life, along with his wife, parents and Jeb. Thus, I consider this film democratic party hypocrisy....a film that liberals like to make. Perhaps Hillary and Barack would do well in the film business, as long as the film tells lies about republicans and patriots such as Julian Assange.The film was good; I found it compelling because it came across as a type of spy film. It moved nicely. The confidence exuded by Assange in his go-to guy, Daniel Berg, was nice to see. The film was easy to follow and well acted. I still would like to know who Sarah Shaw and Sam Coulson really are. It was a letdown to see Assange raked over the coals without knowing who the key antagonists, in Shaw and Coulson, are supposed to be.....and where was Obama in all of this?

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.

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.

patil-harshal12 The movie clearly gives in-depth knowledge about Wikileaks site and the how the leaked data goes viral,U.S government is stunned by a common man Julian,his one idea and a load confidential data is just out there open for every single person.I wished the end should have been better,and a little boring movie but the concept of actual news was terrific.the power of media is clearly popping out and one man can seriously make a difference.real life story of Julian is taken from a book ,I think a lot is yet to be shown is hidden ,Some words like corruption was heard but its was not clear in the movie, more movies like this should come up which actually real facts