"Destruction in Comic Book Movies"

"DESTRUCTION IN COMIC BOOK MOVIES"

Two things happened to me recently.  One, I just finished a re-watch of the 2012 movie, “THE AVENGERS”.  And two, I came across this ARTICLE praising the MCU’s portrayal of the destruction of Midtown Manhattan in the film’s final action sequence and in many other films from the franchise.  

Now . . . not only did that article praised the Battle of Manhattan sequence in the 2012 movie, I had stumbled across another article even claimed that “THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON” handled massive destruction better than the 2013 movie, “MAN OF STEEL”. It also claimed that "THE AVENGERS" managed to achieve this, as well.  And if I must be honest, the article featured mainly photographs and shallow reasons that in my eyes, had failed to hold up.  

I have come to the conclusion that the media and many moviegoers were and still are incredibly hypocritical when it came to the MCU and the DCEU franchises.  They did not pitch a fit over the destruction featured in movies like “THE AVENGERS” and “AGE OF ULTRON”.  And when the MCU had finally decided to address the issue in the 2016 movie, “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”, it was more or less shoved aside for the Bucky Barnes manhunt and used as a motive in Helmut Zemo’s convoluted revenge plot against the Avengers.   Come to think of it, no one had raised a fuss over the destruction in Greenwich, England in 2013's “THOR: THE DARK WORLD”, aside from one comment used as a joke in Season One of “AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.”.

But when the Kryptonians under General Zod nearly destroyed downtown Metropolis with their World Machine in "MAN OF STEEL”, both the media and many moviegoers went into a SNIT FIT over the destruction.  They accused Zack Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer of going too far with the film’s sequence known as the “Black Zero Event”.  Many of them are still bitching about it to this day.  

Many articles and moviegoers had complained that Superman helped cause Metropolis’ destruction by not bothering to re-direct his fight against General Zod to a safer location.  In the 2013 movie, Superman had made two attempts to direct his fight against Zod away from Metropolis.  Unfortunately for him, Zod kept returning to Metropolis in his determination to kill Humans.  Many had also failed to notice that the Kryptonians’ World Machine was responsible for most of the destruction that was inflicted upon downtown Metropolis, while Superman was trying to destroy the damn thing.

In the end, the two Avengers movies received praise for its portrayal of the destruction of midtown Manhattan and Sokovia.  At the same time, many fans and critics have continued to criticize “MAN OF STEEL” for its destruction of Metropolis.  It is bad enough that some of those criticisms have been proven to be erroneous.  But many have failed to point out that the consequences of the movie’s “Black Zero Event” had a main role in the narrative for 2016′s “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE”.   I am not only amazed at this hypocrisy, but also disgusted.

"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" (2016) Review

"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" (2016) Review

One of the more popular story lines to emerge from Marvel Comics was the 2006 story called "Civil War" in which many comic book characters from the company's franchise battled over a new law designed to have superpowered individuals act under Federal regulation. Kevin Fiege and Marvel Films decided to adapt this story line for the final film in their Captain America trilogy. 

"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" features some differences from the Marvel Comics comic series. The latter featured the Superhuman Registration Act, which would force those with superhuman abilities to register with the U.S. government . . . even at the expense of their secret identies. All those with special abilities - via magic, science, extra-terrestrials and even gods - would be forced to register. The 2016 movie featured the Sokovia Accords, a set of internationally ratified legal documents that provide regulation and frame-working for the military/law enforcement deployment of enhanced individuals, particularly the Avengers. To be honest, the difference between the Superhuman Registration Act and the Sokovia Accords strikes me as rather minimal.

However, the plot for "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" began with a flashback to 1991 when a mysterious assassin intercepts an automobile on an isolated road, carrying a case of super-soldier serum. The plot jumped some twenty-five years later to Lagos, Nigeria; where a team of Avengers under the command of Steve Rogers aka Captain America stop a HYDRA team led by Brock Rumlow aka Crossbones from stealing a biological weapon from a lab in Lagos. When Rumlow blows himself up, hoping to kill Steve; Wanda Maximoff aka tries to displace the blast into the sky with telekinesis. Unfortunately, the blast destroys a nearby building, killing several Wakandan humanitarian workers. Because of the Lagos incident, U.S. Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross informs the Avengers that the United Nations is preparing to pass the Sokovia Accords, which will establish a U.N. panel to oversee and control the team.

Some members of the Avengers support the Accords and decide to follow Tony Stark aka Iron Man, who continues to feel guilt over his creation of the A.I. Ultron and the latter's destruction of Sokovia. Others decide to follow Steve, who remains suspicious of the governments' use of enhanced individuals. But when a bombing disrupts a conference in Vienna where the Accords were to be ratified and kills King T'Chaka of Wakanda, security footage indicates that the bomber is James "Bucky" Barnes aka the Winter Soldier, whom T'Chaka's son, T'Challa aka Black Panther, vows to kill. Steve, who has been searching for Bucky since the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D., becomes determined to find Bucky first before anyone else can harm him and find out what really happened in Vienna. The search for Bucky manifests into another story line when the latter and Steve begin to suspect that someone from HYDRA might behind

I must admit that when I first learned that the third Captain America movie would be an adaptation of Marvel's "Civil War", I was not happy. I felt certain that the movie would be more of an Avengers tale than another Captain America movie that would round off the character's trilogy. But I had decided to put aside such fears and see the movie. "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" had a great deal to offer. Exciting action sequences, plenty of travel, drama, thought provoking issues and especially some first-rate acting.

One aspect of "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" that really caught my attention were the issues presented in this story. And the issues in this story seemed to focus on guilt and responsibilities. This especially seemed to be the case for the Avengers in the wake of what happened in Sokovia and Lagos. Although Steve, Sam Wilson aka the Falcon, and especially Wanda feel guilty for what happened in Lagos; they would prefer to deal with the consequences on their own rather than allow the government to take control of their lives as Avengers. Tony, James "Rhodey" Rhodes aka War Machine, Vision and Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow seemed to feel that the best course to deal with the consequences of the group's actions is to allow the government to control their actions. What is interesting is that while various governments and especially Thaddeus Ross want the Avengers to pay a high price for what happened in Sokovia and Lagos, Ross refuses to acknowledge guilt or pay the consequences for the battle in Harlem between Bruce Banner aka the Hulk and Emil Blonsky aka Abomination in "THE INCREDIBLE HULK". Someone had pointed out how friends found themselves on opposite sides of this conflict. I saw this theme played out with Natasha, who found herself opposing Clint Barton aka Hawkeye, Sam and Steve - three men with whom she had formed close friendships. This theme also played out with Wanda's growing friendship with Vision, when the pair of them took opposing sides on the Accords issue.

The past seemed to weigh heavily in this movie, as well. The ghost of Steve's past - in the form of one "Bucky" Barnes manifests on the heels of the Vienna bombing. Another ghost from Steve's past manifested in the form of Sharon Carter, a former S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, whom he had first met in "THE WINTER SOLDIER". Both Steve and Sam were surprised to discover that Sharon was the great-niece of his former love, Peggy Carter. One could say the same for Bucky, whose past as the brainwashed Winter Soldier is not only used to frame him for the Vienna bombing, but also manifests in the discovery of Howard and Maria Stark's fates. And while I found this revelation rather interesting, I did not find it particularly surprising, after the events of "THE WINTER SOLDIER". In fact, many fans of the franchise did not seem surprised. Tony's ghosts from the past also formed a cloud above this story. His and Bruce's creation of Ultron not only led to Sokovia's destruction, but also to his support of the Sokovia Accords. More importantly, Sokovia's destruction led a colonel from an elite Sokovian commando unit named Helmut Zemo to seek revenge for the deaths of his family during the battle against Ultron. And the newly ascended King T'Challa struggled to deal with his father's death, as he sought to kill Bucky for the death of his father King T'Chaka during the Vienna bombing.

But "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" is foremost an action film. And the movie featured some first-rate action sequences. Many film critics and moviegoers have been talking about the battle between the two Avengers factions at a Berlin airport. And yes, I found it impressive . . . somewhat. My favorite moment occurred when Scott Lang aka Ant-Man transformed himself into a giant, taking everyone by surprise. But if I must be honest, the airport sequence is not my favorite action scene in the movie. One of my favorites proved to be the chase sequence in Berlin in which the police, Steve, Sam and T'Challa pursued a fleeing Bucky. Another favorite turned out to be the movie's first action sequence in which Steve's Avenger team battled against Rumlow and his HYDRA team in Lagos.

The movie also featured some excellent acting. To be honest, I cannot think of a bad performance in this film. Once again, Chris Evans stepped up to the plate and provided another first-rate performance as Steve Rogers aka Captain America. For once, his Steve proved to be a more reflective man, who had learned to control his quick temper (until near the end of the film). I can also say the same for Robert Downey Jr., who gave another excellent performance as Tony Stark aka Iron Man.

Scarlett Johansson was excellent as former S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow, who desperately tried to get Steve and Sam to cooperate with the government and sign the Accords. Anthony Mackie's portrayal of Sam Wilson aka the Falcon proved to be a little more emotional and satisfying, as his character openly expressed contempt toward the Sokovia Accords and minor distrust toward Bucky Barnes' re-appearance in Steve's life. Sebastian Stan continued his excellent performance as Bucky Barnes, now a desperate man trying to keep both his memories and his life intact. Don Cheadle's performance throughout most of the movie struck me as solid. But I must admit that he really stepped up his game and gave a very poignant performance in his last scene in which he and Tony discuss the near tragic circumstances of the Berlin airport fight. Both Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany clicked on screen as Wanda Maximoff aka Scarlet Witch and Vision. This was especially apparent in one scene in which Wanda becomes aware that Vision has been trying to prevent her from leaving the Avengers' headquarters.

Chadwick Boseman made a very impressive debut as T'Challa aka Black Panther. Boseman did an excellent job in portraying T'Challa's barely controlled anger over his father's death and his obsession in exacting revenge. Eight years after "THE INCREDIBLE HULK", William Hurt repeated his role as Bruce Banner's main adversary, Thaddeus Ross, who has become the U.S. Secretary of Defense and main supporter of the Sokovia Accords. And he was a lot more subtle and scary in this film than he was in the 2008 movie. Daniel Brühl gave a very subtle, yet intense performance as Helmut Zemo, the former Sokovian commando who wanted revenge against the Avengers for the deaths of his family. Alfre Woodard gave a very sublte, yet emotional performance as a woman who had confronted Tony about the death of her son in Sokovia. The movie also featured some solid performances from Jeremy Renner, Paul Rudd, Emily VanCamp, Tom Holland, John Slattery, Hope Davis and Frank Grillo.

Despite my admiration for the movie's cast, the action sequences and some of the issues raised in"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR", I had a major problem with it. In fact, I had several problems with it. First of all, the whole idea behind the Sokovia Accords really made no sense to me. I could say that this whole matter began because several Wakandan civilians were killed, when Steve and Wanda were trying to stop Rumlow from harming others through self-detonation. But it really began with the Chitauri invasion of New York in "THE AVENGERS". Then came the fallout from the destruction of the HYDRA sponsored helicarriers in "THE WINTER SOLDIER", along with Iron Man and the Hulk's battle in South Africa and the destruction of Sokovia in "AGE OF ULTRON" and finally, the Lagos incident in this film. For some reason, people like Thaddeus Ross want to solely blame the Avengers for the civilian fallout and not the villains. In the case of the events of "AGE OF ULTRON", Tony, Bruce and Wanda were to blame. And Wanda . . . was not an Avenger at the time. What I could not understand is that neither Steve, Sam or anyone else who supported them had bothered to point this out. In fact, no one had bothered to point out Ross' own involvement in the Hulk v. Abomination battle that nearly destroyed Harlem in "THE INCREDIBLE HULK". You know . . . like Natasha?

Even if the Avengers had found themselves under government control, the possibility that innocent civilians might get hurt would always be possible. Not even the Avengers or any other costumed hero/heroine can save everyone. Yet, no bothered to point this out. I also noticed that Thaddeus Ross failed to mention the Hulk v. Abomination battle in Harlem. This is understandable, considering he was partially to blame for what happened. But why did no one pointed this out? And could someone please explain why the Accords were named after the Sokovia incident, instead of the incident in Lagos, which had kick-started the international community’s decision to create them in the first place? Martin Freeman portrayed a character from the Joint Counter Terrorist Centre, who helped Ross regulate the Avengers. The problem is that . . . he really did nothing in this movie, except appear and sneer first at Bucky and later, at the movie's villain. Frankly, I found his appearance in this movie a complete waste of time. Speaking of waste . . . Frank Grillo, who had portrayed Brock Rumlow aka Crossbones in "THE WINTER SOLDIER", reprised his character for this movie. And guess what happened to him? The poor schmuck was bumped off via a suicide bombing some twenty to thirty minutes into the film. Am I to believe that Rumlow, a major character in "THE WINTER SOLDIER", had been reduced to a cameo, plot device for the Lagos sequence . . . and nothing else? I guess so. In the end, Marvel ended up wasted Grillo's time, just as they had wasted Thomas Kretschmann's time in "AGE OF ULTRON".

I also had a problem with Tony Stark's discovery that Bucky Barnes was the HYDRA assassin who had killed his parents. This discovery led Tony to try to kill Bucky and Steve to come to his best friend's defense. Two years earlier, Natasha Romanoff and Nick Fury had released top secret S.H.I.E.L.D. and HYDRA files on the Internet, during the battle at the Triskelion in "THE WINTER SOLDIER". Through these files, Helmut Zemo discovered that Bucky was a brainwashed assassin used by HYDRA to kill Howard and Maria Stark back in 1991. If Zemo had been able to gain access to those files, why did Tony fail to do so? Why did he not make any attempt to access the files? A man, whose own father had been one of the co-founders of S.H.I.E.L.D. and a former enemy of HYDRA's? Considering Tony's nature, I find it difficult to believe that he never bothered to make the attempt. I have a deep suspicion that screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely may have deliberately ignored this issue so they would have an excuse for Tony to suddenly react to Zemo's revelation. How sloppy . . . and manipulative.

And then there is the problem of Robert Downey Jr. The actor was first cast in "CIVIL WAR". However, he refused to do the movie, unless he was made a co-star. And Marvel gave in to his demands, but they so desperately wanted him in another Marvel film. Why did they allow Downey Jr., who portrayed Iron Man, to become a co-star in a Captain America movie? The name in the movie's title is Captain America. I do not recall the name of Iron Man being in the title. So, why did Kevin Fiege and Marvel allow Downey Jr. to hijack half of Chris Evans’ third solo film? Especially since Evans was the lead in one of Marvel's biggest hits - both financially and critically. Why did a Captain America movie end up giving as much attention to Tony’s character arc as it did to Steve's? Why did the movie’s screenplay featured a five-to-ten minute scene in which Tony Stark recruited Peter Parker aka Spider-Man for his team and did not bother to show how Steve recruited Clint Barton and Scott Lang? In a Captain America movie?

You know, Marvel could have saved the Civil War story line for an Avengers film and wrapped up Steve’s connection to HYDRA in this film. This movie could have focused upon Steve's efforts to help Bucky and put HYDRA behind him for good. The movie "ANT-MAN" featured former S.H.I.E.L.D. official/HYDRA mole Mitchell Carson alive and well at the end, with a sample of Darren Cross' Yellow Jacket serum in his possession. They could have tied this up with the Winter Soldier program . . . or create another plot featuring HYDRA. The narrative for "CIVIL WAR" could have focused on the Winter Soldier program, allowed Helmut Zemo to remain a HYDRA agent, allowed Steve’s friendships with both Sam and Bucky to become more complex and allow his relationship with Sharon Carter to develop at a decent pace. Instead, Fiege and Marvel decided to (temporarily?) end the HYDRA story arc with former S.H.I.E.L.D. director Phil Coulson and ATCU director Glenn Talbot blowing up HYDRA bases . . . off screen in an "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." episode called (3.18) "Singularity". I found this so unsatisfying. And since Marvel and Fiege decided that this third Captain America movie should be more about the Sokovia Accords, this left Sam and Bucky engaged in a long and stupid running joke regarding their mutual competition for Steve's friendship. The latter's romance with Sharon proved to be very rushed. And instead of admitting this, some fans are blaming actress Emily VanCamp and the Sharon Carter character, instead of the movie's screenwriters and producers. They have also began promoting the idea of Steve becoming bisexual and beginning a romance with Bucky (and not Sam, whom I suspect was not white enough for them). And I am not the only one who has noticed that Zemo’s motivation for revenge against the Avengers bore a strong resemblance to the Maximoff twins’ hostility toward Tony Stark in "AGE OF ULTRON".

"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" featured some excellent acting by a cast led by Chris Evans, some interesting issues on whether government intervention is a good thing or not, and some great action sequences, thanks to directors Anthony and Joe Russo. But for me, "CIVIL WAR" turned out to be nothing more than an Avengers movie shoved into a Captain America flick. And in the end, I found this rather unsatisfying and schizophrenic.

"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" (2016) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR", the latest entry from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, the movie stars Chris Evans as Steve Rogers aka Captain America: 


"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" (2016) Photo Gallery

How Iron Man Ruined “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR″ For Me

HOW IRON MAN RUINED "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" FOR ME

I am so disappointed with Marvel. And I am especially disappointed with its latest entry for the Marvel Cinematic Universe - namely"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". I never thought I would be so disappointed with a Captain America film, considering how much I loved "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER" and especially "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER". 

As for "CIVIL WAR", I found it disappointing. Worse, I left the movie theater feeling unusually angry. And a great deal of my anger was focused on Tony Stark aka Iron Man’s role as the movie’s co-lead, which the writers had allowed to nearly dominate the film. Someone on the TREK BBS forum had pointed out that "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" had sewn up the plot lines left dangling from "THE WINTER SOLDIER". And the movie did so . . . WITH BAD WRITING! 

"CIVIL WAR" started with a flashback of Tony’s parents getting killed in 1991. The screenplay tried to make a mystery of it, but even a dummy would have known who was the killer. 
Steve’s romance with Sharon Carter was rushed, because the Sokovia Accords story line and Tony’s man pain made it impossible for the screenwriters to do justice to it. Now, we have fans demanding that Steve become a bisexual, so that he can have a romance with his old buddy, Bucky Barnes. One, I cannot believe that these fans are so unwilling to see how badly written that Steve and Sharon’s romance was that they would rather he become a bisexual. Really? Because the screenwriters had failed to follow up the promise of Steve and Sharon? And two, I find it ironic (or not) that they would not consider Steve having a romance with Sam Wilson, who is African-America. 

Speaking of Sam and Bucky, I noticed that their relationship was never really explored. Instead, the movie presented their rivalry over the role of Steve’s "best friend" in a series of silly comedy routines in which they are mildly hostile toward one another. The movie spent 10 to 15 minutes showing how Tony Stark recruited Peter Parker (who really had no business being in this movie) for Team Iron Man. They could have saved this first meeting in MCU’s upcoming "SPIDER-MAN" movie. Yet, "CIVIL WAR" failed to explain or show why Scott Lang and Clint Barton had decided to side with Steve. 

Zemo’s whole revenge plot was all about Tony finding out that Bucky, as the brainwashed Winter Soldier, had killed his parents in order to break up the Avengers for what happened in Sokovia. Again, it became all about Tony. The worst aspect of all of this is that Marvel ended Steve and S.H.I.E.L.D.’s conflict with HYDRA in such a weak manner. The studio ended it on "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." - with Phil Coulson and Glenn Talbot coordinating a series of bombing on HYDRA bases . . . off screen. I found that incredibly pathetic. Someone on Tumblr had pointed out that Steve Roger’s personal arc in "CIVIL WAR" had been weakened by the screenwriters’ unnecessary focus on Tony Stark. After seeing this movie, I heartily agree. What is really sickening about this is that Marvel Studios came up with the idea to focus the Civil War arc in a Captain America movie in order to lure Robert Downey Jr. into another Marvel film. 

You would think after the box office successes of movies like "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER" and"GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY" that this idea was unnecessary. But apparently, Marvel thought otherwise and decided to shove an Avengers film into a Captain America movie . . . all because they could not do without the increasingly overrated Robert Downey Jr. And because of this decision, I have now developed deep contempt toward Marvel Studios.

"THE FIFTH ESTATE" (2013) Review

"THE FIFTH ESTATE" (2013) Review

The subject of WikiLeaks has been something of an conundrum for me. I have been aware of the series of news stories about the website and its founder and spokesperson, Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg. But I must be honest . . . my thoughts on the whole matter tend to disappear at least a few minutes after hearing or reading about it. So when news of a film about WikiLeaks was announced, I found myself surprised by the online reaction to the news. 

"THE FIFTH ESTATE" drew its title from a term that describes a group that operates outside of the society's normal groups, especially one that is considered beyond the restrictions or rules of those others. A "fifth estate" is strongly associated with journalists and media outlets viewed outside of or in opposition to the mainstream media or official press. This term could easily describe WikiLeaks, the Internet website and organization that publishes secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources. The movie, which is directed by Bill Condon, is based upon Domscheit-Berg's book "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World's Most Dangerous Website" and "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy" by journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding. Both were published in 2011. The movie follows the association between Assange and Domscheit-Berg, from their 2007 meeting at the Computer Chaos Club in Berlin to their estrangement over the Afghan War Logs. Judging from the movie's source of material, it is easy to see that the story is mainly told from Domscheit-Berg's point of view.

Is it a good movie? Many critics and filmgoers seem to believe otherwise. They directed their negative criticism toward Josh Singer's screenplay and Bill Condon's direction. In fact, many also believe it was a mistake for the movie to be told either from Domscheit-Berg's point of view or those in the U.S. intelligence service. I now feel they were right in regard to the movie's points-of-view. After all Assange proved to be the movie's main topic in the end. I now feel that "THE FIFTH ESTATE" would have benefited from balanced viewpoints of both Domscheit-Berg and Assange. There were a few other aspects of "THE FIFTH ESTATE" I found a little troubling. There were moments when I could not ascertain some of the dialogue. I do not if this was due to the movie theater's sound system or the performances in the film. "THE FIFTH ESTATE" also featured a set - an office space filled with desks - that served as a visual metaphor of the WikiLeaks website. Honestly, I found this so-called metaphor rather irrelevant and ham-fisted.

However, "THE FIFTH ESTATE" had its good points. I thought Bill Condon's direction of the film to be solid and well-paced. He was ably assisted by Tobias Schliessler's sharp cinematography and Virginia Katz's skillful editing. Condon also did an excellent job of injecting suspension in a tale that focused on the Internet. I feel that he and screenwriter Josh Singer were right to include the consequences of the Afghan War Logs exposure in a few sequences featuring a Libyan doctor with political ties named Tarek Haliseh, who served as an informant for U.S. intelligence. Despite the film's failure to focus some of its story from Assange's viewpoint, I must admit that I found the movie's plot very interesting. Thanks to "THE FIFTH ESTATE", I managed to maintain my interest in WikiLeaks a lot longer than ten minutes or less. 

I cannot deny that "THE FIFTH ESTATE" greatly benefited from a talented cast. Benedict Cumberbatch gave a very interesting performance as colorful creator of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. I have no idea if the latter was satisfied with Cumberbatch. And there is a good chance (or not) that the characterization was off. If it was off, then one must place the blame on Singer's screenplay, not Cumberbatch's skillful performance. A less skillful actor could have easily been overshadowed by Cumberbatch's performance. Fortunately, Daniel Brühl was talented enough to make Daniel Domscheit-Berg a fascinating character in his own right - especially in scenes that conveyed the latter's frustrations with the Assange character. A third performance that caught my eye came from David Thewlis, who was equally colorful as British journalist Nick Davies, who covered WikiLeaks' exposure of the Afghan War Logs. I was also impressed by Laura Linney, who did an excellent job in conveying the U.S. intelligence services' anger and frustration toward the WikiLeaks website. The movie also featured solid performances from Stanley Tucci, Alicia Vikander, Dan Stevens, Alexander Siddig, Peter Capaldi, Moritz Bleibtreu and Anthony Mackie. However, I was disappointed by the film's minimum use of Mackie. For someone listed third in the cast, he had a very small role.

Despite the negative reaction to the movie and my belief that it could have included the viewpoint of main character Julian Assange, I still managed to enjoy "THE FIFTH ESTATE". I thought director Bill Condon and screeenwriter Josh Singer did a solid job in creating a credible thriller from a movie about computer online leakage. More importantly, the film benefited from first-rate performances given by a talented cast led by Benedict Cumberbatch and Daniel Brühl.

"THE FIFTH ESTATE" (2013) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the new thriller called "THE FIFTH ESTATE". Based partly on Daniel Domscheit-Berg's 2011 book, "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World's Most Dangerous Website", as well as David Leigh and Luke Harding's 2011 book, "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy"; and directed by Bill Condon, the movie starred Benedict Cumberbatch and Daniel Brühl: 



"THE FIFTH ESTATE" (2013) Photo Gallery