Thanks for opening that thread, miriel!

And wow, that's what I call a great opening! You've mentioned quite a lot of things with which I would fully agree, let me pick out just a few.

First of all (yes, I can't help myself, I have to start with him ), I think that Benedict does a fantastic, phenomenal job in portraying Assange. He really is in the centre of everything, and I have to say that I felt something missing in the scenes he wasn't in.
Just like miriel I felt that Daniel Brühl isn't able to pull it off completely. He has good moments, but the truth is that he just doesn't stand a chance against Benedict. Not because he's a bad actor, not at all, but because the screenplay simply isn't written that way. Brühl reacts, but Benedict is the one to shape the scene, he is the one who carries it all.

Then, miriel mentioned that critics lamented that there is no real conflict. I completely disagree! In the course of the movie a huge conflict develops between Assange and Berg, and I would say that it makes the story even more gripping. It is interesting to see how these two men slowly drift apart, and the film manages to show this in a totally believable way.

There is a lot more to mention, and just like miriel I wouldn't say that the film doesn't have its weaknesses. But I can say that I was pulled into the story from the very first minute until the very end, and for me the movie works. Yes, there are quite a few sub-plots, but they aren't as confusing or dispensable as I'd expected them to be after reading some of the reviews.

I'll definitely watch it a second time.

Watched it yesterday and was really impressed. In the end I was glad that it was the dubbed version, because especially at the beginning I still found it hard to follow the story.
One of several reasons why I'll have to watch it again. 
I also have problems now expressing my thoughts in English. So:

First of all I noticed the audience. The cinema we went to is quite big and a lot of young people hanging around. When I ordered our tickets I had to repeat it two times, as if they didn't remember the film. When the film started we where only about ten people, the average age about 50 or so. Quite sad.
But then there were no idiots around, so fine with me. 

I think the film did a good job dealing with the question whether Assange is a "good" or a "bad" guy. The result was somewhere in the middle. Strange, egocentric and also dangerous but still very important for the future "world of information". Just like a lot of important people before him.
To keep it short(er): A lot of things I absolutely agree with were already posted above.
DB had - although the narrator of the story - the unthankful "giving" role. Important to move Assange into the spotlight, but at the same time not very impressive. Yes, and I also had to think of Sherlock and John at times. "I don't have friends. I've just got one." Julian bursting into Daniels evening with Anke. The mention of autism.
I have to admit that I was quite often distracted by *that face* so big on the screen. Especially at the end when he was looking directly into the camera. I almost couldn't concentrate on what he (mind: the dubbing voice) said. (Oh, I'm such a fangirl....  )
But still: that last statement - was it an answer to the mail Ben received a day before the shooting started? Or was it written before? What do you think?
Oh - and I really loved those scenes with the biiig office with all those thousands of desks, which started when Daniel discovered that they were only the two of them running the whole organisation, and was repeated several times during the film.

And now I'm waiting for the release of the dvd, so I can watch it undubbed, finally.  (Probably with subtitles  )

Last edited by Mattlocked (November 3, 2013 11:06 am)

I went again yesterday. The number of people was not too bad and everyone seemed quiet and interested. I understood some of the finer points I had not gotten when watching it for the first time and in English (although I must say you can understand it quite well, especially Benedict as he is speaking very slow, quite contrary to Sherlock).
My first impression was confirmed. IMO all the scenes taking place in Europe presenting real characters are far better than the American angle. To me it seemed clichéd and constructed, moreoever so as no one came to harm due to the publication of the leaks. This seems to be true, there is no proof of informants, etc. being harmed afterwards. 
And of course Benedict is brilliant, trying to show as many sides of Assange as possible without providing the audience with a prefabricated interpretation. Think for yourself, he seems to say. 

Mattlocked wrote:

And in this case I found the "explanation" of the film quite usefull. But I know what you mean, miriel.

Well, it was not as blatantly explicative as sometimes happens. Had it been the last  scene of the move I would have been really put off by it, but giving  Benedict last word saved the day.
The fact that the movie is more about the issues than about the characters created a no winning scenerio, I think, because it is just the opposite of what an average viewer expects. The audience wants movies about characters, not about the topics. Even critics are whining that the movie doesn't answer the  question who is Assange. Now, it is true that since Condon's film is interested in mechanisms of information and communication, characters are secondary and not really well drawn. In these cases you need really good actors, able to give a human dimension to figures which are merely instrumental to the story and they certainly tried to do it, but it was a very daunting task. Benedict pulled it off flawlessly, Bruhl was far less convincing, Thewlis had his moments and I rather liked Laura Linney character, in spite of its clearly artificial background, but the other figures (van Hutten, Stevens, Vikilander) remained anonymous.                                               
 

Just wanted to leave this link here, because this is definitely one of my favourite scenes of the movie (and we've been talking about it in another thread):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMCSsw4_W8M

...especially as the whole personal side of this movie is a complete fabrication anyway.

Is it? I mean, it's based on the book written by Daniel, so there are some of his experiences with Julian shown?
Which reminds me of: What about that "hair" thing? In the film Julian talked twice about why his hair is white and I started thinking: "Oh my, what is so interesting about his hair colour!? Why do they mention it all the time?" Until at the end there was this explanation that he's dyeing it because of the organisation he lived in as a child. Truth or fiction?

And: thank you, Solar!! 

Harriet wrote:

....
Isn't most of our lives complete fabrication?....

 
Yeah, on facebook. 

Come on, you know pretty well that I am having one of my radical constructivist moments 

Mattlocked wrote:

Which reminds me of: What about that "hair" thing? In the film Julian talked twice about why his hair is white and I started thinking: "Oh my, what is so interesting about his hair colour!? Why do they mention it all the time?" Until at the end there was this explanation that he's dyeing it because of the organisation he lived in as a child. Truth or fiction?

And: thank you, Solar!!

My pleasure!

As for the "hair thing": I don't know about truth or fiction, I only know that each time it was mentioned in the film I felt kind of uncomfortable. Or to put it another way: I felt as if those moments were the weaker ones of the film, because it felt a bit like bad writing. To me it came across a bit clumsy, as if they'd wanted to include it in the film but didn't quite find a more subtle way to do it. So they let Assange say something like "That's why my hair is white" twice, and each time I just wanted to hole up in my seat because it just felt... wrong. Don't know how to explain it any better...

I like the Russian scene a lot, too. It's so great to watch him all uncomfortable, insecure, vulnerable, even scared.

Last edited by SolarSystem (November 4, 2013 9:39 pm)