[7] Anthony Mackie, David Thewlis, Alicia Vikander, Stanley Tucci, and Laura Linney are featured in supporting roles.

Their first major target is a private Swiss bank, Julius Baer, whose Cayman Islands branch has been engaged in illegal activities.

As their confidence increases, the two push forward in publishing information over the next three years, including secrets on Scientology, revealing Sarah Palin's email account, and the membership list of the British National Party.

Assange's abrasive manner and actions, such as abandoning Daniel at his parents' house after having accepted their dinner invitation, only deepen the strain further.

However, both Daniel and the newspapers require the names in the documents be redacted both to protect sources and to assist in the media spin, to which Assange reluctantly agrees.

The reporter tells Daniel that while Assange may be untrustworthy, he had done a good thing by uncovering secret dealing in the government and business world and attempting to protect sources.

It is revealed that WikiLeaks is continuing to leak information (with Assange implied to have either regained the site or rebuilt it), and the Manning documents were released with no redactions.

Assange is shown to be living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid arrest on an outstanding warrant for alleged sex crimes.

It was reported in March 2011 that Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks Studios had acquired the rights of Domscheit-Berg's book Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World's Most Dangerous Website, as well as WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy by British journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding.

In July 2012, reports surfaced that Jeremy Renner was in talks of playing Julian Assange, and Bill Condon was in negotiations to direct.

The confirmation of Cumberbatch as the lead and Condon as the director also brought the news that James McAvoy was in talks to play Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

[14][21] During filming, Cumberbatch had to wear three different wigs, false teeth and blue contact lenses, in order to reflect Julian Assange's physical characteristics.

We want to explore the complexities and challenges of transparency in the information age and, we hope, enliven and enrich the conversations WikiLeaks has already provoked.

In October 2013, WikiLeaks published a personal letter that Assange wrote to Cumberbatch in January of that year, in which he commended the actor's talent and good intentions, but requested him to reconsider his involvement with the film, which Assange negatively labeled as "a project that vilifies and marginalises a living political refugee to the benefit of an entrenched, corrupt and dangerous state.

"[45] In an interview with George Stephanopoulos' show This Week, Assange stated that "Cumberbatch tried to ameliorate the script but unfortunately with limited success... though I'm pleased he tried.

"[46] In February 2014, Andrew O'Hagan, the ghostwriter of Assange's autobiography by Canongate, recalled the activist's reaction to the film in a lecture for the London Review of Books.

"[65] The Hollywood Reporter compared the film unfavorably to The Social Network, adding that "Though it will attract attention at the box office, it is unlikely to appeal broadly to moviegoers who, one suspects, have never been as worked up about WikiLeaks as journalists and governments are.

"[66] Tim Robey of The Daily Telegraph reciprocated the comparison, elaborating that, "At times, this debt is so obvious that the movie's style feels second-hand: an overeager, slightly shop-worn bombardment of finger-on-the-pulse pop-out graphics, representing the giddy proliferation of voices in the misinformation age by simply filling the screen with text.

"[67] Alan Scherstuhl of The Village Voice criticized the film for hewing "so closely to template that it's easy to imagine that paperclip from Microsoft Word popping up on Condon's desktop one day to say, 'It looks like you're directing a techno-thriller.

'"[68] Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly praised the film, describing it as "a vintage journalism thriller, a nihilistic newspaper drama for the dark digital age.

"[69] Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian gave a positive review, noting that the film "sticks to the ancient movie tradition of depicting journalists as untamed, quasi-bohemian wild men, showing up late, gruff and unshaven in the office.

"[70] Mark Kermode's reaction was mixed, praising the film's cast and cinematography, but disliking the direction, writing that "The Fifth Estate feels strangely unfocused, uncertain of how to deal with its slippery enigma.