Les hommes du Pentagone

Not bad. But I file this under the rubric of being yet-another face- saving exercise. It showcases all the horrors of Vietnam, and Elsberg as a kind of redemptive icon. Understand: I'm sure Elsberg had his realization and the work he did to undo the damage is... yes, even heroic. But there's something about producing a consumable media product that dances these elements about on a screen (and throws in a de rigueur love interest) for our delectation that only serves to hint at the fathomless American lostness; American perdition.

The U.S. has yet to stand on a mountaintop and scream it: Vietnam was a war crime. The Vietnam Memorial on the mall is a monument to (more or less) unwitting dupes to planetary deadly gangster hubris. Germany has come to terms with its war crimes; when will the U.S. come to terms with its own?

Sigh: I give it an 7 because, dammit, it's a technically fine product, and it does tell a story, and it's arguably (still) an important story. But it loses points for the same reason that a "Brave New World" "feelie" would lose points among sensible folks. I worry that this flick is yet-another makeover of the corpse of The-U.S.-in-Vietnam.

Daniel Ellsberg is a brilliant and impassioned military analyst who wants nothing more than to serve his country in the most meaningful way he can. However in the end it seems that his greatest act of patriotism is to commit an act of treason.

Sounds like gripping stuff, the kicker is that it is all based on real life events. Now these types of docudramas can go horridly wrong all too easily in so many ways, however "The Pentagon Papers" manages to cleverly avoid most of these. Half of this is down to a solid script and the other primarily to the director for clearly thinking his decisions through to completion and creating a cohesive film on the whole.

Now I have to confess that I am a fan of James Spaders' work and find him to be a very under rated actor over the whole. Now that being said he does do an admirable job of chronicling the characters proverbial decent into madness (if you will forgive the dramatized language) as he goes from being a trusted insider only three steps removed from the president to being branded a traitor and hunted by the F.B.I.

The movie has some shortcomings and most of them I feel are likely due to time constraints placed on made for TV movies. They could, for instance, have easily taken time to develop the gaps in the story some more. Specifically in terms of the inter personal relationships portrayed and in terms of Elsberg's ever increasing sense of disillusionment in the government he believed in so vehemently just a few years before. As it seems at times, though years have passed in the time line, nothing has really changed for the characters.

That having been said I am of the opinion that the film does capture the general feeling of mistrust in the government that was so prevalent during the early seventies, as more and more revelations of the abuse of power at the highest levels and the lies that were being fed to the public to justify even greater lies became known. Although it is all related from very personal perspectives.

One of the strongest elements was the visual style employed by the director. I was constantly reminded of Oliver Stone in that respect. The uses of period news broadcasts are very cleverly deployed throughout the movie.

So do yourself a favor and watch "The Pentagon Papers", it can be both enlightening and entertaining, definitely 90 odd minutes well spent.

I agree completely with jmuckian (above). I've just finished reading "Secrets", the memoir that this movie is based on. Did they do an okay job for a TV movie? Yes. Does it *begin* to convey the flavour of the book, and the creeping disenchantment that Ellsberg experiences over the course of his years spent at the Pentagon, in the Marines, and at Rand? No, and that's what makes the book an absolutely riveting page-turner. I think the most glaring error in the movie is the reduction of his time in-country to a gunfight or two and the surveying of a decimated village in the middle of a monsoon. In reality, his time on the ground and insistence on really seeing what was going on in villages that others only saw from the air made for the best parts of the story. So in balance, I think that if you were willing to sit through this movie, and find the story at all compelling, you really owe it to yourself to read the book.

Although it places a "black and white" label on today's pro-war vs. anti-war attitudes, this film is an excellent insight into the mechanisms of political maneuvering. It is the truth told by one side - therefore a very good "half truth". Even if it is so authentic, and it refers to Vietnam, the intended analogy with today's issues is very obvious. Definitely a "Must See" for anyone concerned with what's going on with the Iraq war and other political priorities - regardless of one's individual position. (I only wish that the "other side" was intelligent enough to make a case as compelling at this - but that's another issue.)

As a film - it's quite good - maybe an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. All in all - definitely worth your time, and worth recommending it to friends and kids.

It's a history lesson that many, who did not live through that times, should watch. Like most, I had only a passing understanding of what happened. In fact I listened to those who said Daniel Ellsberg was a traitor, and thought it an acceptable view. Having watched the movie, I now have a better appreciation of the actual story behind the rhetoric. It is a must watch for everybody who thinks history doesn't repeat itself.

James Spader is always good in his films. Sometimes the film is not up to snuf, but the subject matter here elevates everything. It could have been improved if they had a little more money for the Vietnam parts of the movie. Paul Giamatti is also good in this. YOU MUST WATCH THIS.