classicalsteve Sometimes the people who have the best perspective on a side of an issue are those who were formerly advocating for the other side. Daniel Ellsberg was employed by the Rand Corporation and then the US Executive Branch at the Pentagon as a mid-level researcher. In the 1960's, Ellsberg advocated for the war in Vietnam. He believed that the cause for democracy around the world was worth the sacrifice of the lives of young men in the South Pacific. After a tour of Vietnam and acquisition of federal documents revealing the history of the war, Ellsberg began to question the morality of the US's Vietnam involvement.James Spader offers perhaps his best and most important performance as the young and middle-aged Daniel Ellsberg, the man Nixon referred to as a "traitor". The made-for-TV film chronicles Ellsberg's career as a high-level researcher in international affairs. After finishing his doctorate, Ellsberg first worked for the Rand Corporation and then later the Pentagon. He had been completely sold on America's involvement in Vietnam. He is then sent to Vietnam as a researcher to contribute to the Pentagon's internal study of the war.Upon his return, Ellsberg begins to doubt whether the war in Vietnam is simply a self-perpetuating abattoir with no end in sight, a slaughter-house which keeps feeding upon itself. Were the ends really about spreading the cause of democracy or about some other political ends? Ellsberg sends in his contribution to the study based on his experiences in Vietnam. He then learns that his writing as well as many other researchers were compiled together in a 7000-page internal document chronicling the history of the war in Vietnam.Ellsberg requests from the Pentagona a copy of the internal study, later dubbed the Pentagon Papers by the Press. Ellsberg reads the entire 7000-page monstrosity only to learn that the Vietnam cause goes as far back as Truman, and the ends for Vietnam were not really about the cause of democracy but more about short-term political gains. In other words, no US President wanted to declare Vietnam a failure on their watch, and passed the buck to the next president. Ellsberg is appalled at the disregard for human life for the purposes of political ends. But what can he do about it? A thoroughly engrossing and underrated film about Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Spader is completely believable as the man regarded as both hero and villain, depending upon the perspective. Nixon and his cronies regarded Ellsberg as a traitor, compromising their goals in Vietnam. They used the old "threat to national security" argument as the reason that the papers should not be released to the public. Others believed that all the information about the war needed to be exposed to encourage healthy debate. How can we, as a supposed democracy, ever make sound judgments on an issue if we are deprived of all the facts?

Robert W. The Pentagon Papers looked interesting enough when I randomly grabbed it off the shelf. I admit I am not by any means a fan of James Spader, I've always found him stiff and very self serving but in this case it absolutely worked for his character. Based on an incredible true story that few people know or remember and in fact was an enormous turning point in history. It changed the way everyone looked at Government and (if you believe the film) single handedly ended the United States' longest and losing war. Veteran TV director Rod Holcomb did a brilliant job capturing the era without over doing it and more importantly capturing the man that the film was about. He draws you into the story and keeps you in the time for each event. The film is quite short considering it's depth and time line and yet it never feels rushed...it's almost perfection. A brilliant TV film that is a must see for conspiracy buffs and more importantly history fans.Spader plays Daniel Ellsberg. A self involved, pontificating but important man who creates war reports and strategies for the U.S. He wants nothing more than to work directly for The President of The United States and change the world with his mind. He lives in a world clouded by the opinion that the government is the be all and end all. He takes this opinion to Vietnam with him when he gets a job with the Secretary of Defense. It's only after he returns to the U.S. and is given a top secret document that he helped write that his whole world is shattered. Spader does a great job showing Ellsberg's deep patriotism, and his life devoted to his work. Spader is actually watchable and does a great job. I would have even given him an Emmy which is something considering I can't stand the guy usually. Claire Forlani also turns out a great performance as reporter Patricia Marx, and Spader's love interest and later wife. She usually plays such soft spoken characters I thought it was just in her blood to do so but Marx is an outspoken, strong female character and Forlani does great. Her and Spader have terrific chemistry and are great together. Paul Giamatti shows up as a co-worked and later peace advocate/hippie and he continues his streak of brilliant support acting. His presence is just welcomed and he always ups the ante of any cast. In this particular role, although small he does a great job. Actor Alan Arkin plays Spader's boss who acquires him The Pentagon Papers. He was Emmy award nominated and his role was good don't get me wrong, he's a terrific actor and been around for many, many years but his role is very small.The Film covers the brutal war in Vietnam, the Watergate scandal and the involvement of 4 sitting Presidents spanning nearly thirty years. It's intriguing and thought provoking and a must see. Brilliant performances on top of an even more brilliant story about a man who changed the face of history quite bravely. For everything this film does in ninety minutes it's remarkable because it never feels rushed and it covers so much. It's one of the most intelligent and entertaining films I've ever seen, and based on fact. Definitely a must see!! 9/10

SnoopyStyle 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.

jmuckian This is the first movie I have felt a need to review, due to the subject and its importance.<<POSSIBLE SPOILERS>>Having read Ellsberg's book on the subject, I was really looking forward to a good dramatization of the events; however, this movie falls short. It is extremely abbreviated in its coverage of the events, often wasting time on relatively insignificant things such as Ellsberg's relationship with Patricia Marx and the excessively long sequence of Tony Russo's partytime in Malibu. This time could have been better spent explaining the events surrounding Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers rather than Ellsberg and his personal life, although that aspect cannot be ignored completely.For example, there were a lot of things that occurred leading up to Ellsberg actually obtaining the McNamara study, and a lot more between that and actually approaching three congressmen with the study including Ellsberg actually writing NSSM-1 included in the study and meeting with Kissinger about it, attempting to probe him about the papers.Additionally, one of the most dramatic elements of the book regarding Patricia's reading of the papers is her reaction to the actual language used in the papers, omitted from the film for whatever reason.There are also a significant number of factual errors as they relate to Ellsberg's book, although the events are not exactly wrong, but more of a misrepresentation of the events - however, many of these can be attributed to the requirement of staying within a two-hour limit.Overall, my review is tainted for having read the book, but I will give it a 6 of 10. It could be much, much better. If you are interested in the subject, and it is fascinating, read Ellsberg's book "Secrets." It is very much worth the read.