Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

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.

Recap: A dramatized story of how Daniel Ellsberg, former employee of the think tank RAND and adviser to the government. Having found discrepancies in the reports coming from the Vietnam War he goes to investigate. He then becomes completely disillusioned. When he, because of his high clearance, gets access to the very top secret Pentagon Papers, a document proving how American government has deceived its people, he decides to make them public.Comments: Actually a very nice dramatization, with emphasis on drama. It is hard to get some suspense out of a more documentarian approach, but going with more drama you're being able to include more suspense in your story. Without being the most surprising movie ever, the movie does include quite enough suspense. Enough to keep me interested all the way.More interestingly though, is the use of sound and music. It is really in touch with the movie, enhancing scenes with an emotional score. If you're interested it is worth a watch just to listen to it.Nothing to remember, but worth to spend the 80 minutes it runs.6/10

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.