SnoopyStyle In 1966 Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg is a military analyst in the field writing reports for McNamara. He grows disillusioned with the outright lies to the American public and decides to smuggle out the secret Pentagon studies. In 1971, Kay Graham (Meryl Streep) is the struggling owner of the Washington Post taking over from her late father and then her late husband. As a woman, she is an oddity in the upper echelon white men corporate world. Chief editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) is tired of being out-reported by the New York Times. When the Times is halted from reporting by a suit from the government, Post reporter Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) is able to track down Ellsberg and obtain a copy of the Pentagon Papers. Kay is faced with the dangerous decision to publish.The subject matter is important and relevant for the present day. Director Spielberg is heavy-handed in a couple of scenes but mostly, he is able to bring a tense realism to the proceedings. The first half is a little slow. It needs a little tension from the Ellsberg side. It needs more of the Times with him. The acting is first rate from well-established veterans. The setting has a lot of minute details that give it a real sense of time. The central story of Kay's struggle is one of the central plots. Here Spielberg is at his most heavy-handed. Over and over again, young women look admiringly at Streep. I'm actually more struck by her fragility and her growth as a character. It works much better when Spielberg isn't pointing the camera right at the female empowerment of it all. He needs to give the audience more respect. It's a Spielberg lack of subtlety that is getting more noticeable as the years go by. Kay is walking the step of the Supreme Court and she's flank by the silently adorable female crowd. It doesn't need to be that obvious. He just needs to dial it back to ten. What I appreciate most about this movie is the tackling of the close relationship between the press and the political establishment. The 4th estate likes to portray itself as an impartial arbiter but they are often influenced by their connections. It's compelling to see the influence and the breaking of that. Overall, it's a great look at a compelling moment in newspaper history.

cinswan Spoiler alert -- for those old enough to remember when this story, and the story the Washington Post would break soon after, it's not a spoiler. For those of you who weren't born yet, it is.Spielberg ends the movie with an allusion to the Watergate Hotel break-in. I remember Watergate. I barely remember the Pentagon Papers except that their publication was mentioned on the evening news.The attention to period detail is impeccable. As a former typesetter (offset/phototypesetting) I was amazed that the linotype machines got to play a significant part. Yes, I did see them in action when I went to a job interview, and learned the typesetter needed to be able to proofread on the fly reading something upside down and backwards (like Snell shorthand, a job skill that isn't appreciated anymore).Hanks, Streep, Rhys, Paulson, Whitford and a cast too long for me to name were all spot on. The juxtaposition of Kay Graham's battle for her newspaper and Daniel Ellsberg's battle to get the truth out about the Vietnam War being a failed cause (I had no idea Ellsberg was actually in combat in Vietnam), along with the legal machinations preventing publication are riveting.If you think what we see on televised/cable news, or on the internet news, is true reportage, think again.This film portrays what the Fourth Estate is all about, and it's so timely to watch it now.And for those born after these times? After you watch this, watch "All The President's Men" with Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, and Hal Holbrook among others.Both of these films are required viewing for anyone who is a journalism student, teacher -- or a journalist who is below the age of 50.Isabeau Vollhardt author, The Casebook of Elisha Grey scifi/detective ebook series

barberic-695-574135 This movie is very well done and well worth watching but it is slow and takes a while to get going so stick with it. Would we watch it again? Probably but it would need a dark cold night.

mikeh-54044 Many have criticized this movie for a variety of cinematic reasons. These may well be fair comment! However, fifty years from now, when the USA is an historical artifact; and historians argue various landmarks in its decline as a nation devoted to individual liberty and freedom to stand up to the crushing machinery of an indifferent bureaucracy, this film will stand out. Individuals who believe that government serves the people and should be opposed when it is destructive of that end are shown risking much to defy a pathetic wannabe tyrant - and winning!These same historians will be puzzled at what was lost in the years after the period of this film that -in the end - caused the collapse of this same county as shown in the film.