User Reviews

It is hard to watch 'Path to War' and avoid remarking the similarity between historic and present circumstances. Although dedicated to the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, the film brings to mind the situations the current US President had to face - after being elected on an internal social agenda, he has to face an external conflict and runs down on a spiral towards an external war costly in American and other peoples human lives. The film is interesting by itself, although there may be many comments to be made on the accuracy of the historical details. 'Path to War' also succeeds better than other films in bringing to screen historical characters and giving them a life of their own - Johnson, Clark Clifford, Bob McNamara are well built film characters in the film. I recommend this film, and not only to the history fans - 8 out of 10 on my personal scale.

In some ways the most dramatic illustration of the bifurcation of American society during 1968 is presented in this movie and then gone in the blink of an eye. LBJ is watching a series of TV broadcasts excoriating him. Among the clips is one of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who states that he (who had been silent on Vietnam for so long) can now no longer keep from speaking against violence and against the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, his own government. It's difficult to imagine Johnson recovering from King's speaking out. Blacks had been among his most resolute supporters for years. LBJ liked them and sympathized with them and they responded in kind. I did some minor canvassing for Eugene McCarthy earlier that year and was surprised to find that every black family I spoke to politely turned away my arguments. It didn't matter to them that they felt Vietnam was draining resources that were needed for domestic programs, or that the disenfranchised were suffering disproportionate casualties. (Know how many sons of Harvard died in Vietnam? Guess.) They fully supported LBJ because of his unyielding and thoroughly courageous stand on civil rights, as the issue was then called. How King's change of heart must have hurt him.

The movie as far as I can tell is pretty accurate. Inevitably, characters come and go, and the story itself is complicated enough to be occasionally confusing. If you want a more thorough analysis of how to go about letting slip the dogs of war, try Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest."

The acting is fine, with no one's performance outstanding. Frankenheimer's direction, with its drumbeats, hand-held camera, and fast editing of protest marches, recalls his "Seven Days in May." The script sometimes comes up with lines that are a little too epigrammatic to be swallowed whole.

LBJ's passionate commitment to the solution of domestic problems is carefully laid out, and it was real. His forte as a politician was in manipulating others in order to get his way and, minor earlier malfeasance aside, his way was one to be admired. What the film soft pedals or leaves out entirely is a side of his character that was really and truly vulgar and exceedingly unpleasant for subordinates. You didn't have to be a wuss to feel uncomfortable when, as a highly educated senior aide, LBJ would call you into the bathroom for a conference while he was taking a dump. The tongue lashings that Jack Valenti alone endured would fill up a marine boot's schedule for his entire stay on Parris Island. He was also an egomaniacal blowhard, and there is little of this in the film. While still Vice President, he ran into Russel Baker, at that time White House reporter for the NY Times, grabbed him by the arm and pulled him into his office, shouting, "You -- I want to talk to YOU." He harangued Baker for half an hour, accusing the press of lying about his lack of power, of being outside the loop, as VP. Midway through his tirade, Johnson buzzed in his secretary, scribbled a note and handed it to her, then took up where he left off. When a weary Baker finally stumbled back into the hallway, another reporter said: "Do you know what it was he wrote on that note to his secretary? It said, 'Who is this I'm talking to?'"

A bit of this side of LBJs character might have gone some distance in explaining his gradual and reluctant commitment to war. He was the kind of guy who could not admit that he was beaten, a tragedy really, in the same way that Hamlet was a guy who could not make up his mind. It wasn't just that his advisers misled him. It was that he couldn't bring himself to back down. This is one of the things that worried me when I heard our next president from Texas say, "My mind is made up, and I'm not going to change it, because I'm not the kind of guy who changes his mind." (No? Hold on to your hats, boys.)

You come away from this movie filled with a genuine pity for LBJ who, in Vietnam, had got hold of his baby. He really had little choice but to resign. When he did, he went to his ranch and manipulated local merchants so they put his order for an oil sump on the fast track, using the same friendly but conspiratorial tones that he had once used in running the country. He grew his hair out to Beatle length, crept into Doris Stearn's guest room in the mornings in order to have someone to talk to, a lonely man. A tragic story, well done.

...on the heels of "The Gathering Storm". "Path to War" begins with Lyndon B. Johnson's inaugural ball and ends with his rejection of candidacy for another term. Between, unlikely Brit-cum-Texan Gambon delivers a masterful portrayal of President Johnson as a crude but sagacious politician who struggled with the demons of the Vietnam era not unlike another American president who served during an unpopular war which tore at the fabric of this country a century before. A well crafted HBO documentary which needs and takes little license with history, "Path to War" will likely prove a spell-binding watch for those interested in American political history and a good historical review for anyone with an interest in the Vietnam era.

I tuned into this expecting to see something similar to the exciting, tension-filled "Thirteen Days," but these two movies are not at all alike. Even the titles tell the difference. "Thirteen Days" (about the Cuban Missile Crisis) is a compact story, while "Path To War" deals with events spread out over several years, and as a result moves more slowly and often in much less detail. It is in its own way, however, just as gripping.

"Path To War" is the story of the United States during the Lyndon Johnson administration as it spirals into war in Vietnam, almost against its will. Johnson is well portrayed by Michael Gambon, who manages to capture the complex situation the man was facing, both militarily and politically. Johnson, of course, assumed the presidency upon John Kennedy's assassination and inherited Kennedy's decision to increase US involvement in Vietnam. Johnson is constantly pushed by his military officials and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara (Alec Baldwin), a holdover from the Kennedy administration, to take just one more step, to commit just a few more troops, to bomb just a few more targets in order to win the war. Every step fails, which leads to another step being necessary, until Johnson is hopelessly trapped in a war he can't win but that he can't get out of either. Feeling unable to trust the people who had been Kennedy's advisors, Johnson turns to Clark Clifford (a great performance here from Donald Sutherland) who originally opposes increased involvement in Vietnam, but who eventually realizes that the spiral has gone too far to be stopped and becomes an advocate of stepping things up on the grounds that there is nothing left to do but put everything into trying to win. It's a fascinating study of an entire nation; one that carefully avoids the unfortunate stereotype of Johnson as a warmonger, and instead depicts him as desperate to find a way out of this mess; one that just as carefully notes that Johnson didn't create this mess - he inherited it from Kennedy.

That, of course, is the subplot of the movie. Johnson spends much of the movie (as he spent his presidency) fighting the ghost of John Kennedy and looking over his shoulder at Robert Kennedy, not able to trust those who had been close to the Kennedy's, but unable to simply jettison them.

It really is fascinating movie, well worth watching. It isn't "exciting" in the sense that you'd be on the edge of your seat, but it's gripping and holds your attention well enough. 7/10.

effort at depicting the essence of Lyndon Johnson and his tragic presidency. Michael Gambon is a superb actor and his portrayal of the 36th president is by far the best I've seen yet. Most films depict LBJ as essentially some Texan buffoon without a clue. In reality, Johnson was a superb politician whose hopes and dreams for his country were ultimately thwarted by a war he never wanted in the first place. 'Path to War' shows how a man with all the strength, talent and skill to do potentially great things finds himself losing the battle on both fronts. The war on poverty that he so dearly cared for being defeated by the war in Vietnam, and as his own administration and the country turn against him, the downfall of a political giant.

I would suggest that this film be shown in high school classrooms as a way to educate our young people about LBJ, the man, his times and his legacy. Vilifed though he may be by many, 'Path to War' is truly a fantastic portrayal of the human side of the man and how he struggled to do what he thought was right for his country and for the world.

This is a good movie, and includes some very good performances. It is not a great movie, however. While the writer understood that the complexity of the Vietnam "problem" lay in the various individuals involved in "The Path to War," he misunderstood where the contradictions and conflicts of those characters lay.

For example, given the material, and in spite of a peculiar attempt at LBJ's Texas accent, Michael Gambon acquits himself well as LBJ. He has the mannerisms down pat. And the writer does appreciate LBJ's vulgarity (which could be quite offputting, and was for many people). However, in his attempt to lionize LBJ, he misses the point. LBJ was a politician who got himself elected as a populist candidate with the concept of "The Great Society," but was always supportive of the actions in Vietnam. (For example, the writer conveniently places the *pivotal* Gulf of Tonkin incident outside the scope of the movie and it is only mentioned once, briefly, in an aside. As a result, based on this movie's version of events, and without being aware of the consequences of the Gulf of Tonkin, both domestically and in Vietnam, a viewer would think that LBJ was some kind of benevolent monarch, which actually does him a disservice.)

The writer makes LBJ seem like a victim of circumstance, when in fact he was very much of control of events, witnessed by the amount of legislation he put in front of Congress in five-plus years. This is noted in a conversation LBJ has with Lady Bird in the movie, but it is made to seem like LBJ placed the legislation for philosophical and principled reasons, when his primary motivation was based on two things: His best years were as a legislator and he knew that side of the government best, and it was politically advantageous for him to do what he knew best.

One could also say that he was dogged by the memory of JFK. He knew he had been elected on JFK's bootstraps, so to speak, and the writer does pay some lip service to this issue. Yet, the writer does not touch on the shame and guilt LBJ felt about JFK's death, which, while he was not complicit, he knew had been politically motivated within the government. And for all his professed desire for social change, he never once called the Warren Commission to task for their idiotic findings, and he was always conflicted about that, as well. It was politically expedient to let it "die," but it was not the right thing to do, and he knew it.

All through his Presidency, he felt the Kennedys nipping at his heels, so, for example, he knew if he pushed the Voting Rights Act, he'd not only look good next to the Kennedy legacy, but also have a slew more voters to vote for him the next election. (In one kudo to the writer, he does appreciate LBJ's dislike of Bobby Kennedy, who was, ironically, as political an animal as LBJ himself was. In fact LBJ's assessment in the movie of Bobby as not being "One-tenth the person his brother was" is actually considered by many to be true, and also plays on the truism that we tend to dislike in others what we most dislike about ourselves.)

The tragedy, if we look on LBJ as a tragic hero, is that there was no next election for him because of Vietnam. The problem is that the real LBJ had the tragic hero's fatal flaw (in his case, a problematic mixture of indecisiveness and arrogance, which led to poor leadership skills), so when the tragedy comes, it does not bear the poignancy it should. The only time we actually get a glimpse of LBJ's character defects is during one conversation with one member of his staff. (Some might argue that his questions of his cabinet would also demonstrate this deficit, but that was actually one of his strengths: When he did not know something, he was not afraid to admit it and go to the person who did know. This "consensus-building" aspect of his personality was one of the things that made him an excellent legislator.)

Did LBJ have some commitment to social change? He did, and it was best demonstrated during his tenure in Congress, representing the people of Texas, not during his tenure as President. The writer does make a brief pass at this when he refers to his regrets at ever associating himself with the Kennedy Presidency, that it was his political undoing. (And many historians do, in fact, believe this is true.)

Another character the writer fails to fully grasp is McNamara. McNamara was always full of conflict regarding Vietnam, and yet we don't start to see this in the character until the very end of the movie. Alec Baldwin plays the writer's version of McNamara well, but it was not an accurate portrayal of McNamara, at least not in the eyes of his contemporaries. That is not Baldwin's fault, but the writer and director's fault.

Another lost opportunity is Felicity Huffman's portrayal of Lady Bird Johnson. This is an excellent actress who has done the best with what she's given, but she's given so little, when there was so much more to Lady Bird's character at this period in history. The only hint we see is when she reminds LBJ that the footsteps she's following "didn't die." In fact, the offset between Lady Bird's presence as First Lady and LBJ's as President is contradiction that is not even explored - while Lady Bird continued in her desire to see social change (she is rightly credited for having a strong, positive impact on the growing environmental movement, for example), something she had shared with her husband for many years - LBJ is buffeted by political forces that actually pull him away from some of the social idealism that many saw in him in Congress, including his friend Clark Clifford. That juxtaposition would have not only made a stronger movie, but would have been more historically accurate.

As for Clifford, that is the one character that comes through fully realized, convincing and true: Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Clark Clifford. (Who was a family friend to our family as well.) The writer has presented his character, and his contradictions, very well, and, as a result, Donald Sutherland, always an able actor, is able to not just make the best of the material, but take it to the award-winning level he achieved.

Frankenheimer's direction, as always, is good. But this is not his best movie. It has pacing issues, some throwaway scenes, and some scenes that should have been included and weren't. As a result this is not the best political movie you will ever see. Although, if you consider that the brush used is broad, it does show how complex and political our slippery slope into Vietnam generally was.

For anyone who lived through the tumult of the late 1960s, this TV movie excruciates with memory. The criminal incompetence and stubbornness of US policy in Vietnam brandished, first, by Kennedy's administration and then fatally in depth by Johnson's, illustrates with discomforting clarity just how the worst of times can be perpetuated by government's "best and brightest." Michael Gambon brilliantly captures the escalating agony, but perhaps not the outsized charm and cajolery, of Lyndon Johnson; he seems to cower here much more than command. And what shocks the viewer here at movie's end is more what is left out than what is spelled out. Even before the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, quickly followed by that of Robert Kennedy within two months of each other in 1968, LBJ is shown to have given up his presidency in March of that year. Our military's death toll in Vietnam stood at about 25,000 then, and the peace process was about to start. But only one who lived through the period or studied it closely will recall that seven(7) more years of US fighting and military support in Vietnam followed Johnson's withdrawal, extending right thru the Nixon years, and our death toll more than doubled. The realization of this fact, a footnote after three hours of this film. shocks so much more than any conclusion conjured by a dramatic presentation ever could.

Well-made, at times moving HBO dramatization of the goings-on within the White House as the Vietnam War escalated under Lyndon Johnson.

Michael Gambon plays the U.S. president as a sort of tragic figure torn between his passion for "Great Society" social programs and a resiliency to win the war. The Johnson seen in PATH TO WAR is certainly not the war-monger that protesters of his day alleged. He's meticulous and thoughtful, though perhaps too easily persuaded by his advisers, most notably Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (Alec Baldwin in his most memorable performance in a long time) and Clark Clifford (an equally superb Donald Sutherland).

In his final film, director John Frankenheimer could be criticized for being a touch soft on Johnson. But this approach, fair or not, serves the film well, allowing us to more easily empathize with the straight-talking Texan. He had men of very high stature and respect telling him that just one more bombing, just one more plane full of troops, just a few more months and the war would be won. The viewer has the 20/20 hindsight of history, but Frankenheimer was careful to remind us that Johnson did not. This makes for some emotional moments. Scenes of the reluctant war president signing sympathy letters for families of the fallen are quietly moving, as is his trip to meet with the wounded in Vietnam. Just as poignant is the instance of Johnson stomping out of a meeting, instructing a speech writer that because of the war's costs, there could be no mention of his beloved Great Society in the next State of the Union address. It seems all Johnson wanted was a better life for Americans; all he got was a bloody quagmire.

As the film and war rage on, body counts rising, Johnson unravels. Consumed by years of warfare with no end in sight, he becomes tense, bitter and worn down. Whether they like Johnson or not, the viewer feels the weight on his shoulders. Even someone unfamiliar with how this story ends could predict it from watching PATH TO WAR. To conclude the 165-minute running time, Johnson delivers his famous televised address announcing he would not seek re-election. He may have wanted to, yet knew he could not.

PATH TO WAR is a sharp interpretation of a tragically fascinating era. Unlike some other versions of political history (Oliver Stone, anyone?), the film never comes off as mean-spirited, even toward characters who remain infamous. It is a straightforward look at the complexities of the often-muddy waters of war and politics. It is also a quite memorable piece of work.

This film is a rather sympathetic overview of the Lyndon Johnson Presidency. It's an "insider" look with an almost documentary feel. It focuses on the turmoil within LBJ as a result of his decision to send combat troops to Vietnam, to begin bombing North Vietnam and to escalate the war in general. His major administration agenda, according to this film, was to implement social changes, push civil rights and build schools. Many of these lofty goals were derailed by the escalating cost and national distraction of the Vietnam war. I have to say that Donald Sutherland was magnificent in this film! Alec Baldwin pretty well nailed Robert McNamara, too! Overall, a pretty doggone good film! It is 164 minutes long, but it doesn't seem that long.

Hire it, buy it or borrow it .... a timely film worth watching especially in our current world situation. This film gives a great insight into the passions, feelings and sometimes great frustrations behind the decisions that are made in times of conflict. I have it on good authority that this particular film is reasonably accurate, although i'm sure some usual Hollywood Cliché's have found their way into the script. What i found particularly sad was to learn that President Lyndon B Johnson, unfortunately passed away just days prior to the announcement of the end of the Vietnam war. I am sure that this film will evoke some pretty extraordinary emotional feelings, mainly due to the current world conflicts, especially in the Middle East.

No question this film was well acted and directed (and cast for that matter), but I had a hard time with this films attempt to exonerate LBJ from the damage he did to the country. The film tends to lay the blame at the feet of McNamara, Rusk and others, where the reality is that the president selected these men as his advisors, and the responsibility for this country's single military loss fall squarely on his shoulders. 6/10.

When I saw this movie yesterday, I was struck by the language and how it echoed the arguments made now about the Iraq War. In fact, I thought certain phrases were inserted into this movie to criticize the Iraq war as they are the EXACT same things said today about the futility of the the US presence in Iraq, given how "liberals" Donald Sutherland and Alec Baldwin were involved in this project.

Then I noticed this movie came out in 2002, BEFORE George Bush decided to invade Iraq.

Path to War covers the period of time in US history from Lyndon Johnson was inaugurated in January, 1965 to March, 1968, when he announced he was not seeking a 2nd term for President. We get to view how LBJ was a champion for voting rights and committed to improving the lot of poor Americans with the Great Society. But the movie focuses on how the United States came to get drawn in and bogged down in the Viet Nam war, to the downfall of Johnson. It illustrates how Clark Clark Clifford went from being opposed to the war to being it's most vocal supporter, and how Robert McNamara went from promoting the war to being forced out as Secretary of Defense for coming to opposing the war. How Johnson was tentative about pursuing the war, micromanaging combat operations and the demoralizing effect the Tet Offensive had on this country. The movie has expertly woven in numerous television broadcasts, cartoons and other historic artifacts of the era to drive the point how the Johnson administration acted in carrying out the Viet Nam war and their effects.

This is the movie to watch if you want to understand how the Viet Nam war came to be a large conflict with it's divisive effects on this country. It's a movie that should be required viewing for any future President ever contemplating a "small" foreign war in the future.

"Path to War" could rightly be called "JFK 2" or "Nixon: The Prequel." "Path to War," while focusing on the behind the scene elements that led to the escalation in Vietnam, could also be called "LBJ," as the movie centered around him as much as the Vietnam War itself. Unfortunately, the two are inexorably linked as the U.S. involvement in Vietnam increased under his leadership. With such a heavy focus on the war, very little credit was given to Lyndon Baines Johnson (played by Michael Gambon) for the work he did for civil rights. Sure, there was a little nod to his accomplishments showing him give a speech and sign the Voter Rights Act of 1965, but it was marred by the superfluous tooting of his own horn after the passage of the act. You would've thought he freed the slaves he praised himself so heavily. And there was no mention of his signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which contained in it the Fair Housing Act. Perhaps that was meant for another movie.

PTW though, was about the many players involved in taking the country into an unwinnable war. Yes, LBJ had the final say, but with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (played by Alec Baldwin) and other hawks in his ear only one course seemed possible. He did have counter voices such as Undersecretary George Ball (Bruce McGill) and early on Clark Clifford (Donald Sutherland), but their words were a trifle compared to McNamara and maybe even Johnson's own.

I like PTW. This was a side of the Vietnam War I had not seen. With so many Vietnam movies focused on the troops, it was inspiriting to see behind the scenes. PTW is a long movie, but the performances are sound and the subject matter is riveting.

This movie is about America getting dragged into the Vietnam war. It's not about the soldiers, but more about the political background that led to the war.

The movie itself presents an interesting view of the events, but I fear that the movie is more suited for a history class at school. It just doesn't entertain enough for that rainy sunday afternoon. It's basically a lot of politicians talking.

It's hard to rate this movie - the political background of a war is really fascinating material, in that aspect the movie delivers. But a movie should also be entertainment, and unfortunately this particular movie failed to entertain me.

George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld could learn from this film. As Yogi Berra might say, our slow and unending fall into the quicksand that is Iraq is "déjà vu all over again."

John Frankenheimer's "Path to War" chronicles the series of unfortunate decisions that Lyndon B. Johnson was forced to make that led to the enormous buildup and commitment of troops, money, and destruction in Vietnam during his presidency. The film portrays LBJ in a sympathetic light almost like a flawed but essentially good Shakespearean protagonist who succumbs to bad advice, becomes trapped by it, and almost descends into complete madness from it.

I vividly remember the moment when Johnson announced he would not run again. He had become an enemy to many of us at the time, and thus the news that his term would end in less than a year gave us hope once more for the country.

What is key to this film, and what opened my eyes, was his strong objections to the war itself. At each decision point he wrestled with the morality of escalation, and ultimately was led to believe that escalation would bring an end to the fighting. Indeed, history proved otherwise.

What is regrettable is that this country is going through "déjà vu all over again," the only difference being that George W. Bush seems totally immune to the suffering and costs his war in Iraq has begotten. Do we see him agonizing over the injuries and deaths? Perhaps he does in private, but if so he keeps it repressed in public.

Whether or not you are a supporter of President Bush, this film should be required viewing for anyone who cares about America's recent history and current position in the world.

I expected little from this 'movie' but was pleasantly surprised. After all, it was a made for television mini series originally, it was about politics and U.S. ones at that, it was very long (both episodes were played as one cohesive piece in Queensland). On the plus side, it seemed to have an ideal cast, I like most of Alec Baldwin's work very much, I greatly admire Michael Gambon's work, Donald Sutherland needs no explanation as someone to watch, and that was just the beginning. Furthermore, I had seen the political drama "Nixon" not long ago and was greatly impressed by that (how could you not be with Anthony Hopkins at the helm); so things could have gone either way.

Thankfully, my doubts were not realised and I can safely recommend this saga to any thinking person, particularly those of us like myself who actually experienced those times. I suspect to those born later it might seem somewhat like a 'boring' history lesson unless that moment in history bears any particular fascination.

For Australians particularly it may be interesting as, just like with previous conflicts (World Wars I and II as well as Korea) and all wars since including Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom and currently Afghanistan, we stood shoulder to shoulder with our American brothers in Vietnam, fighting and dying in battle. We knew why we as a nation were there in the thick of it, so it was very interesting indeed to see why America was there in the first place, and this docu-drama provided some of the answers.

I haven't watched too many other efforts by Frankenheimer... unless I'm terribly mistaken, the only ones I have are his The Hire entry and Ronin. I keep finding myself impressed by him and seeking out what he's directed. The man did some mighty fine work(R.I.P.). This may be my first exposure to Gambon, but I was definitely pleasantly surprised. He really brings Lyndon to life, and there isn't a moment where he's on-screen that the audience is bored. The parts are all filled well... Hall, Sinise, McGill, Baldwin and Sutherland, heck, everybody, deliver impeccable performances. The editing and cinematography are remarkably well-done. The music, as with much else in this, is underplayed very effectively. The pacing is just about flawless. Coming in at almost three hours, it's never dull and almost invariably concise. So much is said through so little. Yet it never becomes overpowering, either. The writing and its high quality are consistent. From what I can tell, this is rather true to what happened, and certainly realistic. Not actually a bio-piece on Johnson, but more a drama focused on his involvement in the Vietnam war, the debates about what action to take. There is some language and dialog of adult nature. I recommend this to those interested in the subject matter, and fans of the film-makers. 8/10

This movie is so good that I was completely glued to the TV. We all know how terrible the Vietnam war was for the soldiers and the civilians, but this movie gives the viewer an incredible view of how terrible it must have been for the US government at that time.

I remember in the 60's wondering why the US didn't just quit fooling around and destroy the North Vietnamese, and then after there was so much protesting I wondered why they didn't just bring the troops home. This movie explains how the US got in over their heads and really had no options.

Maybe I'm sick but this movie made me me really feel sorry for President Johnson and his advisors for the decisions they had to make and then live with.

I'm trying to find this on Video, I want to watch it again and again!

i saw an advance screening of this film & it's positively first-rate in every regard. the screenplay by dan giat is incisive, thorough, even-handed yet decisively moral in its view of the vietnam war. apparently, the writer spent his lifetime researching the details that led to the escalation of american involvement in southeast asia. john frankenheimer directs with taut economy & underlines the very human drama that lead to the decision making process of america's top leaders. it's clear that there were no easy, glib decisions to be made on either side. and the performances are all stellar, but michael gambon soars in a tour-de-force. his portrait of LBJ is downright shakespearean in its tragic dimensions. we see a man eager to enact great social change yet pressured against his own instincts to enter a war he didn't truly believe in. the modern day parallels are a tad frightening: a texan in the white house, an uncertain war in a foreign land americans know little about, and an encroaching military whose budgetary demands grow at an alarming rate. this is a must see for any one with a conscience.

Although I immensely enjoyed & admired this film, I was struck by

a curious omission: there is neither an appearance by nor a

reference to Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's VP at the time. Even his

appearance at the opening inaugural ball would have helped. If

his role were insignificant or non-existent, there should have been

some reference to this; if he tried to persuade LBJ to withdraw our

troops from Vietnam & were shut out of further counseling

sessions because of this, that too should have been mentioned.

When HH ran as Dem prez candidate in 1968, he was burdened

by the war just as LBJ would have been. If there were a line about

Humphrey (& 1 or 2 lines might be all that would be necessary), I

missed it. Or were there legal problems that made the director or

writer or producer determine not to allude to him?

A superb HBO Production directed by John Frankenheimer. Provocative and insightful. I don't vouch that the story is even-handed, but none the less informative, interesting and believable. President Johnson(Michael Gambon)painfully watches his plans for a "Great Society" crumble as the war in Viet Nam escalates. Most impressive is Alec Baldwin as Robert McNamara. Equally strong is Donald Southerland playing Clark Clifford. Also of note are:Bruce McGill, Tom Skerritt and Philip Baker Hall. This is well packed fodder for those still debating the Viet Nam Conflict. Highly recommended.

What a terrific way to finish a career for a film maker. John Frankenheimer, one of my all time favorites, gives here an outstanding proof that he remains the best in his part. I find here the same virtuosity as he had in his early years, remember when he worked for television in ninety minutes shows. yes it is very same way of filming and directing actors. It is very poignant to watch and appreciating such powerful performances. Looke like a TV movie from the eighties, those speaking of Roosevelt, Ike, Truman and so on. Thanks Mr Frankenheimer. RIP.

A TV movie about President Lyndon B. Johnson? A historical drama about his "suffering" during the Vietnam war escalation? Intriguing idea, like its attempt of resurrecting from the dust of last century the climate which generated Johnson's Great Society political project... A vision that failed, even if the movie closes celebrating its persistence before the end titles. More than everything else, this is a stage drama unlikely to stand the real, terrifying drama going on outside the "halls of power" -- namely, in the bombarded and famished country of Vietnam. In the face of such a massacre (of both Americans and Vietnamese), when we are told that some 58,000 marines and TWO MILLION Asiatics died in the last four years of the war only, there is no drawing room drama that can give justice to the "mess". This was no simple "mess", it was a genocide -- something one would have thought belonging to a bloodier, more cruel past, like a new extermination of Jews. Here, the "Jews" were the Communists from South-East Asia: Vietcong, women, oldsters & children alike. America lost much more than a bloody war in Vietnam; the film partially tries to show that (like in the impressive suicide scene of a man who burns alive under the very eyes of Robert McNamara at the Pentagon), but generally speaking "Path to War" remains more interested in the affairs going on between the male trio of its protagonists: LBJ, "Bob" McNamara (whose wife had ulcer, we learn) and Clark Clifford, the man who succeeded McNamara as Secretary of Defence (a marvelously saturnine Donald Sutherland). I realize this is a historical film tailored to suit American audiences: it's just as right that they ask questions about their past and the more controversial figures of their political life; but I can assure you that, when screened outside the U.S., the film looks more like the capable drawing room caper which I mentioned before, no matter if THIS drawing room is Oval and located at the White House. All this taken into account, it's a standing tribute to its director, John Frankenheimer, and to its leading players that the film "per se" succeeds in capturing our attention and sustaining it through 165 minutes of dialogue and interior sequences, like no ordinary TV movie would be even remotely capable of doing these days. It is, in just one word, a mature conception of a historical movie, sustained by brilliant performances ands a good screenplay... The real shame is that too many of us (especially the non-Americans?) best remember LBJ through the devastating portrait Jules Feiffer made of those years in its cartoons. Forty years later, Frankenheimer gives us a different thing to muse about: we accept it from his "maestro" hands -- with just a little reserve in the back of our minds.

Few films reveal history researching facts and other data to present entertainment with accurate documentation. This film was authentic and entertaining at the same time! These difficult, trying times in our nation's past brought to film with an angle/dimension not revealed in the main-stream media at that time or since. Great film!