I've been teaching history for over 20 years now (and have spent a considerable amount of time of the past 15 years examining films like this in terms of their influence on the general population's perception of history) and this is nothing new. Films like this don't overwrite history so much as flavour it. And while it can be annoying, it can also serve as a launchpad for discussing the events themselves (I was partly inspired to study 17th century French history at university because I wanted to learn about the real France as opposed to the depiction of it in The Three Musketeers--and I loved that book). Even though I was aware of the actual vote before watching the movie (I've taught that period of history several times), it didn't really faze me in the film itself as the dramatic tension was quite effective. If I'd been a consultant on the film, I might have suggested Spielberg simply skip over Conn. and a few others (so as to not single out Conn.) rather than contradict the historical record, but, as it stands, it will make an interesting discussion point about dramatic license vs. historical records when I use this film in a class someday (besides, Tony Kushner, the screenwriter, is on record with respect to Munich--another film for which he wrote the screenplay--as deliberately choosing dramatic impact over strict accuracy, so this was not too surprising to me). Quite so. A different story, hewing more closely to the facts, could have been made and been dramatic, but it would not have been the Mendez angle. And while Affleck's goal was to tell this story of real events, he also had commercial considerations to balance against strict accuracy--and the latter often makes for a disjointed narrative structure. Again, as with Lincoln, the deviations from the facts can serve as very good starting points for discussions in the classroom (and elsewhere, for that matter--who doesn't think there will be a flurry of books on the topic to tell the 'real story'?). I would not go so far as to declare those documents as worthless, at least not to historians. It is actually a matter of great interest to be able to compare the "official" story with the declassified one and examine the choices made to keep it under wraps. We gain a greater understanding of government policy choices that could help shed light on other, similar historical situations, as well as the ability to critique the effectiveness and wisdom of such choices. As to the movie itself, it is a good movie. I liken it to Thirteen Days. In each case, the outcome is a foregone conclusion and yet each film manages to maintain a degree of suspense about the outcome that is more compelling than expected.