"Aldrich Ames: Traitor Within" tells the tale of the CIA's most infamous mole who was arrested in 1994 after causing inestimable damage to national security. An obvious small screen product (Showtime), the film does a good job of showing the pressures on Ames; how he rationalized his misdeeds; and how justice finally caught up with him. Sans super spy techo-nonsense, this film portrays people as people; imperfect and human. A solid docudrama for anyone interested in spy stuff.
13 Reviews
The True Story of the Man Considered as the Most Infamous Spy in American History
claudio_carvalho13 February 2004
Aldrich Ames is the CIA Chief of Soviet Counter-Intelligence for a long time, without having any promotion. His Colombian wife Rosario Ames (Elizabeth Peña) is a very greed woman, pressing him for a better life and status. Full of debts, and with low self-esteem, he decides to look for the Soviet Ambassador and offers a list of double agents to him per US$ 50,000.00. The money comes easily and Aldrich does not stop anymore, delivering many American secrets to Soviet Union along eight years. The experienced agent Jeanne Vertefeuille (Joan Plowright) comes to CIA Headquarters to conduct an investigation of the leak of information. With the collapse of the communist system, Aldrich becomes desperate and commits a final serious mistake. This movie-for-cable-TV is very above the average. The story hooks the attention of the viewer, as well as the performance of Timothy Hutton, Elizabeth Peña and Joan Plowright. The screenplay focuses mostly in the family, the financial problem and the lack of perspective in the career of Aldrich Ames, and the viewer may end the movie with some sympathy for him. Maybe this is the flaw in the plot, since the guy indeed was a disgusting traitor of his country for money. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): `Perfil de Um Espião' (`Profile of a Spy')
Title (Brazil): `Perfil de Um Espião' (`Profile of a Spy')
Interesting True Life Story
Theo Robertson17 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
What an achievement - Someone took the time and bother to make a TVM I enjoyed , this is probably down to someone coming up the shattering , radical idea of bringing an interesting involving story and making it into a feature length television movie
!!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!
Aldrich " Rick " Ames decides he`s not getting a big enough slice of pie for working at the CIA for so many long years so decides he`s going to get his own back by selling secrets to the Soviets , and the best thing is that it`s based on fact . I did notice that one of the reviewers takes issue about the accuracy of this tale, I did see a documentary on the Ames case on the history channel and while it didn`t mention he flew to Geneva thinking it was Zurich ( Yeah this was probably invention ) it did state he did have a severe drink problem and turned up for work in brand new cars , something his colleagues at the CIA never ever noticed - You`ve got to worry why it`s called the Central Intelligence Agency ? There is a minor flaw with the screenplay and that is it looks like it`s going to turn into poor old Aldrich only became a traitor because he wanted to give his family the best out of life , but it doesn`t really turn into an excuse , so why do we have to learn about his sick mother in law and his wife wanting to go to university and getting final demands left right and centre ? . But like I said it`s only a minor flaw
A good TVM and it`s interesting to note the director was John MacKenzie the same man who brought us the Brit gangster classic THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY and who also directed DEADLY VOYAGE one of the greatest made for television films ever .
!!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!
Aldrich " Rick " Ames decides he`s not getting a big enough slice of pie for working at the CIA for so many long years so decides he`s going to get his own back by selling secrets to the Soviets , and the best thing is that it`s based on fact . I did notice that one of the reviewers takes issue about the accuracy of this tale, I did see a documentary on the Ames case on the history channel and while it didn`t mention he flew to Geneva thinking it was Zurich ( Yeah this was probably invention ) it did state he did have a severe drink problem and turned up for work in brand new cars , something his colleagues at the CIA never ever noticed - You`ve got to worry why it`s called the Central Intelligence Agency ? There is a minor flaw with the screenplay and that is it looks like it`s going to turn into poor old Aldrich only became a traitor because he wanted to give his family the best out of life , but it doesn`t really turn into an excuse , so why do we have to learn about his sick mother in law and his wife wanting to go to university and getting final demands left right and centre ? . But like I said it`s only a minor flaw
A good TVM and it`s interesting to note the director was John MacKenzie the same man who brought us the Brit gangster classic THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY and who also directed DEADLY VOYAGE one of the greatest made for television films ever .
Hutton is miscast
robertb-430 August 1999
This is a straightforward retelling of the Ames saga that seldom rises above the level of a made-for-TV movie and contains a major anachronism in that the fall of the Soviet Union is shown as having come during the Clinton administration rather than the Bush administration. Timothy Hutton is seriously miscast as Ames--he's too young for the part by at least 15 years. Under the glasses and mustache that give him a superficial resemblance to Ames, his face is too fresh for a burned-out career civil servant in late middle age. Hutton was much more believable as the idealistic traitor Christopher Boyce in "The Falcon and the Snowman," a similar themed but much better film. But Elizabeth Pena is excellent as Ames' South American wife Rosario in a part that is terribly underwritten, and Joan Plowright is superb as the elderly spycatcher Jeanne Vertefeuil. Although entertaining, this is a movie that could have been much better if it had a more polished script and a bigger budget.
Massive tale of espionage and betrayal looking a bit unenthralling
jrarichards22 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
One of the things that the titular Ames of the CIA does in the film - and did in real life ... for money - is to betray his country (the USA) by alerting the KGB so that they might take action (in fact in the form of capital punishment) against Soviet spies cooperating ... with the USA. If this layer of complexity is already looking a bit tough, expect to find the movie going at least 1 or 2 higher than that - as, for example, when a Soviet defector to the USA that Ames is put in charge of (!) may well be in a position to alert the CIA to the fact that Ames as one of theirs is known to the KGB as someone who cooperates with them!
And so on and so forth in what is basically a story of routine dirty business that spawns ostensibly far dirtier business, in the sense that national borders are crossed and loyalties betrayed. But the film's early scenes are suprisingly pointed in setting up the sense of "betrayal" that Ames (played by Timothy Hutton) himself feels, as he fails to achieve promotion and sees people less able than himself rise above him. Interestingly, the makers (that's Scot John Mackenzie as Director and Michael Burton as writer) have Hutton as Ames say a lot about how unimaginative and play-it-safe CIA spooks are - and of all the comments you might have expected to come across, this was probably not one of them!
While the real-life story was obviously big news, the cheapish-looking film seems a bit dullish, even allowing for the pithy nature of some of the aforementioned insights. Nevertheless, there is no question that the thing lights up when Hutton slightly passes the baton to veteran British actress Joan Plowright, who appears as Jeanne Vertefeuille - the leader of a team of three middle-aged or even semi-elderly veteran female operatives who very subtly and painstakingly work to uncover the identity of the mole at the A. Humour sneaks in at this point (as it had very occasionally before), and Plowright shows her class without needing to try too hard.
Also surprising hits are the various not-exactly-Russian actors playing Ames's Soviet contacts. As in a film like "Bridge of Sighs", these "enemies but also realist men of the world" portrayals are surprisingly positive, with the characters showing their effusive gratitude - indeed respect - for what Ames is doing, and also epitomising that dour, pragmatic but also philosophical approach that so typifies Russians, and has some measure of admirability about it. They promise to bail Ames out and never really fail him (except when offering non-subtle advice about how to approach a polygraph test!). They are surprisingly unwilling to chastise him for his lack of faith with his own country, and all the more so for his mercenary motives originally fuelled by the aforesaid sense of injustice, together with the relatively ruthless ambition of Colombian-born second wife Rosario (coldly played by Elizabeth Pena).
Ultimately, those unaware of the story really ought to see this (but probably won't), while those with some kind of interest in this kind of thing will prefer to have this film ticked off on their list than ignored altogether; but may prove critical for either drama- or fact-related reasons, or potentially both...
And so on and so forth in what is basically a story of routine dirty business that spawns ostensibly far dirtier business, in the sense that national borders are crossed and loyalties betrayed. But the film's early scenes are suprisingly pointed in setting up the sense of "betrayal" that Ames (played by Timothy Hutton) himself feels, as he fails to achieve promotion and sees people less able than himself rise above him. Interestingly, the makers (that's Scot John Mackenzie as Director and Michael Burton as writer) have Hutton as Ames say a lot about how unimaginative and play-it-safe CIA spooks are - and of all the comments you might have expected to come across, this was probably not one of them!
While the real-life story was obviously big news, the cheapish-looking film seems a bit dullish, even allowing for the pithy nature of some of the aforementioned insights. Nevertheless, there is no question that the thing lights up when Hutton slightly passes the baton to veteran British actress Joan Plowright, who appears as Jeanne Vertefeuille - the leader of a team of three middle-aged or even semi-elderly veteran female operatives who very subtly and painstakingly work to uncover the identity of the mole at the A. Humour sneaks in at this point (as it had very occasionally before), and Plowright shows her class without needing to try too hard.
Also surprising hits are the various not-exactly-Russian actors playing Ames's Soviet contacts. As in a film like "Bridge of Sighs", these "enemies but also realist men of the world" portrayals are surprisingly positive, with the characters showing their effusive gratitude - indeed respect - for what Ames is doing, and also epitomising that dour, pragmatic but also philosophical approach that so typifies Russians, and has some measure of admirability about it. They promise to bail Ames out and never really fail him (except when offering non-subtle advice about how to approach a polygraph test!). They are surprisingly unwilling to chastise him for his lack of faith with his own country, and all the more so for his mercenary motives originally fuelled by the aforesaid sense of injustice, together with the relatively ruthless ambition of Colombian-born second wife Rosario (coldly played by Elizabeth Pena).
Ultimately, those unaware of the story really ought to see this (but probably won't), while those with some kind of interest in this kind of thing will prefer to have this film ticked off on their list than ignored altogether; but may prove critical for either drama- or fact-related reasons, or potentially both...
Fun and good movie, I recommend it
JurijFedorov24 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Not nearly as good as Breach (2007) about the worst double-agent in FBI history, Robert Hanssen. This is about the worst CIA double-agent ever. Maybe the worst leaker to USSR ever. I'm not an expert on either case to be fair as I have not read books about these specific spies. But I know a bit about them from various sites, books, and documentaries. I can judge the historical stuff to a light degree, but I know practically everything about movies. It's a TV movie that feels cheap, but it never really makes it feel fake or that lazy. It's just not pretty, doesn't have great setting or shots, doesn't have big sets, doesn't shows much besides what you expect from a movie about an office worker. I'd have liked for example to have more scenes set in Russia as he did get a lot of agents executed there by leaking their identities. Yet we only get 1 scene with American actors who memorized Russian lines. It's cringe if you know Russian and it's not showing us all the death he caused. They constantly use just random actors to play Russians. Timothy Hutton is great in this role as Ames, but he is is supposed to speak fluent Russian, of course he doesn't here. You can excuse that. But a scene set in Russia where people can't speak Russian?
The wife is amazing. Just arrogant and greedy from the get-go and doesn't mind him selling secrets to KGB as she loves spending money. We see how she worries about him getting caught then turns into a diva as the waiter comes by, genius. All actors are great, but there is not much tension anyhow so they are easy roles. Scenes are often played up for comedic effect as the director knew he didn't have a tight script to work with. Compared to Breach there is no tension-filled investigation. We just see him sell documents to KGB. Then USSR collapses. And then then CIA investigates his personal budgets and finds out that he met KGB agents right before getting a bunch of cash sent to his bank account. That's it, that's our double-agent! Breach had a full investigation step by step. We saw what they did when and often they were about to fail. Here they do work for years getting nowhere, but when they look into his personal budgets that reveals it all. Couldn't they have done that from day one? Well, in the movie maybe. But in reality they didn't just luck into finding him. They did conduct an investigation like in Breach, just smaller. They had a bunch of evidence. They surveilled him electronically, followed him everywhere, looked through his trash, had a GPS on his car. So a giant data gathering investigation that in the movie is presented as 3 old ladies just generally looking through files and only once looking at a specific thing. We never even hear about him being followed or monitored in any way. This I feel is the big mistake in the movie. The acting is great, the sets are good as it's 1998 and they didn't have to change much to make it look proper. It's just that we get basically no CIA work. We don't see Ames do real work. He just at times says some fake movie CIA words to make it look like he is working. We don't actually see what he did for CIA. We don't see the people investigating him or his bosses working. It's a lazy script this way. Breach had quite a few details about what they did and the technology they used. It felt real even though it was made much later and had a harder time finding the right sets. Constructing it all years later is way more expensive. There is also a TV show about Ames I'll watch now. It's based on a book by the investigators so likely better history wise. But maybe not as it turns into a bragging event in such a case.
We watch these movies to learn about the events and history. Docs can't give us small details about how he acted or what he did what day. A movie can, this didn't. But it's still a fun flick for sure. It's never dull and the quiet scenes are filled with random jokes or interesting events. In real life Ames was a big loser. An alcoholic as most of these double-agents are. He found a pretty woman in Mexico and divorced his wife. But she was from nobility, poor but pretentious and lavish. She wanted riches from this loser American. And he fought for a promotion, but was just too poor a worker to get anywhere in CIA. So he started to sell documents to KGB. Not quite what we see in the movie. Here Ames is young and handsome, fairly upstanding, has a young attractive wife. Everything is going well for him besides her extravagant spending. We get to see him drinking a bit too much and hear about it. But overall he's not slimy. The mole motivation is a bit forced when the character overall looks happy. He also never really looks miserable. Often these moles will be alcoholics, divorced, addicted to sex, look nervous at times. That's my overall view of them. It's a stressful job. Ames never looked even a bit worried. But the inner dialogue did help making us see he was which was great. We just never saw it.
Hence it's a movie worth a watch for sure. Quite engaging. But overall feels like a missed opportunity so show the investigation into him as we follow him here not anyone else. So we can't see what anyone else is doing. Still, historical movies are seldom fully correct. This shows the basics and it feels real enough. I personally enjoyed it quite a bit.
The wife is amazing. Just arrogant and greedy from the get-go and doesn't mind him selling secrets to KGB as she loves spending money. We see how she worries about him getting caught then turns into a diva as the waiter comes by, genius. All actors are great, but there is not much tension anyhow so they are easy roles. Scenes are often played up for comedic effect as the director knew he didn't have a tight script to work with. Compared to Breach there is no tension-filled investigation. We just see him sell documents to KGB. Then USSR collapses. And then then CIA investigates his personal budgets and finds out that he met KGB agents right before getting a bunch of cash sent to his bank account. That's it, that's our double-agent! Breach had a full investigation step by step. We saw what they did when and often they were about to fail. Here they do work for years getting nowhere, but when they look into his personal budgets that reveals it all. Couldn't they have done that from day one? Well, in the movie maybe. But in reality they didn't just luck into finding him. They did conduct an investigation like in Breach, just smaller. They had a bunch of evidence. They surveilled him electronically, followed him everywhere, looked through his trash, had a GPS on his car. So a giant data gathering investigation that in the movie is presented as 3 old ladies just generally looking through files and only once looking at a specific thing. We never even hear about him being followed or monitored in any way. This I feel is the big mistake in the movie. The acting is great, the sets are good as it's 1998 and they didn't have to change much to make it look proper. It's just that we get basically no CIA work. We don't see Ames do real work. He just at times says some fake movie CIA words to make it look like he is working. We don't actually see what he did for CIA. We don't see the people investigating him or his bosses working. It's a lazy script this way. Breach had quite a few details about what they did and the technology they used. It felt real even though it was made much later and had a harder time finding the right sets. Constructing it all years later is way more expensive. There is also a TV show about Ames I'll watch now. It's based on a book by the investigators so likely better history wise. But maybe not as it turns into a bragging event in such a case.
We watch these movies to learn about the events and history. Docs can't give us small details about how he acted or what he did what day. A movie can, this didn't. But it's still a fun flick for sure. It's never dull and the quiet scenes are filled with random jokes or interesting events. In real life Ames was a big loser. An alcoholic as most of these double-agents are. He found a pretty woman in Mexico and divorced his wife. But she was from nobility, poor but pretentious and lavish. She wanted riches from this loser American. And he fought for a promotion, but was just too poor a worker to get anywhere in CIA. So he started to sell documents to KGB. Not quite what we see in the movie. Here Ames is young and handsome, fairly upstanding, has a young attractive wife. Everything is going well for him besides her extravagant spending. We get to see him drinking a bit too much and hear about it. But overall he's not slimy. The mole motivation is a bit forced when the character overall looks happy. He also never really looks miserable. Often these moles will be alcoholics, divorced, addicted to sex, look nervous at times. That's my overall view of them. It's a stressful job. Ames never looked even a bit worried. But the inner dialogue did help making us see he was which was great. We just never saw it.
Hence it's a movie worth a watch for sure. Quite engaging. But overall feels like a missed opportunity so show the investigation into him as we follow him here not anyone else. So we can't see what anyone else is doing. Still, historical movies are seldom fully correct. This shows the basics and it feels real enough. I personally enjoyed it quite a bit.
Meat and potatoes spy movie, could use a bit more suspense
tyguy-212 August 2002
I love spy flicks and this time we have Hutton revisiting a similar role to his character in Falcon and the Snowman although he's in a vehicle that doens't treat us to the action and intrigue that Falcon had. This one is more of a meat and potatoes offering. This movie is based on the real Aldrich Ames, who was the CIA operative who sold secrets to the Russians as the Cold War was winding down in the late 80s. Hutton does well as Ames as we see the character become disillusioned not with the idea of democracy, but with how the system operates. Ames does not quite fit in with the ex-frat boys he is working with but takes his lumps as he is passed over in being promoted. Obviously more intelligent than most of his cohorts, he becomes dismayed at how his ideas are put aside to make room for decisions based on policy rather than policy based on information gathered from intelligence operations. The movie glosses over parts of the story and details that might have made it more suspenseful. Hutton might be a bit young to for the role of a burnt-out career government worker, but it doesn't detract that much from the story. Pena also does well as his Columbian wife but her role is somewhat diminished by lack of screen time. And there is a little old lady who plays a consultant to the CIA that is given the task of figuring out who the spy is. She and her crack team of old hens suprised me with their no-nonsense, dogged determination to get to the bottom of the thing. As far as spy movies go, this one is ok. I liked it, but it lacked depth of classic spy flicks. Others that I recommend would be Spy Who Came in from the Cold, Falcon/Snowman as mentioned above, and No Way Out.
Timothy Hutton at work
Abby-921 April 2000
Fascinating to see Timothy Hutton nearly disappear into this role, using subtleties to create the alcoholic, intellectual persona inside whose head there is a lot of action we don't otherwise see. A thoughtful movie. The meetings held in cocktail lounge/restaurants were interesting.
Spy movie that could have been better
bellino-angelo201428 August 2023
I like a good spy from time to time and since I kinda liked THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN I knew that one day or another I should have watched ALDRICH AMES TRAITOR WITHIN. Well, last June I finally saw it but it wasn't on the level of that other movie.
Aldrich Ames (Timothy Hutton) is a CIA operative that has problems at work because of his alcoholism and trouble in being awake, and in fact he is far from receiving a promotion. But he is also smarter than his cohorts and becomes dismayed when his ideas are put aside to make room for decisions based on policy. As Ames has to sell secrets to the Russians in the waning days of Cold War, the CIA and the FBI in 1993 investigate on Ames through electronic surveillance for tracking his movements, up until he was found, arrested and forced to serve a life sentence (and the real Ames is still serving it to this day).
Hutton, Joan Plowright and Elizabeth Pena did their best with the average material given. But what ruined the movie for me was that despite it's based on a true story in some points the lead's actions surpassed credibility and in some points it was hard to follow. If there was some action and the characters were more involving, I probably would have liked it more.
Aldrich Ames (Timothy Hutton) is a CIA operative that has problems at work because of his alcoholism and trouble in being awake, and in fact he is far from receiving a promotion. But he is also smarter than his cohorts and becomes dismayed when his ideas are put aside to make room for decisions based on policy. As Ames has to sell secrets to the Russians in the waning days of Cold War, the CIA and the FBI in 1993 investigate on Ames through electronic surveillance for tracking his movements, up until he was found, arrested and forced to serve a life sentence (and the real Ames is still serving it to this day).
Hutton, Joan Plowright and Elizabeth Pena did their best with the average material given. But what ruined the movie for me was that despite it's based on a true story in some points the lead's actions surpassed credibility and in some points it was hard to follow. If there was some action and the characters were more involving, I probably would have liked it more.
This is an excellent spy movie
Cinephilos8 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen many movies about actual espionage cases, such as the Cambridge Five or Robert Hassen stories. But Traitor Within tops them all. This movie does not dramatize the story unnecessarily. It doesn't add flair to make the story more interesting. Nevertheless the movie is riveting and interesting.
Especially it does a great job of explaining why Ames turned to selling out U.S. secrets to the Russians. I saw several versions of Robert Hanssen movies, but none of them really explained why he did what he did. Also the Cambridge Five movies over-emphasized womanizing and side details. But the Traitor Within hit the nail on the head: Ames had money problems, he had an expensive wife to maintain, and he was alienated in the CIA. Furthermore, he discovered that his own father, who also had worked for the CIA, had not fit in with the CIA and had received poor assessment for his work.
Also the movie does a great job portraying the inner psychology of Ames. How he fears that he might be discovered. How he fears that a Soviet defector might recognize him. How he's afraid of a polygraph test. Ames had to betray more agents in order to protect himself.
Considering the quality of the movie, I am surprised that this movie has not enjoyed better reviews and wider acclaim. For some reason people seem more interested in Robert Hanssen story, but Ames' betrayal of the CIA was more interesting as a spy drama.
Especially it does a great job of explaining why Ames turned to selling out U.S. secrets to the Russians. I saw several versions of Robert Hanssen movies, but none of them really explained why he did what he did. Also the Cambridge Five movies over-emphasized womanizing and side details. But the Traitor Within hit the nail on the head: Ames had money problems, he had an expensive wife to maintain, and he was alienated in the CIA. Furthermore, he discovered that his own father, who also had worked for the CIA, had not fit in with the CIA and had received poor assessment for his work.
Also the movie does a great job portraying the inner psychology of Ames. How he fears that he might be discovered. How he fears that a Soviet defector might recognize him. How he's afraid of a polygraph test. Ames had to betray more agents in order to protect himself.
Considering the quality of the movie, I am surprised that this movie has not enjoyed better reviews and wider acclaim. For some reason people seem more interested in Robert Hanssen story, but Ames' betrayal of the CIA was more interesting as a spy drama.
A flop
newjersian8 March 2020
Watching this movie was like reading the Wikipedia information on Ames. The movie is dry and schematic, without the characters development and no artistic details. It is done in a primitive and even amateurish manner. Having such a great factual materials, its creators produced a boring flop.
The most dangerous spy story of deceit starring Timothy Hutton.
discostu-51 December 1998
This movie follows the story of Aldrich Ames, the most dangerous spy in the history of the CIA. It stars Timothy Hutton, who also played a spy in The Falcon and the Snowman. It was very interesting to see how he fell into the life of a spy and how he was able to avoid detection for some 8 years. It was also interesting to see how the CIA works from the inside, assuming that this movie is somewhat accurate in its depection. Overall, I would recommend this movie especially if you are someone who likes spy movies or movies about government ineptitude.
Well...
mike-112419 March 2000
...they got the date he was arrested right. If you really want to find out factual information on this subject, try searching for press releases. This would have made a good story if it were fiction...but unfortunately they didn't bother to do any research (officials at the Russian embassy DO NOT have secure lines into CIA headquarters). This movie isn't worth anyone's time.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
