Charlie Wilson's War (Widescreen) Reviews

• Charlie did it!

  
  By A3AVJCB1ZD6ZY5 on 2007-12-24
  It's amazing what a few committed believers can do. In 1979, Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks), a good timin' Texas Congressman finds Dan Rather doing a remote report in war-torn Afghanistan more interesting than a hot tub full of gorgeous naked women, drugs, and booze.
  
  Next thing he knows, the sixth wealthiest woman in Texas and his sometime lover, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) invites him to a fundraiser. She's a bit right of center for him, but he goes--for the sex as much as anything probably.
  
  He comes away with a mission. Start a war. If the US can arm Afghani rebels, they can stop Soviet encroachment into the Middle East--which would probably have ended with the Russians owning most of the oilfields and us out in the cold--quite literally.
  
  "Charlie Wilson's War" is based on the true story of Texas' 2nd District US Congressman who literally did initiate the clandestine help the US gave the Afghani rebels. He, with a little help from his friends, increased the budget for help for these efforts from 5M to 1B within a 7 year time frame enabling the Afghanis to be the first country to defeat Russia and effectively end the "Cold War."
  
  "Charlie Wilson's War" is by far the best film I've seen this Christmas season and I would not be surprised if it didn't win Oscars for picture of the year. Tom Hanks does an amazing job as the flawed man, who was a true patriot and humanitarian. Ms. Roberts does the over-the-top Texas heiress just right. Also, no surprise that Philip Seymour Hoffman blew us away as the rogue CIA agent, Gust Avrakolos.
  
  The soundtrack, by Toto alumnus James Newton Howard, was the perfect accompaniment to the visuals. Mr. Howard has a way of picking just the right song to illustrate a time, emotion, or place. That CD is on my Wish List now.
  
  The movie took you on the gamut of emotions from amusement, to horror, to suspense. How they managed to so succinctly cover almost a decade worth of machinations in an hour and a half still amazes me.
  
  I wasn't the only person amazed. It seems several couples who'd come out of the film decided to eat at the same restaurant and the talk about "Charlie Wilson's War" was appreciative all around.
  
  I'm definitely buying this DVD when it becomes available and possibly will see the movie one more time before it leaves the big screen. This one is definitely worth a second watch.
  
  
  
  
  

• Entertaining film, but a bit one-sided

  
  By A3MOF5KF93Q6WE on 2008-01-02
  Charlie Wilson's War is directed by Mike Nichols. The film stars Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ned Beatty, Om Puri, Amy Adams, Emily Blunt, Shiri Appleby, Rachel Nichols, Christopher Denham, Ken Stott, and Tracy Phillips. The musical score is contributed by James Newton Howard. The film is based on George Crile's book of the same name.
  
  Charlie Wilson's War is based on the true story of Charles Wilson, a Texas Congressman. Wilson is a Congressman, but he's not above womanizing, drinking heavily, and attending lavish parties. The film follows his efforts to get modern weaponry into the Middle East, which at the had been overrun by the Soviet Union. Urged to get involved in the crisis by his communism-dreading casual love interest, he visits the Eastern world and is immediately moved to further help the people in crisis. He teams up with a distraught CIA man who doesn't seem to get credit for his efforts with the company, even after two decades - and the twosome make every effort possible to push for more American support to the troubled Middle Easterners.
  
  Ultimately, this film is a mixed bag. The acting and characters are excellent, the pacing dead-on, and the sharp humor adds greatly to the experience. The film is witty and informative, and never outstays its welcome. But it's certainly not perfect. In a lot of ways it's a one-sided story that almost never touches on the aftermath of these events. Because of this, it often feels like the film is glorifying the events it chronicles. Still, despite its flaws, it's a good film for what it is.
  
  Acting in this film is top notch, definitely one of the great strengths this film has working for it. The always-excellent Tom Hanks plays the title Congressman, and delivers a terrific performance. He does a great job, playing a man who definitely cares about his political issues, but isn't against partying and drinking. Definitely one of the Hanks' more interesting roles. By far the stand-out member of the cast is Philip Seymour Hoffman, playing Gust Avrakotos, the troubled CIA man who agrees to help Wilson, simply because, in his own words, he's "not doing anything else." In a lot of ways I found his character more interesting and entertaining than the title character. This guy could easily have been made the main character, and perhaps that would have made for a slightly more memorable movie. Also excellent is Julia Roberts as Wilson's on-again off-again casual love interest. Despite the film's issues, I won't argue with the performances.
  
  Despite Mike Nichols' directional style giving the film a feel all its own, which is largely entertaining, the film gets bogged down in too many issues. Mainly, this move only tells half the story - and nothing of the disastrous aftermath. We see the conflict with the Soviets and the Middle East, and when the battle between the two sides is all said and done, the movie wraps up on a positive note. Apart from the occasional quote from Avrakotos and a quote displayed on screen prior to the credits, the aftermath leading up to modern times doesn't get touched on at all. Because of little issues like this, the film has a tendency to feel like it's glorifying the conflict and Wilson's involvement. If you go into the film with little knowledge of the conflict, you'll most likely be left confused at a few points in the film. And even if you do have knowledge, you'll be disappointed that the movie doesn't go more in depth, and explores the aftermath, and the connections with modern, relevant events.
  
  Ultimately, Charlie Wilson's War is an enjoyable film. My rating for the film is about a three-and-a-half (of five), but since Amazon doesn't let you give half stars, I'll round up to four. If you're looking for something witty, entertaining, and historically significant, check this one out. I have major issues with certain aspects of this film as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, but despite my reservations, I'll give it a marginal recommendation.
  
  Thumbs up.
  
  

• What a Difference One Man Can Make

  
  By A3EE0H0NWQ9QVL on 2008-01-08
  (3.5 *'s) Lascivious, witty, yet folksy, US Representative Charlie Wilson had a plan. An inveterate jet-setter, "Good Time Charlie's" main motivation in Congress seemed to be for the expense account. In an opening scene we find him hot-tubbing in a swanky suite in a Las Vegas hotel. Joining him in the Jacuzzi are topless strippers who warm up nicely to the Congressman. He casually discusses investing money for a TV show with Crestoff, a friend and business associate. Cavalier at every turn, he still has enough wits about him to engage in politics even while chasing women. After all, that's how some of them become politicians.
  
  One of his romantic and political ties is former fiance, Joanna Herring (Julia Roberts), a wealthy born-again Christian who's described by his main staffer (Amy Adams) as "ultra right-wing". She has a mission for her second district Texas (D) Congressman. Staunchly anti-communist, she has bought him a flight to talk the President of Pakistan about providing arms to Afghanistan in their war against The Soviet Union.
  
  It's an offer he can't refuse. On his visit, he demonstrates a lack of protocol when he requests an alcoholic beverage in a palace that doesn't allow much less serve a drop. (In one funny scene after being taken to task, Wilson quips, "You're told you have character flaws from someone who hung his predecessor in a military coup.") From there she has him hopping his way through the Middle East getting support for a plan for infiltrating arms for the peasants' resistance of the Soviet attacks. Since most of the attacks are from helicopters, Wilson negotiates with Israel, the ones who have the largest stockpile of Soviet weapons. The logistics of negotiation, getting Israel and Egypt to work together, you can imagine, would be a piece of work.
  
  Close on his heels back in the States is CIA operative Gus (Philip Seymour Hoffman), an irascible man who won't be pushed aside as a player in The Cold War. When Wilson and Gus cross paths, Gus doesn't think Wilson will walk the walk. He's seen it all on Capital Hill before. So how refreshing it becomes for Gus when Wilson proves to be a wheeler dealer of Texas-sized proportions. Wilson works to convince the committee chairman (Ned Beatty) to double the funds for assisting the Afghans while keeping the covert operation under the radar.
  
  Meanwhile, his partying comes to roost when news stories trickle into his Congressional office about alleged cocaine use. Unflappable Charlie regards the charges like a pesky fly, but he relies heavily on an all-female staff who, despite their prowess at damage control, were hired much less on typing resumes than what their cleavages revealed. Crestoff, it seems, whom he turned down for his TV show sponsorship, double-crossed him, with an investigation linked all the way to New York and Rudy Guiliani.
  
  `Charlie Wilson's War' is a thoroughly entertaining and inspiring movie. There are plenty of laughs to go along with the insight, and the film proves the honored wisdom that if you want reform, you have to see it. Just as some people needed to see African Americans hosed, beaten, and confronted by attack dogs on TV, Charlie is truly moved when he sees first hand the refugee masses in Afghanistan and the terrible atrocities done to their children.
  
  Like all historical fiction, there may be a few liberties taken with the truth. Recent articles have raised objections about the connections to Bin Laden for the arms arrangements. Whether this is true or not, the movie is an entertaining and informative look at a secret operation before "covert operations" became a dirty word. There has to be a lot of truth to it, even it allegedly fails with a detail or two.
  
  One of the most gratifying aspects of the movie is that the previews are perfect. Neither spoiling its contents nor misleading, the trailer is what it should always be: a warm up, a superb taster, leaving much more that is worth seeing. 'Charlie Wilson's War' has good performances and solid developments without a wasted word or scene. The movie may not be Oscar worthy, but it's a very satisfying movie to watch in every way.
  
  

• Consequences of Wheeling 'n Dealing on a Global Scale

  
  By A2SRZQU1SZG4RR on 2008-01-06
  Senator Charlie Wilson from Lufkin, Texas, a ruggedly handsome man, who was a committed anti-Communist, with a few character flaws, who loved to have a good time, enjoyed alcohol and was a ladies' man ... became one of the unsung heros of the Afghanistan War. He was the only civilian to ever receive recognition and honor by the C.I.A. for his part in helping to drive the Russians out from Afghanistan. This film is based on the true stories written by the author George Crile in his book, "Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA Agent Changed the History of Our Times". Essentially, there are two formulas to win this war on a global scale: the first is, "money + power = secret arms deals" and the second is, "clandestinely obtained weapons + motivated Afghani fighters = success". Serendipity often comes into play when success occurs on a global scale and Charlie Wilson seemed to benefit both from the unexpected and unknown ...
  
  Charlie Wilson was sitting in a hot tub at Caesar's Palace with three young ladies, two of whom were strippers, and some male business partners, when he first saw Dan Rather on assignment in Afghanistan, presenting the plight of the mujahideen. Dan Rather described the difficulty they had fighting the Russians who had superior technology and arms. When he returned to Washington, he read the teletype from API, UPI, and Reuters and asked the C.I.A. how much was in their budget for clandestine operations in Afghanistan. He was told $5 million dollars, he quickly told them, "double it" [Charlie Wilson happened to be on the Senate Appropriations Committee]. From that point forward, Charlie Wilson was committed to helping free the Afghanistan people from Russian control ...
  
  Tom Hanks does a superb job in playing the role of Charlie Wilson. At some point, he was contacted by Joanne Herring (played to perfection by Julia Roberts) who is a wealthy socialite from Texas who recently became a 'born again' Christian. She knew President Zia, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and arranged for Charlie Wilson to meet this Pakistani leader. He pled his case that the Afghanistan fighters needed better weapons to fight the Russians. He wanted the US to provide weapons *but* wanted Parkistan to control their distribution. More than 1/5 of the population of Afghanistan had escaped across the border to Pakistan and lived in squalid conditions due to the war with the Russians. At another point in the film, Charlie Wilson had a visit from Gust Avratakos, a rather independently minded C.I.A. agent [which got him into hot water with his superiors] ... who also had a stake in helping free Afghanistan. These two unlikely partners dealt in secret deals and meetings with an Israeli weapons and arms agent. They obtained the needed Stinger anti-aircraft missles for the Afghani fighters to use against the Russian bombers which turned the war around completely. At some point in the film, Charlie Wilson had gotten political and economic support from Doc Long, another Senator who had strong religious beliefs. He committed his total support to Charlie Wilson's position in this war.
  
  While Charlie Wilson may be viewed as a flawed hero, he and Gust Avratakos single-handedly provided the weapons and arms needed by the mujahideen to win the war against the Russians. Amazingly enough, as time passed, the 10 million dollars initially committed to this clandestine venture turned into $500 billion dollars. Few men can fund a pet program and spend money of this magnitude and get away with it. This film does a superb job of presenting the circumstances and particular events which showed how the nearly impossible became reality. In many ways and on many levels, the film presents events in too much of a simplistic and entertaining fashion, for which I deduct one star. No doubt, the book is more thorough and complete in providing the complex details which led to the success which Charlie Wilson and Gust Avratakos achieved. Nevertheless, this is a most enjoyable and well done film. Erika Borsos [pepper flower]
  
  

• Entertaining, but hopelessly inaccurate

  
  By AJYGQV81FSFE2 on 2008-01-14
  I'm going out on a limb here as most people adore the film. As an entertaining movie it's okay.
  
  While I'm as far from a prude as humanly possible, one may question Wilson's morality; you may recall the system did that with Bill Clinton to the point that they kept him occupied with it for years. The film brushed aside Wilson's goings-on with some women of dubious moral stature, particularly the filthy rich, ultra-right woman, played by Julia Roberts, who funded many of Wilson's endeavors--and in whom he indulged. The film just brushed aside this behavior, as if it were nothing more than a public relations blunder. I feel uncomfortable with that brush off, as it's what would cause much of the general public to challenge Wilson's stature right off.
  
  (The Washington Post had a lengthy piece on Wilson just about the time the film came out, confirming much of that behavior, though questioning some details, e.g., the cleavage of some of Wilson's staff.)
  
  Other reviewers have gone over the themes of the film so I won't reiterate them. At the end of the film, I was concerned--uncomfortable-- that there was minimal attention paid to the consequences of the Afghanistan maneuvers. Has anyone heard of a Saudi civil engineer and economist by the name of Osama bin Laden? He's one of the consequences. Or "the base?" (In Arabic Al Qaeda?) Another consequence.
  
  So I felt uncomfortable with the film without, frankly, much detail on why I felt that way. Then I was sent a review by Chalmers Johnson in which he referred to the film as an "Imperialist Comedy." Johnson took my discomfort and put far more substance to it. For instance, what I didn't know is that the US involvement in Afghanistan took place before the USSR had invaded. It was an attempt to bring a self-destructive, Vietnam-type experience to the Soviets. While that's at least dubious legally, if not illegal, it's something that needs to be discussed, not disregarged as the film did.
  
  Further, Wilson did all this conspiring without a word from his colleagues or consituency. In this, a democracy? Hmmm. Do your own thing, I guess.
  
  Aaron Sorkin, who wrote the screenplay, had originally included a line from CIA operative Gus Avrakotos, played very well by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, which goes, "Remember I said this: There's going to be a day when we're gonna look back and say, 'I'd give anything if [Afghanistan] were overrun with Godless communists.'" That line was elimated from the script.
  
  So the consequences of the US/Israeli involvement were barely covered by the film, though it's a preoccupation of a country today--one by which we can find ourselves victims with no culpability for those consequences.
  
  In short, the film didn't address the blowback of what we'd done, and at least implicitly makes a hero out of a man who did his own thing despite the consequences. We can get on the "get them Russians" bandwagon, while as usual ignoring the US experiences in Vietnam and elsewhere. We can laugh at what Wilson got away with, relative to a president who was in office at the same time. But, while we sold the Afghans some missiles to counter the technically superior Soviets, there WERE consequences for which we continue to pay. And the film barely touched them.
  
  
• Party-ing Politics
  By A1JV4QKTEB7QBL on 2007-12-27
  Back in the days before the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, a slick Democrat Congressman from Lufkin, Texas named Charlie Wilson almost single-handedly insured that the Afghans had the fire power necessary to rip the invading Soviet air force to shreds. Don't know about you, but I remember news footage of Soviet troops retreating from Afghanistan, but I never heard the name Charles Nesbitt Wilson until just a few days ago.
  
  Director Mike Nichols along with screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (West Wing) gives us a fast-paced, never-boring hour-and-a-half romp that takes us on a magical carpet ride from the moment Charlie becomes aware of the Afghans plight---this bell went off in his head amidst the clinking of ice in a Scotch tumbler in a Las Vegas hot tub with a bevy of buxom strippers - to the ecstatic moment of mujahedeen rejoicing with victory arm-raised anti-aircraft weaponry. Thankfully, Nichols and Sorkin don't annoy us with any sanctimonious dribble or agenda conscious propaganda with regard to the upcoming 2008 presidential campaigns. Instead they tell a thoroughly enjoyable tall but nevertheless true tale of the high flying world of politicians, covert agents, world leaders, rich altruistic benefactresses and a few big breasted, tight-skirted bimbettes that crumble willingly in the presence of Washington power.
  
  The usually good guy persona of Tom Hanks gets traded in for that of the overblown high drinking roué, Charlie Wilson, that surrounds himself with hot girls and aged single malt 24/7. Hanks must have had a ball with this role--he looks easy and relaxed--in a paunchy second skin that fits about him like the fumes emitted from the high octane gas pump. As he rolls with the punches on the Hill, Hanks as Wilson especially sparkles while volleying intelligent zingers back and forth with Philip Seymour Hoffman who plays rough and ready CIA operative, Gust Avrakotos. Together, Hanks and Hoffman deftly maneuver the film through scenes with heads of state who historically do nothing but butt heads, effervescent cocktail parties and fund raisers where church-going Christian zealots pull out the stops to ensure a jihad that stamps out the spread of communism, and midnight meetings of white-shirted chess-playing nerds that phases out a battle in the Cold War with dollars and ingenuity. Along with Hanks and Hoffman, Julia Roberts stands tall as the indomitable Joanne Herring, a Texas heiress intent of foiling the Soviet Union with Southern Baptist good time religion, international influence and plenty of bucks. Despite the frou-frou hair, Julia does what she does best---creates, albeit humorously, a Julia manikin that seems larger than life. While stealing every scene with her big hair, big teeth and sly eyes, she wields more power than any of the men, wrapping them all around her little finger with the finesse of the Hope diamond.
  
  Bottom line? "Charlie Wilson's War" gallops through the story of how the Afghan resistance caged the mighty Soviet bear with the covert help of an extremely functional triumvirate consisting of Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Mixing two parts sex with three parts booze and 3oo million parts black appropriations concocts a Molotov cocktail that skyrockets enough Soviet Mil Mi-24 helicopters to the moon while depicting diplomacy and politics at their humorous and implemental best. Fast and fun, this film is recommended to all those who like their history neat without a beer chaser.
  Diana Faillace Von Behren
  "reneofc"
  
  
  
• Stunning Movie!
  By AUGABW5AS2OXM on 2008-01-06
  Charlie Wilson was our Congressman from 1972 until his retirement. He
  had always proven to be effective in handling social security and veteran's benefits problems for the citizens of his district. He had the
  nickname of "Timber Charlie" because of his relationship with Temple Industries. He was also known as "Good Time Charlie" for his partying
  reputation. He was made aware of the Afghanistan situation by Houston
  socialite JoAnn Herring(ably portrayed by Julia Roberts). At her insistance he made the journey to Afghanista. He was shocked at the cruel treatment the citizens were suffering at the hands of the Soviets. He was
  further shocked at the primitive weapons that were being used by the mujadeen warriors. This became a personal cause for Wilson. He joined forces with a CIA agent played by Philip Hoffman. Using favors that he had gathered in Congress and his knowhow of the operations of Congress Wilson started enlarging the budget for the Afghanistan cause. Through this the Afghanis managed to obtain modern weapons to shoot down helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Thanks to these budget increases made
  possible by Wilson the tide turned in Afghanistan. The Afghanis eventually defeated the Soviets. This is one of the better movies that you will see this year. It makes me proud to have known Charlie Wilson.
  
  
• an old-fashioned star vehicle
  By A19ZXK9HHVRV1X on 2008-01-08
  In 1980, Charlie Wilson was an obscure Texas congressman, more notable for his folksy manner and serial womanizing than for any legislative accomplishments. Until, that is, he became actively involved in getting Congress to covertly fund some badly needed weapon shipments to the Afghani freedom fighters - also known as the Mujahadim - in their battle against the Soviet invaders. It was these arms, particularly the anti-aircraft guns, that helped to turn the tide of the war in the Afghanis' favor and made them the only force in history to defeat the Soviet army. Wilson was greatly inspired by a wealthy, right-wing socialite by the name of Joanne Herring who took up the Afghani's cause almost as a personal crusade.
  
  Though glitzy and superficial at times, Mike Nichols' "Charlie Wilson's War," based on the book by George Crile, is a generally entertaining romp thanks to the performances of its mega-watt stars, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman, and to the breezy, crackling dialogue by scenarist Aaron Sorkin, of TV's "West Wing" fame. Hanks has rarely seemed as confident and commanding in a role as he is here, and Roberts clearly relishes playing a woman who is both icily elegant and strangely vulnerable at one and the same time. In their sizzling scenes together, the two old pros conjure up memories of some of the great screen couples of the past like Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, Myrna Loy and William Powell who knew what it meant to be movie stars and could convey that larger-than-life quality on screen.
  
  These virtues more than compensate for the film's tendency to oversimplify the political and historical issues of the times and for a somewhat disjointed quality in the story's structure. Despite the generally light-hearted tone of the piece, the movie ends on an admirably sober note, showing how what was initially seen as a triumph for American foreign policy might in actuality have been the catalyst for the events that would culminate in 9/11 (the sound of an airliner roaring overhead near the end of the film seems to foreshadow that seminal event).
  
  In contrast to some of the year's earlier, more heavy-handed (yet also more substantive) political dramas, "Charlie Wilson's War" is one social studies lesson that goes down easy - though it should be noted that "War," with its big-name stars, lighter tone, and safer, less topical subject matter, earns fewer points for audacity and courage than those others do.
  
  
• Should have been re-scripted and called "Ronald Reagan's War"
  By ABP0RCZCVMRRG on 2008-01-23
  Charlie Wilson was an important player in helping to rid Afghanistan of the Soviets, but history shows it was Ronald Reagan and his team, Bill Casey in the CIA, etc., who were the constant and most powerful organizing agents to send the missiles to shoot down Soviet helicopters, and who established policy directives to make the Soviets pay a high price for their invasion and barbarism in Afghanistan -- which was but one facet of the COMINTERN's push for world domination, of the Cold War. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, but that's typical Hollywood leftism, not to mention the 100 million victims of communist atrocity during the 20th Century. A good summary article on this is "Hollywood's Sins of Omission" By: Dr. Paul Kengor, which can easily be found on internet. Hollywood typically screws up history (just look at the seditious conduct of many top stars), either trying to make the Americans the bad-guys of history and current events, twisting history to make a celebrity star appear more heroic by making his enemy more villainous (as in Mel Gibson's "The Patriot", where a British officer was falsely tarnished as a mass-murderer of civilians), Speilberg's inserting the obligatory American soldier machine-gunning captured German prisoners at Normandy (the reverse happened many times, in fact), or outright falsely claiming Americans accomplished things -- as with the rescuing of the Enigma machine from a captured Nazi U-boat -- which actually was an heroic mission pulled off by the British. The lesson is, don't trust your history or current-events to Hollywood and the glamor-crowd.
  
  
• Boozehound, womanizer, hero...Charlie's secret wars
  By A6DOCZ10B7JAJ on 2008-05-07
  Well, I guess after a couple of decades the mission goes from HUSH HUSH to RUSH RUSH lets make some entertainment $. I assure you this is no boring political docudrama. It's the account of how Congressman Charlie Wilson played an integral part in putting an end to the Cold War.
  
  Wilson (Hanks) was the most unlikely candidate. His interests seemed more geared toward alcohol and women (Wahoo!) than political matters.
  His office is filled with gorgeous ladies, which erected his saying "You can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits". Too funny!
  This story is filled with interesting characters, and the acting is stellar throughout. A few people pool their resources (money, sex appeal, knowledge, contacts, political power) to turn the tides of battle, helping Afghanistan sustain and overcome the Soviet invasion.
  
  It's amazing to think about the effects these covert operations had on the course of history. This movie also gives a somewhat indepth look at the U.S. political system. I couldn't help but get the feeling the true dark side of Mr. Wilson's life wasn't adequately exposed though. Still this movie dishes out a great deal of information in a short span, all done in entertaining fashion. Two thumbs up!
  
  
• Some Heavy Artillery Here
  By A9I40WFF40R4 on 2007-12-22
  In theatres just in time for the Christmas season and Oscar and Golden Globe nominations "Charlie Wilson's War" is armed with some heavy artillery with Oscar winners all over the place including director Mike Nichols and actors Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman. The screenplay is by Aaron Sorkin of " The West Wing" fame that is based on the book by George Crile about Democratic Congressman Charlie Wilson's covert efforts in the 1980's to aid the Afghan mujahaideen's fight against the Russians. Wilson was successful in getting Congressional subcommittees to increase funding for the war from five million dollars to one billion before the Russians were run out of Afghanistan.
  
  The acting here is first class. Hanks plays the happy-go-lucky Charlie Wilson who likes strippers and parties but is a patriot at heart. With his braces and cowboy boots, but more importantly, his sensitive eyes and facial expressions he becomes the character he portrays and is totally believable, even if you know nothing about Wilson himself, who was a consultant on the movie and recently underwent a successful heart transplant. Roberts with a lot of blonde hair is Joanne Herring, a Texas socialite, who hates communists and sometimes sleeps with Wilson. Being a proper Georgia girl and not wanting to bring her daddy to public shame she dons a bikini for this film but she's not about to do a nude scene. Hanks picks up the slack, however, as he appears in the altogether with strippers early on in the film. Philip Seymour Hoffman as a CIA agent is over the top. It is obvious that he can do anything since this role is a far cry from his Oscar winning role recently as the wincing Truman Capote.
  
  While the actors play this movie for laughs-- and there are plenty of them-- underneath the parties and bubble and hilarity, this film is as serious as stretch marks and scarier than watching the evening news. Wilson's whole endeavor, however, never made the news and raises the question that haunts many of us: what similar events may be being carried out by a few members of those who govern us and how long will it take to be uncovered, if ever?
  
  This movie is not to be missed.
  
  
• And Then We F***** Up The Rest of the World
  By A1TPW86OHXTXFC on 2008-04-25
  'A liberal as well as a libertine, Charlie Wilson finds common cause (among other satisfactions) with Joanne Herring, a right-wing Houston socialite who loves Jesus and martinis and hates Communism. She is a splendid American contradiction, standing up for liberty and godliness while getting into bed (literally) with a bachelor congressman and (metaphorically) with President Zia (Om Puri), the military ruler of Pakistan. And, after all was said and done, Charlie says "And then we fucked up the rest of the world." AO Scott
  
  Charlie Wilson, was an unapologetic womanizer, cocaine user, alcohol lover and all around good guy., The kind of congressman any sane person would want to avoid. Not me, if I knew my congressman was akin to Charlie Wilson I would walk on water to see that he won office again. Charlie got things done, he had heart and he loved, what is more important in this world? Tom Hanks portrays him perfectly. Joanne Herring played by Julia Roberts is the perfect foil. A lovely blond bombshell who was intelligent and wanted to make the world a better place. She said she loved the Lord and that's how she portrayed her works to the world and to the people who she was able to enlist to help her. The winner in my mind is Philip Seymour Hoffman who plays Gust Avrakotos, a C.I.A. operative. He does not care whose feet he steps on, he just gets the job done. His ability to clear the air of any fanciful misunderstandings is well worth the price of the film.
  
  Charlie Wilson is asked by Joanne to help the Afghan's, and it is not until he visits the refugee camps that he fully understands the need. Isn't that the way it always is? He is convinced and for the next ten years he does whatever it takes to turn the first $5 million into one billion dollars. When all is said and done, however, we leave Afghanistan in a mess and of course, today we see the result to a country in chaos- the terrorists take over.
  
  "Charlie Wilson's War is a journalistic satire of realpolitik in which our jerry-rigged alliances, which looked strategic at the time, end up biting the U.S. in unforeseen ways. Hovering over the film is the audience's realization that the Afghan war, while it hastened the downfall of the Soviet Union, created the breeding ground for an arguably more toxic threat: the jihad radicals who had nothing but hatred for the West (even as they were only too happy to use its rocket launchers). It says Charlie was right to fight his war -- if only Congress had had the will to support his reconstruction dream!" Owen Gleiberman
  
  I loved the reality of this film- it was fun but with such a good message. Charlie Wilson is a man whom we would all want to be part of our lives. He actually gets things done in government. It took a woman to show him what was really needed, but once he got the fever he worked wholeheartedly for the Afghans. The film's ending was not to my liking, but I can over look that one error. Everyone should see this film, see what can be done when some one has a vision.
  
  Highly recommended. prisrob 04-24-08
  
  Road to Perdition (Widescreen Edition)
  
  
  
  
• Extremely disappointing
  By A1U14XFT3H5O45 on 2008-05-04
  I can't understand how can anybody take this movie seriously. It is such a cliche, as well as shallow, pseudo-patriotic, chauvinistic and syrupy. Historical and technical facts are shamelessly distorted. I always liked and respected all the great actors that act here: Roberts, Hanks and Hoffman, it is disturbing to see them play here.
  
  
• An Eye Opener
  By A28OB1QLXN5BM6 on 2008-04-07
  I knew next to nothing about the events depicted in this film prior to watching it. It is a real eye opener. Charlie Wilson's War is based on a true story. It is proof that, in this country at least, one caring, determined man can make a difference to the world.
  
  This is a fast paced story, based on real events of the early 1980s. Essentially, Texas' colorful 2nd District US Congressman, in just 7 years, enables Afghanistan to be the first country to defeat the Russian Army, signaling the beginning of the end of the Cold War.
  
  This film has an outstanding cast, all of whom deliver strong, believable performances. Tom Hanks is true standout, playing Charlie Wilson to a tee, depicting him in full-blown real life with all of his flaws and foibles, as well as his patriotism, big heart, determination, and guts. Julia Roberts is excellent as a wealthy Texas society woman who is used to getting what she wants. Philip Seymour Hoffman truly amazing as the CIA agent on Charlie's side. His comic timing is superlative, making you laugh out loud. Amy Adams is beautiful as always as Wilson's much put upon administrative aide. The entire supporting cast is top notch.
  
  The script is just plain fantastic. It teaches us as well as being extremely entertaining. The dialogue is interesting and witty, and it rings true. The story is told with a host of emotions from plain amusement to sheer horror. The viewer becomes invested in this story and these people.
  
  I highly recommend this film. You will enjoy it, and you will learn a little history.
  
  
  
• Good work all around. Not perfect, but very, very good.
  By A25QJBK33C4O0R on 2008-04-27
  If not for this movie you could ask many people why they should know who Charlie Wilson was and they'd likely reply 'who?' Even with this movie, and the book that it was based on, many people will continue to wonder who Charlie Wilson is and what his impact on history was. Sadly, the fact that people have an impact on history is something far too many people miss in the U.S.A. and worse yet, many people never seem to think the idea of making an impact on history is something that should be aspired to.
  
  Charlie Wilson was a U.S. Representative from Texas, from a district that needed little, if anything, offering him an opportunity to collect far more political chits than those that he might need to trade away for any of his own goals (or those of his constituents). Having those political chits, at least if you believe the based on the true story telling of his tale, offered Charlie Wilson the opportunity to help bring down the Soviet Union.
  
  Before I get too far along, I have to say I take exception to the idea of Charlie Wilson being responsible for bringing down the Soviet Union. That description of Wilson's role in history is a vast over simplification of things, and gives far too much credit to one individual when there were many people and many policies involved in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Suffice it to say that Wilson's role in perhaps hastening the end of the Soviet Union's role as a military power may have been quite significant and this story is certainly entertaining and somewhat enlightening about the characters and events that were happening behind the scenes and scope of public attention.
  
  Aaron Sorkin deliver's a good script with his usual crisp, snappy and intelligent dialog. Tom Hanks delivers a good performance and the supporting characters, especially Philip Seymour Hoffman, do well in their roles too. The story moves along at a good clip and comes in at a quite reasonable 90 minutes (approx). Nudity and language earn the film the R rating, along with depictions of drug use, quips and sexual innuendo add to the need for the rating as well. There's also images of the effects of the U.S.S.R.'s attacks on the Afghan people which may be upsetting to some viewers.
  
  A few more quick comments here. This film was a Universal picture's release. It's ironic that the disc includes a 'trailer' advertising the look and sound of perfect (HD DVD) since this film might have been one of the last of the HD DVD releases that Universal would have made. Might have been, had Universal not dropped the format like a hot rock after Toshiba accepted defeat in the format war. It's hard to tell whether or not this movie would really benefit from being released as hi-definition disc (eventually it'll be out on Blu-ray, and/or out on premium cable channels in a high-def format). There are some scenes on the DVD release depicting the Soviet military copters that didn't seem to shine through as well as they should have. Those scenes were not as effective as they should have been and looked flawed and downright bad to me in spots. Hopefully the images transfer better in whatever hi-definition formats this film is made available on in the future.
  
  Depending on the price, this movie would make a nice addition to many collections. Certainly worth viewing. (Un-box is a great alternative for those that want immediate satisfaction ;) )
  
  
• Bring Down Those Helicopters!
  By A18G7GG53G2X8A on 2007-12-27
  Formerly a Democratic U.S. Representative from Texas' 2nd congressional district, Charlie Wilson is known for getting Congress to support the arming of the Afghan Mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet War. It can be argued that Wilson's actions helped to end the Cold War: because he convinced Congress to fund the effort, the fighters in Afghanistan received a number of weapons, and because of that, the Russians were defeated. But there's more to Wilson than this. In fact, he's more known for his personality than his politics; he was quite the drinker and ladies' man, earning him the nickname "Good Time" Charlie. If Mike Nichols' "Charlie Wilson's War" is any indication, then he must have been an incredibly charming man with character flaws that made him more endearing than off-putting. Tom Hanks plays the title character with subdued style, allowing the smooth talking liberal to seem that much more realistic.
  
  What makes this movie all the more interesting is that it takes a serious historical event and actually makes it funny. I initially didn't see how such a thing would be possible, but then I remembered such films as "Wag the Dog" and "Man of the Year" and realized that politics are actually a laugh riot. What makes "Charlie Wilson's War" even funnier is that it's based on actual fact--the politics are not satirized, but representative of real people, places, and events. This is a sharp, intelligent comedy that doesn't create humor so much as it shows it was there to begin with.
  
  The film begins in 1980 with Wilson visiting a friend in Las Vegas. As he sits completely naked in a hot tub--along with a group of completely naked strippers and coke-snorting TV executive Paul Brown (Brian Markinson)--he watches a television displaying coverage of the crisis in Afghanistan. This must of kick started the wheels in his head; not long afterwards, he learns that the Afghans need more effective weapons to shoot down Russian helicopters, which have caused the most damage in the area. Wilson, who was once on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, decides to help in the war effort. But there are two problems: (1) the current war budget is set at $5 million, which isn't nearly enough; (2) it would be unwise to risk having American-made weapons discovered in the hands of the Afghans.
  
  In order to solve the budget problem, Wilson convinces Congress to continually increase the budget (starting at $10 million and gradually increasing all the way up to $1 billion). He also follows the advice of his romantic interest--the conservative, anti-communist Texas millionaire Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts)--and flies to Pakistan to meet President Zia (Om Puri). He urges Wilson to visit the refugee camps, which are sprawling and filled with despair; I distinctly remember a moment with he speaks with two children, both of whom fell victim to miniature bombs made to look shiny and fun, much like toys. As it would for most people, seeing this convinces Wilson that something drastic needs to be done, something that will bring an end to the Afghan-Soviet War.
  
  But solving the weapon problem won't be so easy. Herring makes a radical suggestion: the Afghan suppliers should be the Israelis, who have a wealth of anti-aircraft weapons (which, ironically, were produced in the Soviet Union). The idea of Afghans and Israelis working together is nearly impossible to conceive, especially for Wilson. Upon returning to the United States, he gets help from Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a perpetually frustrated CIA agent; he arranges for Wilson to meet an Israeli weapons dealer, and the two come to an understanding while a Texas belly dancer performs. Apparently, belly dancing had always been her dream.
  
  It's this sense of political ridiculousness that makes "Charlie Wilson's War" a thoroughly entertaining, humorous film. Consider the fact that young women with ample breasts staff Wilson's office, and yes, they're very good employees. Also consider a supporting performance by Amy Adams--she plays Bonnie Bach, Wilson's personal assistant. She balances the film nicely, adding to the realism that much more. But it's the overall sense of political game playing that made this work so well; Charlie Wilson was a flawed man who got results, but in the end, it's unclear as to whether or not the results were wanted. Yes, the Afghan-Soviet War ended, but at what cost? Remember that the Freedom Fighters we helped have since become the Taliban. Did we, in fact, do more harm than good back in the 1980s? I definitely can't answer that question, and considering the current state of the world, I don't think Charlie Wilson can, either.
  
  
• All's Fair in Love (Sex,Booze.Politics) and War!
  By A3RWR50VUII07D on 2007-12-29
  If one thing can be said about the world of politics as far as the colorful Texas Congressman Charles Wilson goes then it would be "All's fair in love,sex, booze,politics and war! Screenwriter Alan Sorkin and director Mike Nichols has made sure that the motto of this film is F-U-N as they merrily march us through the seriousness of the Soviet pushback from Afghanistan with swiftness and focus in a beautifully clocked in 97 minute romp.They do so through four overdone and overblown and quite unlikely (especially in post 9-11) subjects;(1)the unapologetically brash blowhard,Congressman Charlie Wilson with booze in hand and babes in tow,(2)Joanne Herring,a communist-hating Houston Socialite who loves Jesus as much as a good plow in the sack,(3) Gustav Avrakotos, a hot-blooded Greek C.I.A operative, who,with Wilson, concocts a plan involving Pakistan,Israel an exotic belly dancer and (4) an agreeable House Committee Chairman to aid Afghanistan in pushing away Soviet aggressors out of their country.( I must add here, though, that after I saw this thoroughly entertaining farce, I pondered the deeper implications of it all for the present state of affairs which sobered me and brought me down....but that's another review!)
  
  Actors Tom Hanks,Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ned Beatty respectively are the players in this throwback to the 1980's when libertines could also be heroes.There is nothing saintly about these wild and woolly characters that considered pleasure and politics to be part of the game.This film simply refuses to turn glib or flippant with the serious subject matter at hand.......and did I mention that this is only 97 minutes long?....yes I did, but I will say it again-it is only 97 minutes long (96 if you don't wait for the final "Distributed by Universal Pictures that hogs the final minute!!! What's with that?)
  
  
• Sometimes, covert ops are just like a box of chocolates.
  By A2FEJIORC1MBG3 on 2008-04-21
  Aaron Sorkin, you silver-tongued devil, you had me at: "Ladies and gentlemen of the clandestine community..."
  
  That line is from the opening scene of "Charlie Wilson's War", in which the title character, a Texas congressman (played in full Gumpian southern-drawl mode by Tom Hanks) is receiving an Honored Colleague award from the, er-ladies and gentlemen of the clandestine (read: CIA) community.
  
  Sorkin, (creator/writer of "The West Wing" TV series) provides the smart, snappy dialog for high-class director Mike Nichols' latest foray into political satire, a genre he hasn't dabbled in since his excellent 1998 film "Primary Colors".
  
  Wilson, known to Beltway insiders as "good-time Charlie" during his congressional tenure, is an unlikely American hero. He drank like a fish and loved to party, but could readily charm key movers and shakers into supporting his pet causes and any attractive young lady within range into lifting her skirt. So how did this whiskey guzzling romeo circumvent the official U.S. government foreign policy of the time (mid to late 1980s) and help the Mujahideen rebels drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, ostensibly paving the way for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War?
  
  He did it with a little help from his friends- a coterie of strange bedfellows including an Israeli arms dealer, a belly-dancing girlfriend, high-ranking officials in Egypt and Pakistan, a misanthropic but handily resourceful CIA operative, and "the sixth-richest woman in Texas", who also happened to be a fervent anti-communist. It's quite the tale.
  
  Phillip Seymour Hoffman continues his nearly perfect track record of stealing just about every film he appears in. He plays the aforementioned CIA operative, Gust Avrakotos with much aplomb. His character is, shall we say, "less than diplomatic" in dealing with co-workers (and superiors), which makes him a bit of a pariah at the Agency. Through serendipitous circumstance, Gust falls in league with Wilson and one of his lady friends, a wealthy socialite named Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts, bearing a spooky resemblance to Joan Rivers).
  
  The three amigos form a sort of political "X-Men" team; each one has their own unique "special power" to bring to the table. Once Joanne lures powerful and influential congressman Doc Long (the wonderful Ned Beatty) on board, the deal is sealed.
  
  Aside from the expected bit of "creative license", Nichols doesn't deviate too much from the facts laid out in the book by George Crile; despite some inherent elements of political satire, it's a fairly straightforward rendering. What is most interesting to me is what they left out. One incident in particular, which involved a private arms dealer "accidentally" blowing up a D.C. gas station (oops!) on his way to a meeting with Wilson and Avrakotos, seems like it would have been a no-brainer for the movie.
  
  One final thought. After the film's high-fiving, feel-good, flag waving coda subsided and the credits started rolling, something was nagging. And then it dawned on me. There is one glaring omission in the postscript of this "true story"; I can only pose it as an open question to Mssrs. Nichols, Sorkin and Hanks:
  
  So tell me-exactly how did we get from all those colorful, rapturously happy, missile launcher-waving Afghani tribesmen, dancing in praise to America while chanting Charlie Wilson's name back in the late 80s to nightly news footage of collapsing towers and U.S. troops spilling their blood into the very same rocky desert tableau, a scant decade later?
  
  Let's see you turn THAT story into a wacky political satire starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.
  
  Then again, what do I know? I'm just a guy who reviews movies.
  
  
  
  
  
• Great Showcase for Top Level Performances
  By A34D4KCP94ACJZ on 2008-06-10
  I try not to get caught up in the historical accuracy of films like this but if the film were overly critical or not critical enough you wouldn't hear such a wide range of opinions on the story's portrayal of these real life characters. Simply put, some of Reagan's guys thought this was dishonest, some thought it was just right. This is a good movie and given not so much the historical accuracy, but the historical context of its consequences, it was worth telling. Did Charlie Wilson unwittingly arm the Taliban? Is he still a hero for it? Nevertheless, as compelling as the film is in terms of the subject's modern consequences, its ultimate goal may not have been political at all, but to simply provide a look into some of the politics of the time and to showcase several outstanding performances. Hollywood veteran Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Silkwood) directs and Tom Hanks stars in and produces the film. Aaron Sorkin adapts the George Crile book effectively and you would think Sorkin's politics would be easier to detect, but I found the film to be relatively non-partisan.
  
  For those who don't already know, Charlie Wilson was a Democratic Texas Congressman, who worked with a rogue-ish CIA agent to help fund the Mujahideen resistance in order to undermine the Soviet Union in their war with Afghanistan. This was dubbed Operation Cyclone and eventually lead to the Soviet Union's withdrawal from an Afghanistan and its government that would succumb to the resistence several years later. The film follows Charlie Wilson closely as he makes decisions that lead to these significant events. The conclusion seems to be highlighted by Wilson's apparent regrets in not being able to successfully raise support for the post-Soviet chaos of civil war that would follow. So in some ways we're the bad guys by not doing anything other than help blow things up I guess. Well, there are your shades of modern political parallels I suppose.
  
  All of that aside, the thing that makes Charlie Wilson's War a very good film are its performances. Not just of Phillip Seymour Hoffman who was nominated for an Oscar in his supporting role, but also for Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. Amy Adams and others are also very strong but it's the interactions between Hanks's Wilson, Hoffman's CIA agent Gust, and Roberts's Joanne Herring that make the film work. Their performances coupled with Sorkin's fantastic screenplay make the film as surprisingly humorous as the subject is interesting. Nichols has been at the controls for too many good films not to get the credit he deserves as well. I enjoyed every scene of this film for reasons I really didn't expect going in. Well-adapted real-life characters and actors who take their delivery very seriously.
  
  
• Utter Bollox
  By A1DPP8TXDCHCDN on 2008-06-23
  This film is dishonest, hypocritical, and manipulative throughout. I've given it a second star only because there is - credit where it's due - excellent characterization, witty scripting, and superior production values. But as a "history" of the Afghan War or Congressman Wilson's involvement therein, it's disingenuous pablum.
  
  Wilson was not merely some disinterested observer undergoing an epiphany at sight of so much human suffering in the border refugee camps. He was a knowing and conscious CIA cutout, with a track record of Middle East involvement on behalf of Israel and East Texas oilmen. He raised money the old-fashioned pork barrel way to circumvent restrictions on the Agency; thus avoiding the kind of flak dished out to Oliver North who circumvented Congress as well. Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts' character) was no mere overly-religious society matron, bleeding for the Afghans' struggle for freedom of faith; but rather a full-fledged member of the religious New Right, out to enforce its own fundamentalist Taliban morality on American society.
  
  The premise that it was the Afghan "muj" and their Stingers that broke the Red Army, which in turn "caused" the collapse of the USSR, is the film's essential and nonsensical theme. The decay of said regime began before the Afghan War - indeed, the war's very launching was a symptom of that decay, much as Chechnya for the successors of Moscow. To the real-life Wilson, supporting the Afghans was payback for Vietnam. Feeding the Afghan War - as with the Contras, or Jonas Savimbi of Angola - was part of the Reagan strategy of creating "two, three many Vietnams" and, if not rolling back Red forces, at least bleeding them white. Encouraging this war to continue, rather than attempting to settle it, did no service to the Afghans whom Wilson allegedly wept for.
  
  The film tries to cover its loose postwar ends by portraying US "abandonment" of the Afghans; implying that if "America had stayed the course" (like Iraq, presumably) then none of the ensuing problems there would be pestering us now. Wilson of all people should knew that Afghanistan - like Nicaragua, like Angola - was a mere means to an end. It was on that pragmatic basis that he "sold" the war in the first place. It had served its purpose. That the US is now taking the role of the Soviet military is as ironic as the film's portrayal of those soldiers: we're treated to a lengthy setup of a Russian helicopter pilot sneering his contempt for traditional morality (like any good Red atheist or Hollywood glitterati) when he's kaboomed by a Stinger to the joyous wonderment of muj on the ground. We'll never see such fundamentalist joy on US screens directed at secular US personnel, of course. If Charlie Wilson's War was payback for Vietnam, then the current imbroglio can be seen as payback for CWW. This film's gloating is doubtless designed to cover that odiously loose end as well.
  
  
• Charlie Wilson's List
  By ARMVAHWQQ9S8A on 2008-06-23
  There are many, many shocking things about this movie. The first of which is that it was written by Aaron Sorkin. I've invested in Sorkin's previous work, and was shocked to see his name in the closing credits of this awful movie. Second of all, I was even more shocked to see the positive ratings this trash has gotten from Amazon reviewers. Maybe I'm in the minority here (I certainly am on this site) but this film is one of the worst I've seen, bar none.
  
  There is literally nothing good about this movie. There are a few things that aren't altogether awful (such as Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance), but when nothing in an entire movie can be described as "good," you know you've got a whole mess of problems at work. Here is a list that just cracks the iceberg.
  
  1. There is absolutely nothing done by the filmmakers to get the audience involved with the story. There is no suspense, no character development, no character moments, no storytelling techniques used to pull the viewers into the story. It's just a sequence of film that I cared absolutely nothing about while watching it. I understand that this is based on a true story, so some will argue with this point. However, I'd counter that a true story deserves to be well done, because if a sequence of non-fictional events are worth telling, there is certainly an interesting story behind them. With better writing, a different director, a different producer, and a different cast, this could have been a poignant exploration of one man's journey to make a difference by aiding a cause he truly believed in. What this actually came out as is a sexist, dumbed-down mockery of real events.
  
  2. This is based on a true story. They even had real footage blended in with the plot of the film, which further grounds this film in reality. However, if you plan on grounding the film in reality so much, why would you have the rest of the movie be so blatantly silly? Women in tight sweaters and skirts make up the entirety of Charlie Wilson's staff, and are draped all over his office like furniture. Not only does this add an undercurrent of objectification of women to the film, it makes for horribly cheesy scenes that totally pull the viewer out of the reality of the film.
  
  3. There is not one scene here to establish a morally grey area. Americans are good, Russians are bad. Point blank, period. I'm sorry, but that's bull and makes for horrible viewing. All the best war movies show the morally grey area of combat and war as a whole, that two ideologies are at conflict and neither is good or evil, but that both sides are real people at conflict with each other. Not so here. This movie neglects that superbly intriguing moral grey area for cheap jokes and contrived speeches.
  
  4. You know a movie is bad when an hour and forty minutes feels like you just watched The Stand. Twice.
  
  Very simply, this film is a mockery of real life events that isn't worth your time. If the story of Charlie Wilson was worth telling, which I'm sure it was, I wish a more competent team had tackled the subject matter. This sinker easily takes a place on my Worst 20 Movies list.
  
  1/10
  
  
• Be Careful What You Ask For
  By A3572FTYUQQW3P on 2008-01-21
  This is a very good film. It is well written and well acted and even Julia Roberts does pretty good in her role although miscast. Tom Hanks does an excellent job as Charlie Wilson but the star performance goes to Hoffman who plays the CIA agent. There is no attempt to portray Wilson as heroic or to minimize his sleaze. Perhaps the best and most realistic scene in the film is the audience with Prsident Zia. This is a short scene but very blunt and to the point. It is followed by the watershed event which is the visit to the refugee camp. From this point on the film sort of coasts to its climax, which is the withdrawal of the mighty Red Army.
  
  The issue I have with this film is its narrowness. It fails to give any reason for the incursion by the Russians other than raw Imperialism. It fails to show the Mujahadeen for what they truly were radical Islamofascists rather than the freedom fighters portrayed. General Zia has a small role but the fact that he himself was a radical Muslim who introduced Sharia Law as the law of the land is ignored. The fact that he laid the foundation for subsequent events in Afghanistan by his radical Islamic beliefs and pandering to the radical Muslims is not mentioned. These oversights may not be totally relevant to Charlie Wilson but they are relevant to subsequent events. Charlie Wilson is portrayed as a flawed -- well greatly flawed -- person and one of little depth. He never understood or even tried to understand the actual situation, he only saw the suffering, which he blamed exclusively on the Russians. So the film is very well done, entertaining, and well worth watching, but it fails to address the ramifications of Charlie's intercession in events that he really didn't understand. So it is a good film but very narrow in its focus. Charlie Wilson did a good deed but it is well worth remembering that no good deed goes unpunished. We are still suffering from Charlie's good heart and lack of strategic vision.
  
  
• Shallow Pro-War, Kill-The-Ruskies Propaganda
  By A1JM0VX0AK5UA9 on 2008-04-05
  This is a film John Wayne would have loved. If your idea of fun is watching Russians being blown up, you'll have a good time. If you don't think war is the loftiest pursuit in which mankind can engage, this film may leave you feeling a little sick to your stomach.
  
  
• Charlie aids our holiday season
  By A1OBPHRXHZF8P6 on 2007-12-23
  I'm generally a sucker for political-themed films, and this one is no exception. It's a quasi-autobiographical story about how Representative Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) successfully toppled communism by secretly funding aid to Afghanistan.
  
  Now because communism is a bygone relic, much like 8 tracks and rotary phones, the filmmakers had a critical task laid before them.
  
  How were they going to make this film interesting to a majority of holiday audiences? I had personally liked Lions for Lambs, but other people must have felt that it was too serious because it lacked a strong box office showing.
  
  So, while keeping inferences to current-day events (and ethical questions) the production team behind this film settled on a formula of emphasizing what would work. They decided to dramatize the true story of a bible belt congressman who did everything and anything which some of his constituents still might be surprised to learn about.
  
  And it certainly didn't hurt the screenplay's laugh quotient that they 'just' happened to pick a politician who certainly was not politically correct. Staffing his offices with 'beauty queen' types whose clerical skills were questionable, the guy certainly was never like any of the people I've ever worked for and with. Still, his heart was in the right place.
  
  Julia Roberts also gives a commanding performance as Joanne Herring,a rich anti-communist right-winger loving to throw parties--as much as Charlie loves attending them. Like Charlie, Joanne is an expert politician, those oft-promoted morals get thrown out the window when Charlie needs a bed partner; she doesn't need to be forced. This character is based on a real life person of the same name from Houston Texas, although I am not sure how much was fact and how much was the fiction of Hollywood. Whether it was intentional or not, it did make me think about what many off-screen new right women really go through in order to obtain their public access.
  
  War is a serious subject, but with so much of it permeating the media and the economy not being where it ideally should be, this film declares 'war' on the holiday slump.
  
  
  
• Charlie Wilson's Oscar? You Bet!
  By A202P1NUZ2WWGV on 2007-12-24
  Charlie Wilson's War is about the covert role of the USA in response to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Tom Hanks plays Congressman Charlie Wilson who at first appears to be more concerned about having an attractive all female staff than his Congressional duties. As the movie progresses we come to realize that Representative Wilson is a good American concerned that his country remains a superpower. The early part of the movie is a little hard to follow as all the individual pieces of the story fall into place culminating in the fall of Russia as a world power.
  
  I always wonder where reality leaves off & Hollywood takes over in "based on a true story" genre of film. This is nonetheless a wonderful movie not to be missed. Mr. Hanks chooses his roles so well the viewer is vitually assured of seeing a great movie every time he is cast in the starring role.
  
  Look for this film to possibly take home a number of awards on Oscar night including Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor (Philip Seymour Hoffman) & Best Supporting Actress (Amy Adams).
  
  
• He's my S.O.B.
  By A2P7GNM791VJWP on 2007-12-27
  I'm a native of Lufkin, Texas. Charlie Wilson was my congressman. He's very tall with a beautiful baritone voice. My mom knew him when we worked at a local lumber yard. To quote Charlie Wilson when he spoke at the chamber banquet at our local Civic Center, "I may be an S.O.B., but I am YOUR SOB." He's right. He's our bad boy, and we love him. The book was awesome, so I rushed to see the movie. Tom Hanks is a miracle worker. He nailed Charlie Wilson's mannerisms. He held himself like a tall, proud, passionate Texan. I also thought Phillip Seymour Hoffman brought Gust Avrakotos to life. My biggest disappointment was Julia Roberts in her role as Joanne Herring. Her portrayal of a Houston socialite lacked credibility. I've enjoyed Robert's performance in every role, except this one. But as a Texas woman I expected a lot from her.
  
  
• Best Film of 2007, Hands Down
  By ABX7SEE84DMLU on 2007-12-28
  Henry A. Kissinger said, "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
  
  Well, here's a dream team: Aaron Sorkin and Mike Nichols, PLUS Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. Aaron Sorkin is fixated (in a healthy way) on making real-world politics entertaining for us. His gift of "The West Wing" produced some of the best, most intelligent TV we've had in years. Mike Nichols adds a sensibility of unsparing appraisal of complex, flawed human beings.
  
  Tom Hanks is so strong here - I'd say it's his best performance since Forrest Gump. Julia Roberts is wonderful, too, and really looks great in a bathing suit.
  
  So, exactly how could a "covert war," waged by a coke-sniffing libertine and a crazed CIA agent, be one of the most morally courageous and successful things our country has done in the last half of the twentieth century?
  
  And, if Sorkin/Nichols are stereotyped as "liberals," how can they celebrate this right-wing accomplishment as they do here?
  
  Watch this fantastic film to find out. Gain an understanding of the enormous power our nation has at its disposal, and learn how that power also brings an enormous moral esponsbility. And, gain real depth in understanding the complexities of a part of the world that's so hard for us Westerners to understand.
  
  If this does not take Best Picture of 2007, it's because Charlie Wilson somehow persuaded the Motion Picture Academy people otherwise...
  
  
• War in the Making
  By A3GG91QZH5FQJ4 on 2008-02-01
  Exceptionally well written, and with an all star cast, "Charlie Wilson's War" takes the viewer through the Cold War of the Reagan Era, when communism was the biggest threat, and the Middle East was just an oil rich area.
  
  Charlie Wislon (Tom Hanks) is a hard-playing Texas Congressman, who gets involved with an extremely rich Texas right wing woman (Julia Roberts) and a CIA agent (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), in order to help Afghan government and people in their fight against the Soviet Union. Being careful not to start an all out World War, Wilson and his partners go behind the scenes, chipping away at the mighty Red Army. And though this secret war helps get rid of the "red menace", the viewer has a chance to see another war in the making - the war we are in now, through the masterful writing of Alan Sorkin.
  
  Although political in nature, "Charlie Wislon's War" is fast paced, intelligent and informative, albeit a bit short. The film delivers its message promptly and takes us back to a different era, not so long ago, of different enemies, as well as enemies in the making. Highly recommended.
  
  
• Great movie - even from a Russian's point of view :-)
  By A2GAB679B91B21 on 2008-04-09
  The studio decided not to distribute the movie in Russia. Official explanation was that it was not financially feasible (apparently, because the Russians are showed as bloodthirsty villains). Nonetheless, I think it is a great satire movie, showing how the States bred their current enemy, the Islam fundamentalists. Of course, I hate to see how Russian are presented as seemingly liking killing innocent people. I know several Afghan veterans and I don't believe that they liked being sent to a war. Neither do I believe that killing civilians was a normal thing, as the brief shots of fighting suggest.
  
  However, the point is that the Americans do not learn by others' mistakes. We, the Russians, showed to the world what fighting Muslims can turn into (Afghanistan, Chechnya) (let's leave the reasons for those wars beyond the scope of this review). Overall, a really enjoyable movie thanks to the cast, performance and directing, but one which will provoke you thinking.
  
  
• and not one Academy Award?
  By A1OG471WW8O497 on 2008-04-26
  Absurd. This is one of the half-dozen best flicks I've ever seen, and it didn't even get a look-in at the Oscars! (Note how many of the four-star reviews are really raves. C'mon guys, why are you sitting on your hands? Give it the fiver it deserves!)
  
  I like Tom Hanks but was a bit tired of him--he's superb in this film. I don't particularly like Julia Roberts--she's superb. And the portly CIA guy (he got a nomination but no cigar) was pretty good as well, though I'd like to see if he can still act if they took f*** out of his vocabulary.
  
  I have only one question: why couldn't Hollywood have made a film like this before 1991?
  
  
  
  

• The Bucket List
• There Will Be Blood (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition)
• Atonement (Widescreen Edition)
• Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
• The Savages