Could Have Been Epic, But Instead Was Just Interesting
Added 10/19/2009
Political films are some of the hardest in Hollywood to pull off smoothly. Either the subject matter is too controversial, it paints someone in too positive/negative of a light, or it flat out messes with history to fit a dramatic tone. "Charlie Wilson's War" suffered from none of these problems, yet still managed to underwhelm due to a completely unexpected source: it couldn't decided whether it wanted to be gripping, or a farce.
Basically, this movie tells the story of U.S. Senator Charles Wilson, who (during the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict) was so inspired by the courage of the Afghan troops in fending off the Russians that he launched a covert "campaign" of sorts to get the Afghans the funding/weapons they needed to defeat the spread of Communism from the Soviets. As history bears out, Wilson succeeds in this task and is regarded as a hero...at least for the time being.
This entire film could have taken (and would have been much better off, in my opinion) a more serious tact to the political issues being dealt with, like the lack of funding to an Afghanistan "military" that was essentially fighting the Soviets for the United States, or the fact that Afghanistan went on to produce the terrorists that perpetuated 9/11 and we are now fighting. This approach could have been a great sort of dramatic "treatise" on those issues and could have made people really think about them.
Unfortunately, the film does not take that sort of tone, and instead focuses on the character of Charlie Wilson. While obviously at the center of all the goings-on, this prolonged focus on Wilson's personality and private life only served to drag the film down. Plus, all the characters (but essentially Tom Hanks' Wilson and his lady-friend played by Julia Roberts) seem way too over the top in their interactions with each other and the plot at hand. I realize the intent of the filmmakers, which was to show what a maverick Charles Wilson really was, but to me that wasn't the most interesting part of the story.
Thus, "Charlie Wilson's War" is a respectable film dealing with an interesting political event, yet views those happenings through a prism (the crazy Wilson) that isn't altogether engaging. While the focus on the Afghan-Soviet conflict is refreshing (not just World War 2 or terrorism), it isn't played for the type of drama that could have occurred. Involved political minds will find it interesting, while lesser scribes may drift off as the message gets lost in Hanks' over-the-top portrayal of Wilson.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Sharp Dialogue, Sophisticated and Funny
Added 9/8/2009
The cast is perfect - Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Mike Nichols directed the movie and Aaron Sorkin is the screenwriter who developed the movie from the non-fiction book. It is a true story of Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) who is a bachelor that loves the good life of fast women, drugs and an easy job as congressman from Texas. He likes women and they are always around him. He is also deeply patriotic and understands the plight of people with odds stacked against them.
("Charlie Wilson" - who I had not heard of - is best known for "leading Congress into supporting Operation Cyclone, the largest-ever CIA covert operation which supplied the Afghan Mujaheddin during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.")
Philip Seymour Hoffman plays a smart but undervalued CIA agent (Gust Avrakotos). JoAnn Herring (Julia Roberts) is a Houston socialite who hates the communists. She is angry about the United State's weak response to the 1980's invasion of Afghanistan.
The odds are against the team of three, but together they "work the politics" and travel the world. They are smart and sincere as they develop alliances with arms dealers, Israelis, Egyptians, Pakistanis.
Charlie and his partner, CIA Agent Gust bond and broker deals. They find success against all odds. Charlie was on key congressional committees and worked with his colleagues for funding for covert operations against the Soviets. The funding went from $5 million to $1 billion annually. The Afghans fought bravely with their new weapons and supplies - the Communists retreated and left the country.
The movie was excellent and moved well with smart dialogue and an inspiring ending. It was made in 2007.
Just an addendum to seeing the movie: Now it seems a bit too optimistic to say Charlie Wilson saved Afghanistan. He may have saved it from the communists, but that enabled the Taliban to take their place. U.S. Defense Secretary Gates is in the news today regarding more civilian casualties because of the Taliban...
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Overrated, Bad Casting
Added 9/1/2009
I was disappointed with this movie, but I guess I am in the minority. It was mainly due to the miscasting. Hanks and Roberts were not believable in their parts and I felt no chemistry between the two.
Considering the subject matter, I was also hoping for something a little more serious instead of a Hollywood "feel good movie." It is a shame that most people learn their history from Hollywood movies.
However, Hoffman's performance did make the movie worth watching. I wouldn't go out of my way to see it but if it happened to come on cable and there was nothing else on...
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Waste of money
Added 7/20/2009
Hoffman almost pulls this one out but not quite. The use of foul language and nudity to help it didn't! Hanks and Roberts are capable of outstanding performances; these aren't among them. A great story poorly presented. Save your money.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Clever, enjoyable, cautionary
Added 7/13/2009
I left a star off because helping the Mujahadeen drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan couldn't have been as easy as it's portrayed here. "Charlie Wilson's War" reminds me that before "Forrest Gump" and "Philadelphia," Tom Hanks was a comic actor. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant as Gust. Best Julia Roberts performance since "Erin Brockovich." Pay careful attention to the last few minutes. After a great victory, something's changing, and not in a good way.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Could Have Been Epic, But Instead Was Just Interesting
Added 10/19/2009
Political films are some of the hardest in Hollywood to pull off smoothly. Either the subject matter is too controversial, it paints someone in too positive/negative of a light, or it flat out messes with history to fit a dramatic tone. "Charlie Wilson's War" suffered from none of these problems, yet still managed to underwhelm due to a completely unexpected source: it couldn't decided whether it wanted to be gripping, or a farce.
Basically, this movie tells the story of U.S. Senator Charles Wilson, who (during the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict) was so inspired by the courage of the Afghan troops in fending off the Russians that he launched a covert "campaign" of sorts to get the Afghans the funding/weapons they needed to defeat the spread of Communism from the Soviets. As history bears out, Wilson succeeds in this task and is regarded as a hero...at least for the time being.
This entire film could have taken (and would have been much better off, in my opinion) a more serious tact to the political issues being dealt with, like the lack of funding to an Afghanistan "military" that was essentially fighting the Soviets for the United States, or the fact that Afghanistan went on to produce the terrorists that perpetuated 9/11 and we are now fighting. This approach could have been a great sort of dramatic "treatise" on those issues and could have made people really think about them.
Unfortunately, the film does not take that sort of tone, and instead focuses on the character of Charlie Wilson. While obviously at the center of all the goings-on, this prolonged focus on Wilson's personality and private life only served to drag the film down. Plus, all the characters (but essentially Tom Hanks' Wilson and his lady-friend played by Julia Roberts) seem way too over the top in their interactions with each other and the plot at hand. I realize the intent of the filmmakers, which was to show what a maverick Charles Wilson really was, but to me that wasn't the most interesting part of the story.
Thus, "Charlie Wilson's War" is a respectable film dealing with an interesting political event, yet views those happenings through a prism (the crazy Wilson) that isn't altogether engaging. While the focus on the Afghan-Soviet conflict is refreshing (not just World War 2 or terrorism), it isn't played for the type of drama that could have occurred. Involved political minds will find it interesting, while lesser scribes may drift off as the message gets lost in Hanks' over-the-top portrayal of Wilson.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Sharp Dialogue, Sophisticated and Funny
Added 9/8/2009
The cast is perfect - Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Mike Nichols directed the movie and Aaron Sorkin is the screenwriter who developed the movie from the non-fiction book. It is a true story of Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) who is a bachelor that loves the good life of fast women, drugs and an easy job as congressman from Texas. He likes women and they are always around him. He is also deeply patriotic and understands the plight of people with odds stacked against them.
("Charlie Wilson" - who I had not heard of - is best known for "leading Congress into supporting Operation Cyclone, the largest-ever CIA covert operation which supplied the Afghan Mujaheddin during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.")
Philip Seymour Hoffman plays a smart but undervalued CIA agent (Gust Avrakotos). JoAnn Herring (Julia Roberts) is a Houston socialite who hates the communists. She is angry about the United State's weak response to the 1980's invasion of Afghanistan.
The odds are against the team of three, but together they "work the politics" and travel the world. They are smart and sincere as they develop alliances with arms dealers, Israelis, Egyptians, Pakistanis.
Charlie and his partner, CIA Agent Gust bond and broker deals. They find success against all odds. Charlie was on key congressional committees and worked with his colleagues for funding for covert operations against the Soviets. The funding went from $5 million to $1 billion annually. The Afghans fought bravely with their new weapons and supplies - the Communists retreated and left the country.
The movie was excellent and moved well with smart dialogue and an inspiring ending. It was made in 2007.
Just an addendum to seeing the movie: Now it seems a bit too optimistic to say Charlie Wilson saved Afghanistan. He may have saved it from the communists, but that enabled the Taliban to take their place. U.S. Defense Secretary Gates is in the news today regarding more civilian casualties because of the Taliban...
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Overrated, Bad Casting
Added 9/1/2009
I was disappointed with this movie, but I guess I am in the minority. It was mainly due to the miscasting. Hanks and Roberts were not believable in their parts and I felt no chemistry between the two.
Considering the subject matter, I was also hoping for something a little more serious instead of a Hollywood "feel good movie." It is a shame that most people learn their history from Hollywood movies.
However, Hoffman's performance did make the movie worth watching. I wouldn't go out of my way to see it but if it happened to come on cable and there was nothing else on...
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
