User reviews

Aaron Sorking raises the same questions as Shakespeare did or does. How could they possibly know so much about the inner workings of palace life. Here like in The West Wing, Sorkin opens surprising doors that are hardly a shock but seem ton confirm our worst fears. Everything is so casual and at the same time so directly responsible for so many people's lives. A puffy Tom Hanks tells us one way or another that things can be manipulated with semi pure intentions but without weighing the consequences and Julia Roberts in a blond southern hairdo reminds us of the powers harbored in the sidelines. The subject is serious but the treatment is light, intelligent but light. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as the invisible middle man, steals every scene he is in, just like Charles Laughton did in every movie he was in.The dialogue is fast but not fast enough for us not to catch up and discover that this is not an ordinary comedy. The seemingly casual pace filled with strokes of wit and provocation grants another badge of honor in the Mike Nichol's collection.

Told in flashback, the film opens in 1989 with Charlie being given award for his role in the defeat of Communism. I must admit my heart sank as at the thought of have to endure yet another earnest, somewhat boring and overlong life story. How wrong was I, because that short scene is as close as the film ever gets to boring.

The film is full of entertaining & amusing set ups and cracking dialogue in some of the most unexpected places. The next scene after the Awards ceremony is Charlie in a Hot-Tub with some naked women and a guy trying to get him to invest in a TV programme. Another rather amusing scene is about 3 quarters into the film comprises Charlie, a group of his rather sexy Secretaries, Phillip Seymour Hoffmans CIA Man and a bottle of Whisky. As to dialogue what about this for a line, "The Senator says, He can teach us to type but can't teach us to grow Tits.". OK, School-boyish I know but the film is laced with great lines.

As to performances well Phillip Seymour Hoffman as usual steals every scene he's in. Hanks is OK but surprisingly to me anyway was Julia Roberts who is very good in the role of a rather eccentric Texas Oil Millionairess.

Charlie Wilson's War is one of the best non Musician Bio-pics in a long while as well as being that rare thing a film that entertains, amuses as well as informs all in equal measure.

In one of the better movies of the year, Tom Hanks stars as Congressman Charlie Wilson in this sardonically funny and extremely relevant (given reasonably current events) historical comedy-drama surrounding the 1980s Afghan/Soviet fiasco. The Soviets were attacking Afghanistan killing hundreds of people. Why should anyone care? People are dying, right? No, the reason the United States got involved through Charlie Wilson was because the Afghans, in fear they would get blown to sh_t, started illegally coming into Pakistan which in turn p_ssed Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq off. Charlie Wilson in an effort to fix this situation teamed up with the sixth richest woman and religious fanatic in Texas, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and a amusing and robust American spy for the CIA, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to help supply Afghans with high-tech weapons to destroy Soviet fight air-craft that would try and attack their land.

Although certainly not a serious Oscar contender for Best Picture, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is probably one of the best of the many political films of the year. Academy Award Winner Mike Nichols provides solid directing as to be expected while Emmy Award Winner Aaron Sorkin (Sport's Night, The West Wing) provides a remarkable screenplay that near-flawlessly balances comedy and drama. The acting is great for the most part as well. Tom Hanks delivers his best and most enjoyable performance since his 2000 Oscar-nominated turn as a FedEx worker stranded on a tropical island in 'Cast Away'. Hanks takes a slimy character like Wilson and with his trademark charm turns him into a likable guy. Amy Adams and Ned Beatty are reliable as always, but the real stand-out performance of the film is from Philip Seymour Hoffman. Arguably the finest actor working in the film industry today, Hoffman takes a small supporting role and upstages everyone around him. From his first scene where he's screaming at his boss before violently breaking his window, Hoffman sucks you in. The only disappointing cast member is unsurprisingly overrated Hollywood starlet Julia Roberts. Hamming her way through yet another movie, Roberts' overbearing and over-the-top portrayal of a rich Texas oil woman hits all the wrong notes and is at most times flat-out annoying. At 97 minutes, the movie is short and sweet, and that isn't to say it doesn't drag at some points but when it does drag it's for a very brief amount of time.

In conclusion, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is not a perfect film by any means, but it's certainly worth a look. Grade: B+

What saddens me most of all is how we fold reality into simple stories. It it isn't just movies of course, every political decision by anyone is based on fabricated but palatable reality. Its both the lesson of this movie and its own undoing because it breaks its only reason to be: that it is true.

We have things that happen. When these happenings involve humans, they are based on stories, stories about gods and tribes mostly. When we explain then to ourselves (by explaining to others), they go through further refinement and become more perfect as concise stories. And when Hollywood finally arrives, those already polished, but useless artifacts get further processed, strained and arranged to be not only stories we understand, but that work dramatically (so as to satisfy market forces).

Few shapers of film stories are better suited to this than Mike Nichols. This film does work in enough of the basics, mostly carried by Hoffman's lines and delivery. But its reason to exist is that it somehow mirrors reality. And it does so far as showing a few dots, but the way they are connected is less fettered by truth than the necessity of having a clean package.

Its all part of the great disappointment of filmmakers who have the ability to reach deep into souls and affect us, but who seem to merely be incessantly practicing.

I believe it wouldn't be as easy for us to create fake realities if we didn't have all these attractive confections from Hollywood. (That same Hollywood that is the stuff of a similar fake reality: that it is "liberal.")

The CIA doesn't care much for the permission or funding of Congress. The House isn't where the connection was in those days anyway. The business about Israel's participation was all wrong and involved South African complexities. The Texas motivations were profoundly stupid then as now in their God-centric notions of fate, and having nothing to do with the plight of refugees. Charlie Wilson is a dope. The Texas hussy had nothing to do with the story unless you ask her. The Agency did spend significant energy on the "endgame" to be flummoxed by successive administrations. The US had far less to do with Talibanizing than the Saudis and Pakistanis who arranged most of the weapons.

But who cares, if we can fantasize about the world being changed by a night of sex between Tom and Julia?

There are two good actresses here: Blunt and Adams. Their scenes matter. As with the Nichols formula, there's one breathtaking cinematic effect. We have our first shooting down of Soviet copters, set up expertly by introducing us to both evil mechanized Soviets and wildeyed Afgan idiots. A copter crashes in a narrow street and that street morphs to Amy Adams' sexy legs, then her exaggeratedly sexy butt as we follow her, camera panning up to a redheaded ponytail perkily bouncing. She is on her way to report this joyful carnage.

Oh if we could only would reward this skill if it were turned to art instead of decor.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

A fun picture with a lot to like about it, but paper-thin. The problem is there's no real obstacles. Charlie wants money, he gets money. He want out of hot water with his philandering, he gets out. Whatever Charlie wants, Charlie gets. Doesn't make for great drama or depth of character. It feels like an extended episode of a TV show. It feels like Sorkin has been doing TV too long.

The best part of this film is Hoffman, steals every scene he's in as usual and that's no small feat up against Hanks. Best as a rental.

It's not a bad film by any means, just not much too it. Cotton candy gone as soon as you leave the theater. Trying to make my tenth line, sprinting for the finish here. Puffing and out of breath.

Well we definitely did see and I and many other people were actually expecting worse. It did have some good parts too it that I was not expecting it still did fail in other areas though.

First off the acting was above average. I love Phillip Seymour Hoffman in this movie and I liked Tom Hanks. Hoffman was the glue to this movie. If it were not for him this movie would have crumbled and hit rock bottom. His performance was by no means stunning but absolutely necessary. He gave a good witty, cynical performance in what most other actors could have easily made his character into a cliché. Tom Hanks really gave a nice loose performance and did not disappoint but he certainly did not impress. What I could not stand was that Julia Roberts was involved in this movie. She was as big of a miscast as I have ever seen. For one she is a bad actress, at least to me, she was to young for her character and was to phony even for the character she was playing.

The directing was average to me. I'm not really a big fan of the recent Mike Nichols movies and I'm not exactly impressed by this one either. It was made with such a Hollywoodish, cartoonish touch hat I could not stand. The worst part about it was that he tried make it be a really meaningful movie at the end. I love meaningful movies but not when a movie tries to rush a scene or two at the end and show something that tries to justify the rest of the garbage spread throughout the whole movie. That is something that Mike Nichols has seemed to have done a lot in his recent track record.

The one impressive part of this movie was the writing. The dialog was put together very well and was able to let the story play out. The writing was what was able to really able to take this movie to an above average level. In so many scenes I found myself laughing in part by the writing.

Well that is some of what we saw at least. A lot of the scenery was good in the movie if you get what I mean but not a lot other than that. I did like that this movie did not glorify everything America had done. It is obvious that during this whole war in Afghanistan the U.S. gave weapons to the people who are now against us. This movie kind of show we are too blame for that. It shows that what may seem good in the short term may turn into something horribly wrong in the future. This movie did have a good original message but it just did not deliver it right. Overall though it was entertaining.

An enjoyable film with Tom Hanks giving his usual polished performance as well as a very good contribution from the late Seymour Hoffman. It tells the story of a larger than life US Congressman who after a visit to Afghanistan decides to use all he's political skills and contacts to raise money in Washington to covertly support the Mujahideen against the Russians. There is more than a hint of poetic licence used in the film, which I felt at times was more of a black comedy than a serious drama.

Mike Nichols in finest form. I was not a fan of "Closer", so it's refreshing to see him again right back on top with this comedy set in the darkest of circumstances. Just one slip in tone could have wrecked this compelling picture but Nichols and his very strong A-list cast never put a foot wrong in this biopic of a deeply flawed but utterly compelling Congressman.

Philip Seymour Hoffman as usual is scintillating and brilliant - here playing a damaged but ultra-smart CIA manipulator, and it is in the exchanges between Hanks and Hoffman's characters where the comedy soars. Rarely is movie humour laugh-out loud and also smart... This hits the spot time after time with a biting satirical edge that makes you both laugh and weep at the state of the world (often simultaneously).

One other major plus is the length of the picture. The film is based on George Crile's fat book of the same title. The temptation for screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (his claim to fame is "The West Wing") must have been to make a fat movie, but what we get is a breath-taking 90 odd minutes of great story with sweeping implications.

This film deserves to be seen and to be recognized for finding an extraordinary balance between the darkest of dark subject matter and the lightness of touch of it's sparkling witty script - even if it does flunk the obvious link between the help that Herring and Wilson provide and the ultimate consequences (9/11).

This is a well made and acted movie whose contents can be summed in a few words: Americans helping the enemies of their enemies to fight against the latter. But since the principle that the enemies of our enemies are always our friends is totally wrong Americans are now fighting those former friends who even use the arms furnished to them by the Americans themselves. But that's quite another story and let's try to leave it aside though it's difficult because all is intertwined. Congressman Charlie Wilson sponsored and incited by an evangelic rich lady whose moral and religious principles don't prevent here of sharing her bed with this or that one (including Wilson himself), enters a crusade against Soviet invasion of Afghanistan maybe for idealism but the reality is quite different: the enemies of our enemies are our friends and we must help them not for idealism but because it helps our own cause. Our cause here is to fight Soviet domination anywhere in the world, mainly in such important areas like the Middle East in order that we be able to dominate it ourselves for our own good. No other interests move us and the proof is there: after the end of the war with the Soviet defeat we leave them to their sad lot and not even a cent for a school we'll give. And the consequences are there in Irak and against in Afghanistan now. Coming back to the movie it's a bit unbelievable that all the actions of Charlie Wilson would be of his exclusive responsibility without the surety bond of the Senate and the President. And that circumstance is not even mentioned in the movie. In conclusion we have here a well made movie but whose contents rouse many doubts.

It doesn't happen very often, but occasionally one man can make a difference -- a big difference.

George Crile's 2003 best seller, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, is a fascinating and eye-opening account of the most unlikely "difference maker" imaginable. A relatively obscure Congressman from the Second District of Texas, "Good Time Charlie" was known more for his libertine lifestyle than his libertarian legislation. Likable and licentious (even for a politician), Charlie Wilson served his constituency well since the good folks of Lufkin only really wanted two things, their guns and to be left alone. It's Easy Street replete with his bevy of beltway beauties known, appropriately enough, as Charlie's Angels.

When asked why his entire office staff was composed of attractive, young aides his response is a classic, "You can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits." No argument there.

But even the most rakish rapscallion has a conscience lurking somewhere underneath, and for Charlie Wilson the unimaginable atrocities being committed in Afghanistan moved him to muster his entire political savvy toward funding the utter, humiliating defeat of the Russian military and, possibly, to even help hasten the end of the Cold War as a result. Fat chance, huh?

Under the skillful direction of Mike Nichols and a smart, snappy screenplay by Adam Sorkin, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR is a sparkling, sophisticated satire that chronicles the behind-the- scene machinations of three colorful characters comprising "Charlie's Team."

The on-screen "Team," is composed of three marvelous actors with four (4) Academy Awards and nine (9) nominations between them. Charlie is beautifully portrayed by Tom Hanks in a solid, slightly understated fashion that is among his best work in years. He's aided, abetted and abedded by Joanne Herring, a wealthy Houston socialite played by the still-slinky Julia Roberts. Hey, why else have the bikini scene than to let the world know this? By all accounts Ms. Roberts looks good and holds her own, but the screenplay never gives us even a hint why Kabul and country is so important to her character. Maybe the two Afghan hounds usually by her side know -- but we as an audience never do. As for the third member of the "Team," Philip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene he appears in as Gust Aurakotos, a smart, street- wise (i.e. non Ivy League graduate) CIA malcontent who knows the score -- both in the Agency's boardroom and in Wilson's bedroom.

For the Mujahideen to succeed, the most important assistance the U.S. can provide is the ability to shoot down the dreaded MI-21 helicopter gunships which rule the skies. This takes money, lots of money, and eventually "Charlie's Team" covertly coerces those in Congress to fund the effort to the tune of $1 billion dollars for advanced weaponry to arm the Afghan rebels. This includes top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets as well as other highly sophisticated killing devices. Nasty, nasty stuff.

That this kind of multi-billion dollar illicit activity can and does take place behind Congressional doors is truly alarming. Every American should see this movie or read this book because it reveals a truly frightening aspect of the business-as-usual political scene rarely seen outside the walls of our very own government. Oh momma, I wish it weren't so...

Even though the initial outcome for "Team Charlie" was an unqualified success, the unimaginable, unanticipated final result is that these sophisticated weapons are now used against our troops by the Taliban and others. Since the funding was entirely "covert," the young generation in this part of the world has no idea the fall of Soviet oppression and the end to Russian barbarity was the direct result of American intervention. Yes, once the Russkies left, so did our aid -- zip for schools, zip for infrastructure, zip on maintaining meaningful relationships with the Afghan people. As a result, the overall consequence is an unmitigated disaster -- it's like the forerunner to "Mission Accomplished."

As Nichol's film so pointedly points out, "The ball you've set in motion can keep bouncing even after you've lost interest in it." Mike Krzyzewski knows this, Eva Longoria Parker knows this, little Lateesha in Lafayette knows this, but the typical American politician doesn't. So we go from good guys to bad guys because we couldn't let the world know we were the good guys. Talk about a Catch-22 (another Mike Nichols film).

Perhaps Charlie Wilson said it best, "We f&%ked up the end game."

Again.

This movie presents extremely one-sided view on the Afghan war. I don't know if this is normal for the North American take on the situation, but for me it looks incredibly ignorant. Russians are rapists, ruthless invaders who's taking their joy in killing children and destroying peaceful villages. I struggled to find irony there but failed.

I hope no one takes this movie as an accurate depiction of this conflict. I hope you'll make your research, you'll look at the pictures of dead youngsters who were thrown into this political mess without proper training or equipment (hello, mandatory draft). A lot of Russian families lost their sons and fathers to this war and they even had no reason to justify the loss.

The movie itself is okay. Acting is mostly good (Philip Seymour Hoffman kills it like he always does), story is engaging, dialogues are witty and robust. The finale made the overall ignorance somehow less offensive. The ball keeps bouncing, doesn't it?

But the way the movie portraits the motives of Russians is disgusting. I'm pretty sure some people who watched this thought it was accurate and I find this disastrous.

I like Tom Hanks, and he is one of few actors who will draw me into the theatre regardless of any misgivings I may have concerning the film. I worried about Mr. Hanks return to "light comedy" as this is the arena where he made the transition from TV to film- remember "Big"? Well, "Charlie Wilson's War" is not light comedy. It is political satire, and extremely well-written political satire at that. The script is the star of this film, and the word-smithing by Aaron Sorkin is some of the best on offer this year.

Mike Nicols holds the entire escapade together, delivering a film that zips along in a very quick 90 minutes (timing is everything in comedy, and nothing is ever funny if it drags). Nicols' choice in sets and lighting are also very reminiscent of '70's and '80's TV, a move used deliberately to root the piece in period.

The return to the use of model work and stock photography over digital special effects also enhances the retro look and believability. Note to the production designers in your choice of stock footage: I know the difference between an F-16 and a MiG, and a Bell and a Hind. But that may have been part of the joke, too.

I saw this film in Philadelphia. It was interesting to watch and listen to the audience NOT get the historical references to their own history. History tends to repeat because the recidivists have forgotten what happened the first time around.

Kudos to both Mr. Hanks and that chameleon Phillip Seymore Hoffman. Sorkin's script is brought to life by these actors, and the entire production team is on the top of their game.

Heartily recommended.

Charlie Wilson's War is based on real-life events, but that doesn't mean it's awesomely compelling. Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) an almost-invisible Congressman in the 1980s who specializes in drinking and carousing, decides to push for the U.S. to aid the Afghanis, whose country has been invaded by the Soviet Union. Only they had to do it secret-like, you see, because the Cold War was ongoing at the time. Couldn't have the Russkies knowing we were arming their enemies, because then we'd be directly involved when we wanted to remain indirectly involved. You know, because of the nukes.

Wilson can't pull this off alone, of course, even if he's the chairman of the committee that funds the CIA's covert ops. The cool thing is that if Wilson asks for the budget to be increased, say, twofold, Congress sees only the amount, not the reasons underlying the increase. Even so, Wilson needs to schmooze and raise funds without blowing the cover; he's pushed and prodded into action by a woman who can help him, wealthy Texas socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts). Herring, a devout Christian, wants to help the Afghani mujahedin to push back against the godless Communist invaders. Rounding out the team is the CIA's own rogue renegade rebel, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman), an iconoclast with the intelligence - if not the social graces - to help Wilson win his war.

Hanks turns in a pretty believable Texas twang and is a pretty good fit for the role, even when he uses profanity. I can't remember the last time I heard Tom Hanks say the F word or be in a hot tub with naked women. Oh, wait, it might have been Bachelor Party. Somehow, even the older Hanks pulls it off. Then there's Roberts, who's also somewhat acceptable in her role as the Texan matron - but who must have had an on-set stylist who absolutely detested her, because she got put in some of the worst wigs known to women. (Men in general have worse wigs, obviously.) I mean, it looked like a blonde muskrat died on her head. I shouldn't be too unkind, since the movie IS set in the 1980s, a decade infamous for its fashion choices, but the look was really awful for Roberts. And, as I mentioned, she's somewhat acceptable - if one looks past the fact that she's 40 playing someone considerably older but still looking like a 40 year old playing dress up.

Outshining everyone, easily, was Hoffman. It's like the man doesn't even have to break a sweat to outact people anymore. He's even better than Hanks, who's kind of restricted by the type of role that Charlie Wilson is - a fun-lovin' Man in Charge. Supporting characters, like Hoffman's Gust, often have more freedom to be wacky, offbeat, lovable curmudgeons. Hoffman's fantastic, hidden beneath Gust's bushy mustache and issuing bon mots; he steals the movie from the bigger stars (Oscar win notwithstanding) with a grumpy, energetic performance.

All in all, Charlie Wilson's war is simply okay, a decent biopic about a man and situation unfamiliar to most people. It's helped quite a bit by its superstar cast (and direction by Mike Nichols), but it's not interesting enough to warrant much attention. When Hanks, Roberts, and Hoffman have retired from acting, this movie will appear only as a blip, a footnote in otherwise memorable careers.

Full article at http://alternet.org/story/71286/

Tom Hanks Tells Hollywood Whopper in 'Charlie Wilson's War' By Melissa Roddy, AlterNet Posted on December 21, 2007, Printed on December 21, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/71286/ "We just can't deal with this 9/11 thing. Does it have to be so political?" from an anonymous source at Playtone Productions

Charlie Wilson's War purports to be the true story of a hard-partying U.S. congressman from Texas who engineered the defeat of the Soviet Union by the Afghan Mujahiddin. Now there are true stories, and there are true-ish stories. It is a given that, in creating a film narrative, sometimes the truth gets a little bent, but it's against the rules to change facts that change the outcome of history. When telling the story of Antony and Cleopatra, they gotta die at the end, n'est pas. It's inappropriate, for example, to tell the story of World War II and pretend that, because the United States might have given a box of guns to the French Underground, there was no Holocaust. That's a pretty good analogy for what's been done in Charlie Wilson's War.

In the latter half of the movie, there is one big lie and one item of anti-Afghan propaganda. The lie is that U.S. support to the mujahiddin went only to the faction led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Afghan leader who was assassinated on Sept. 9, 2001. I spoke with Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Texas, in 2002, at which time he called Massoud "a Russian collaborator." I find it disingenuous that Wilson and his Hollywood biographers now want to throw their arms around him. (Note: George Crile's book does not make this false claim.) Moreover, if this movie succeeds in convincing Americans that the U.S. support went to Ahmad Shah Massoud alone, it will have effectively let the CIA and Wilson off the hook for their contribution to the circumstances leading up to 9/11. During the 1980s, Wilson engineered the appropriation of approximately $3.5 billion to help the Afghans fight the Soviets. According to Milt Bearden, CIA chief of station to Pakistan, Massoud received less than 1 percent of it.

The joke is: "When a Tajik man wants to make love to a woman, his first choice is a Pashtun man."

Why is this propagandistic? Because it supports the idea that Afghans are just too tribal to get along. They've always fought each other. As Wilson once said to me, "You put two Afghans in a room, you end up with seven factions." The trouble with this idea is that Afghanistan has been a cohesive nation for several hundred years.

So why were these two offenses included in this movie?

1. The Massoud "inaccuracy" was included because Tom Hanks "just can't deal with this 9/11 thing"; and because Wilson and Joanne Herring (played by Julia Roberts in the movie) threatened legal action after reading an earlier, more honest, draft of the screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. Herring was Pakistan's honorary consul to the United States in the 1980s, and as such, enlisted Wilson into supporting the cause of the Afghans. Neither Wilson nor Herring wants history to remember them for their contribution to the events that culminated in 9/11.

2. The really bad joke was included because, when Wilson retired from the House of Representatives, he was so copasetic to Pakistani views that he went to work for Pakistan as their lobbyist -- at the rate of $360,000 per year. Not bad for an old skirt-chasin' boozer.

Melissa Roddy, like several of the principals in the saga of Afghanistan, is a native Texan. An actress based in Los Angeles, she is currently producing and directing a documentary film on the history of Afghanistan from 1979 to 9/11 entitled The Square Root of Terror.

For full article go to http://alternet.org/story/71286/

Phillip Seymour Hoffman's stinging wit in this film will be matched, in level, only by the frustration viewers will feel when the end credits role.

The main conceit (we track congressman Charlie Wilson as he attempts to supply enough arms to Afghan resistance fighters in order to facilitate them in cleaning the Soviets out of Afghanistan)is well executed and humorously portrayed with Hanks a willing and skillful recipient of Hoffman's much publicised show stealing antics as disgruntled C.I.A agent Gust Avrakotos (the scene in Wilson's office is the highlight).

However, it is not just Hoffman who steals the show, nor is it the under-developed, under-used, under-acting Julia Roberts, playing socialite Joanne Herring whose existence in this piece is paid nothing more and, quite possibly, considerably less than lip-service. Amy Adams however, as Wilson's nagging yet affectionate assistant is fantastic despite being given lines which lack both depth and gumption. Adams manages to change a character apparently only included to point out to the audience whether Wilson is currently acting debauched or as the peak of morality into a three dimensional figure who lights every scene and provides Hank's character with the only opponent he can never overcome.

Under-developed characters are not, however, this films main weakness. Whilst it does an admirable job in relating to us the tale of Wilson's most famous endeavour the man himself is sadly lost behind the jokes and the guns, the girls and the bathtubs. Wilson is fascinating; a drunk by day and night whose greatest achievement in congress was 'getting himself re-elected six times', he suddenly turns into moral crusader for the oppressed Afghans at the flick of a switch. Baleful shots towards the films conclusion hint that Wilson is not only upset about the outcome but genuinely hurt and depressed yet we are never told how he ended up in this state or what happened to him after his endeavours into Afghanistan. Whether Nichols decided to make this decision due to the fact that the real-life Wilson is very much alive (and indeed attended the premiere) is by-the-by as he sacrifices character integrity for plot manoeuvrability, only to have what little there is left of his character undermine everything.

An enjoyable film with decent performances from most of its many characters. Unfortunately however, this does not include the ubiquitous Charlie Wilson.

Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is celebrated by the clandestine services. The movies flashbacks to the early 1980s. Playboy Texas minor congressman Charlie Wilson gets interested in the struggles of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Bonnie Bach (Amy Adams) is his executive assistant. He is pushed by his wealthy supporter Houston socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and assisted by maverick CIA agent Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman).

Tom Hanks is fine but I wish he is acting bigger and brasher. Julia Roberts is not nearly acting big enough for a Texas socialite. The hair is big but she's not wild enough. They are playing it a bit too safe for a satire. The thing is that I never bought into its realism either. PSH ups the fun factor with his acting. The movie is not jokey enough to be funny. Neither is it harsh enough. Considering 9/11 at the top of every audience's mindset, it could have hit a lot harder. It's somewhere in the lumpy middle. The film leaves only a couple of scenes for the post-Soviet Afghanistan. That could be a compelling switch in his character but it gets short-changed.

I quit watching "The West Wing" after Aaron Sorkin quit writing and producing. It just wasn't the same. Imagine my thrill at seeing a film that he wrote again. It has been a long time - The American President, A Few Good Men. His script was a beautiful blend of humor and tragedy. He made a compelling story believable, and made me weep at the same time.

Tom Hanks was incredible as a small-time Texas Congressman whose constituents only wanted lower taxes and to keep their guns. Not a hard job, so he had plenty of time to fool around - and that he did. His office staff looked as if he were at the Playboy Mansion. Like he reportedly said, "You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits." Despite his sexist attitude, which fits right in with a Texas Congressman, they were fiercely loyal, especially his aide, Amy Adams (Junebug & former Hooters girl).

Now, add a rich Texas socialite who wants something done in Afghanistan, played perfectly by Julia Roberts; and a pain-in-his-boss's-ass CIA agent, superbly done by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and you have a movie well worth watching.

Outstanding writing, and superlative acting, and a story that needed to be told. What more do you want at the movies?

This sharply written political comedy stars Tom Hanks as a 1980s womanising, whiskey-gulping, senator, who finds himself the middle man in an American effort to fund the war in Afghanistan. His financial backing, scary socialite millionaire Joane Herring (a heavily made up Julia Roberts) sends him to the refugee camps on the Pakistani borders in order to further his mission. Although the movie fails largely to acknowledge the huge consequences of the war's aftermath, Charlie Wilson's War for the most part contains enough zingy one-liners and larger-than-life characters to please audiences. Although Roberts and Hanks have attracted the lion's share of publicity for the film, it is Philip Seymour Hoffman who steals the show. Playing a brash and hilariously frank CIA agent Gust Avrakotos, Hoffman executes some of the film's funniest lines with effortless panache.

Nice to see a comedy for grown ups. Masterfully structured by Aaron Sorkin via Mike Nichols's own mastery. Mr Nichol's mastery is to present characters in all their shocking truth, from the sad and riveting Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf" to the sad and riveting Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Jude Law and Natalie Portman in "Closer". In "Charlie Wilson's War" the shocking truth is outside the characters and the sad and riveting Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams are at the service of something else, it's personal only to a point. Hanks has to bury his brilliance in single malts and Julia Roberts throws parties and introduces characters with blatant straightforwardness. Amy Adams witnesses and exist as a character, witnessing. An insurmountable task that Miss Adams manages to surmount, beautifully. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman's Gus with a t, however, that monopolized my attention. His character may not be a first but it is a first the way that Hoffman presented him to us. Someone who survives the disregard with which he's treated by the absolute conviction that he's smarter than all of them put together. Hoffman is superb. The pacing of the tale helps enormously not to fall in a myriad of useless questions. A sharp, short, smart, sad comedy and when was the last time I was able to say that?

In the hands of a lesser writer and/or director, this would be at least 30 minutes longer and half as entertaining; that it tells a complex political drama with verve, energy and insight is down to Aaron Sorkin's trademark writing gifts, Mike Nichols's brisk direction and a cast stacked with talent. It may lack some of the insight needed into the moral complexities it uncovers, but there's little doubt it uncovers the dangers and hypocrisy of America's covet wars whilst still being an enjoyable ride. Tom Hanks is perhaps a little too nice, miscast somewhat as the ethically dubious politician at the center of it all, but the rest of the cast more than make up for that. There's no time to get bored or bogged down.

Though the importance of Representative Charles Wilson, Democrat from Texas who served from 1973 to 1997 in Congress, in the fall of the Russian puppet regime in Afghanistan maybe in exaggerated in George Crile's book and in this film, Charlie Wilson's War provides an insight into Washington politics that you won't get from the talking heads of the various news networks.

I liked Charlie Wilson, or at least the way Tom Hanks plays him. A politician who doesn't take himself to terribly serious who likes his fun and frolic, but also has some deep concerns about the United States of America and its position in the world. It fell to him because of some key committee assignments to be able to give the Central Intelligence Agency the appropriations necessary to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan which eventually toppled the Soviet Union itself. A feat that conservative Republicans like to assign exclusively to their hero, Ronald Reagan.

Wilson and Clarence Long, played by Ned Beatty, belong to that vanishing breed of conservative to moderate Democrats who as they leave, their places are taken by Republicans. The only group growing extinct faster than them are the liberal Republicans. We're a bitterly partisan nation now and no one party or one individual is responsible for it. Note how Wilson is being investigated by a certain U.S. Attorney named Rudolph Giuliani back in the day. Don't think the object there wasn't partly to open that seat up for the GOP.

In our story Wilson becomes interested and it's more than the interest of a politician currying for votes of the plight of the Afghans. They just need the weaponry and the know how. Sparking his interest is Texas society leader, political power broker, and former beauty queen Julia Roberts. It's the best part Julia's had since Erin Brockovich.

But when he's on the screen Philip Seymour Hoffman blows everyone else out of the water. Hoffman is a career Central Intelligence Agency official who seems to have encountered the glass ceiling in his career there. It's a feeling I know well from my former job, I'd love to have done what Hoffman did to his superior when we first meet him in the film.

Hoffman and Hanks become an unbeatable team, Hanks handling the Congress and Hoffman the inside politics of the CIA. They make it happen for the Afghans.

Those who criticize the film miss the whole point. We left the Afghans free, but in a devastated country. That was the whole point of that scene where Wilson is vainly trying to get decent appropriations for rebuilding Afghanistan's infrastructure. Because policy makers put Afghanistan on the back-burner the vacuum created was filled by the Taliban with terrible results.

Also listen to Hoffman's character's zen like analysis as to what the future could hold as a result of their work. History is full of surprises, mostly unpleasant.

I think a couple of Oscars could be in the future for Charlie Wilson's War. It's a thought provoking film that should not be missed.

The filmmakers neglected to connect the dots--that is, the sequence of events and choices that led from Charlie Wilson and the anti-Soviet mujaheddin to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and eventually to 9/11. The filmmakers of course neglect to tell us the back-story--why were the Soviets in Afghanistan?--but that omission pales in comparison to their failure to reveal that support for Islamicist extremists in Afghanistan in the name of rabid anti-communism ultimately strengthened the hand of anti-western forces and was a big contributing factor to the mess that we find ourselves in today (9/11, terrorist networks, a prolonged ground war in Afghanistan, etc.). Because these consequences are not spelled out, the movie leaves the viewer feeling sympathetic to Mr. Wilson (hey, check out his latest projects on the Internet) instead of seeing him as an individual whose actions were contrary to the best interests of his country and the West as a whole.