Charlie Wilson's War (Widescreen)

tom hanks and philip seymour hoffman shine in a fast-dialogue tongue twister (2008-12-30) Rating: 3/5
First, let me be honest about relevant biases I hold. I am not a fan of Tom Hanks. I don't like Forrest Gump, and aside from Big, I've never really understand his massive appeal. I either really enjoy Julia Roberts (i.e. Mona Lisa Smile or Steel Magnolias) or I'm lukewarm about her performances. I think Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant in everything he's ever done. Finally, Aaron Sorkin is a dynamic writer.

The dialogue is fast-paced, which I usually adore (i.e. 30 Rock, the funniest show on television). When rapid dialogue coexists with Southern accents, it is sometimes difficult to understand. This movie is all dialogue. I found myself listening too hard to the individual words to always understand the depth of plot. It's certainly a history lesson, and the story is fascinating. Philip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene he's in, and he deserved the Oscar nomination for it. I happen to believe his performance was even better than Javier Bardem's winning performance in No Country for Old Men, but I realize I'm in the minority. Tom Hanks was also fantastic, and I am not one to commonly hold this belief. Julia Roberts, despite having very little to do in this incredibly male driven story, was underwhelming. She's from Georgia, and I know she can do a Southern accent well, but her accent in Charlie Wilson's War was odd and un-Texan. She had a few great lines, but they managed to be more throwaways because of her accent and lack of character development. I would have gladly added ten minutes to the film's running time to see Julia Roberts have more to do.

All things considered, it's definitely worth seeing, but when you watch it, you may want to keep the remote control nearby to pause and rewind the rapidly fired dialogue. Prepare to once again be in awe of Philip Seymour Hoffman. Also, prepare to be absolutely depressed because the story is true. It's brilliance is in its tragedy; the layers of history must be determined after the fact. I give Aaron Sorkin credit for distilling a complicated part of history into a manageable hour and forty-five minute story. I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek depictions of women at the time. The screenplay and the actresses who portray Wilson's support staff manage to allow viewers to celebrate the decadence of the day with a modern view of its sexist underpinnings. It's not a movie I'll need to see again, but it is a movie I'm glad I saw.

Interesting take on history (2008-12-24) Rating: 3/5
Another political movie that choses gloss over substance. Philip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene that he's in and Julia Roberts rely on her southern roots to turn in a convincing Texas belle performance. Tom Hanks-eh. I wasn't too impressed, it seems like I've seen this character for him before. I didn't necessarily find this story all that compelling and it fails at being a character study because the change in our main character literally happens at a snap of a finger. Of course at the end everything is the U.S' fault and I guess somehow we should all be ashamed of ourselves in the end. For the most part, the film is just a notch above a snoozer-only because of Hoffman.
Better than most (2008-12-22) Rating: 4/5
Philip Seymour Hoffman makes this movie. His sarcastic, cynical and wry CIA agent is the best part of the whole thing. The dialog is great and Julia Roberts has the "Texas Socialite" down pat.

The crappy Texas accents make it a bit hard to understand the actors, particularly at the beginning of the movie, and I really could have done without the shot of Tom Hanks naked butt.

Otherwise, the movie is funny and holds your interest throughout.


Charlie Wilson's Warf (2008-12-21) Rating: 5/5
Item arrived on time and in great shape. Here again Tom Hanks is always fun to watch.
2.5 stars: Where is the political passion? (2008-12-19) Rating: 2/5
Charlie Wilson's War has a lot of things going for it: Mike Nichols behind the camera, Aaron Sorkin writing the screenplay, a great cast spearheaded by Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Phillip Seymour Hoffman and a true story as its inspiration. So why does it all feel so unengaging and dull? I was expecting a tightly paced, funny, smart and above all, passionate movie about one man who played a major role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Hanks stars as the title character, a Texas congressman who raises funds and provides weapons for the Afghanastans in their battle with the Soviets in the 80's. He can't raise the money through the appropriations cmmittee he serves on, so he sets about covertly funding the Afghan's war via a pact with Israel and Pakistan, the fundraising of a right wing aristocrat (Julia Roberts) and the insights of a jaded CIA operative (Hoffman).

There's lots of talking and walking (Sorkin trademarks), but you never feel involved in the political wheelings and dealings. You're relegated to the role of an observer. The movie never conveys the sense of urgency and the need to do something that Wilson apparently felt after visiting an Afghan refugee camp. The only times that the movie comes to life is when Hoffman is on camera. His cynical yet canny operative is tough, funny and smart and he happily joins Wilson's efforts.

I'm not sure how much fudging of history the movie did, but it really doesn't matter because you never feel any sense of purpose or accomplishment from Wilson, and likewise you don't really feel his frustration when he realizes that the endgame gets completely messed up. Surely a movie delaing with events of this magnitude could have stirred up some sort of reaction. Not so much, as it turns out.