Customer Reviews

Charlie Wilson's War

5 star:		(62)
4 star:		(51)
3 star:		(22)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

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.

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.

Mike Nichols was not unaware of the irony in Charlie Wilson's story. Late in the film he has Philip Seymour Hoffman, in the character of Gust Avrakotos, recite a story on the balcony of Charlie's apartment. "Listen, not for nothin' but do you know the story about the Zen master and the little boy? There was a little boy, and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse, and everybody in the village says 'How wonderful, the boy got a horse.' And the Zen master says, 'We'll see.' Two years later the boy falls off the horse and breaks his leg and everybody in the village says 'How terrible' -- and the Zen master says 'We'll see.' Then a war breaks out, and all the young men have to go off and fight, except the boy can't because his leg's all messed up and everybody in the village says 'How wonderful...'" and Tom Hanks (as Congressman Wilson) completes the story, "And the Zen master says 'We'll see.'" Avrakotos: "So you get it?" Wilson: "No, no I don't 'cause I'm stupid."

But Nichols isn't stupid, and he knows his audience isn't either. Charlie Wilson armed the Mujahideen against the Soviets, allowing a ragtag band of freedom fighters to defeat and ultimately destroy a mighty empire of invaders.

And everybody at Charlie Wilson's victory party is saying "How wonderful."

Philip Seymour Hoffman and Tom Hanks are great in just about everything they do. And this movie was interesting, but it's certainly not even close to the best movie of the year.

Watching the covert war being built up and fought for by Charlie, despite his personal character flaws, was interesting. But the leaps this movies makes by saying it's our fault for Afghanistan's problems is flawed.

The movie (Charlie) makes the assumption that because we didn't pump millions into Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out that we messed up, and inadvertently caused them to hate us, ergo they fly jets into our commercial buildings.

If that's the case, where are all the Vietnamese terrorists?

And Julia Roberts was a very minor character in this movie. I think the trailers compiled 90% of her screen time to make it look like she was walking around in a bikini the whole movie and speaking with a bad Texas accent. She played a very minor role and really they should have given that role to a better and cheaper actress. All she did was act like an older version of Erin Brokovich - but she basically plays that in all her movies.

THis was an okay movie. I bet the book will be better.

I absolutely loved this film that somehow combines breezy wit with heart stopping reality. It's not an easy combination to pull off but with Mike Nichols(The Graduate) as director, Aaron Sorkin(West Wing) as writer and a cast of Oscar winners it all works. This is Tom Hanks at his best with a formidable Julia Roberts, and an incredible Phillip Symour Hoffman. If you want all the intricate details there are plenty of reviews to give that to you. This is a story of how the Russian invasion of Afghanistan changed the course of history with the ramifications still being felt today. The film never insults the audience's intelligence and never tries to tie everything up in a pretty ribbon with characters that are flawless. In a nonstop entertaining, intelligent way these non-heroic characters rise above the muck and actually make a difference. Intelligent, funny, witty and gripping. The kind of film that I thought Hollywood forgot how to make.

Growing up in the Houston area, I was always hearing about Charlie Wilson and his antics in Washington, it was refreshing in a way to see a congressman so unabashedly free, his constituents loved him and he was a good congressman, but really I had no idea that he helped ignite a proxy war in Afganistan. Tom Hanks is perfect as Charlie, he looks like him and he has his fun loving swagger, but you never forget that Wilson is nobody's fool, he may be fun loving and a bit wild, but he is a policy wonk of the first order. I liked Roberts as the Houston socialite Herring, I have met Ms. Herring and she is indeed a force of nature. Hoffman is excellent as usual and he and Hanks are a laugh riot, now THEY have great chemistry. I really enjoyed this film, and to think it's based on a true story is amazing. Of course, Wilsons proxy war has had major blowback, and I appreciate that the film touches on this and the ending is well done. Hoffmans story he tells Hanks at the end is straight up genius, it's a shame America never seem to think about these things as we practice imperial real politik...all and all fun movie, highly recommended.

"Charlie Wilson's War" tells an interesting tale, and production quality is good, but I found it uninvolving despite good performances by Hanks, Roberts, and - especially - Philip Seymour Hoffman. Much of the time I felt as if I were watching through a plate glass window: able to see what was going on, but feeling little or no connection to the players or the events. If this chapter in U.S. history interests you, or if you are a fan of the three lead actors, it's worth watching, but I would not put it on the top of my "must see" list

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.

The subject matter of this film is outstanding and extremely important to our current situation in Afghanistan and southwest Asia in general. And Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman did an excellent acting job, no doubt. The problem is that Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson played a minor, I emphasize minor part in the eventually successful effort to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Hanks gives Wilson a great persona and Hoffman gives Avrakotos a cool, aloof character, but these two guys played an extremely small role in this operation. The film, however, makes this pair look like the only noble knights in the entire American arsenal. If you want an entertaining film that will inspire an interest in the Soviet-Afghan War and perhaps provide insight into the current Afghan War, look no further. But don't kid yourself about this film being accurate, or an even remotely realistic view into how the US (CIA, DoD, DoS and various foreign agencies) assisted in the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

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...