Charlie Wilson's War (B or 3/4 stars)
Based on true events, 'Charlie Wilson's War' (a dramedy directed by Mike Nichols) tells the story of Texas congressman Charlie Wilson's covert dealings with Afghanistan (back when the Soviets were still our main enemy). Once a fun-lovin' playboy, Charlie (Tom Hanks) joins forces with a deviant CIA agent, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman), & Texan socialite, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), to gather information, arms, and most importantly ... money for the Afghans in their fight against the Soviets. It would be the most successful covert war in history. Their efforts helped contribute to the eventual end of the Cold War. So, this is an intriguing story. But it only intermittently enthralled me. There's nothing overtly bad about the movie, it's good -- just nothing to go bonkers about.
April 6, 1980: When we meet Charlie, we instantly realize that he's a flawed guy: a tad bit out of shape, a hefty drinker, a man who keeps company with strippers, drug users ... and a man of few ambitions. And he'd be lost without his lovely administrative assistant (Enchanted's Amy Adams) on his tail. Early on in the film, Charlie gets wind of the dire situation in Afghanistan. And after he visits their refugee camps, he decides to use his name and his clout to funnel $$ & weapons to the them. After being named to the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, Charlie is able to up the anti-Soviet budget from $5 mill to $10; but it's not enough, not at all. Odd enough, his only help comes (initially) from renegade CIA op, Gust, and his on-again-off-again love interest, Joanne.
We watch Charlie wheel & deal in Pakistan, where he meets the President (Om Puri). He also starts negotiating with the Israelis (who manufacture Soviet weapons!); this is a fairly humorous scene. The Pakistanis love Joanne. The Afghan freedom fighters (Mujahedins) love the chairman of the U.S. Defense subcommittee (Ned Beatty) ... and he loves them. A montage (laden with information) shows us just how many Soviet tanks & helicopters were being destroyed over the years of this 'war'. And the film ends (in 1993) with Charlie being honored for his incredible work. Over the years, he was responsible for diverting over $500,000,000 to the aid of Afghanistan. The irony, of course, is that that $$ (over the ensuing years) would go right into the hands of Al Qaeda/bin Laden.
Wilson's convictions were admirable. But look at what happened come 9/11. We can thank (or condemn him) for how a chunk of the world operates today -- Ironic that the 'good Afghan rebels' were anything but. All in all, this is a sophisticated film about America's part to play. I'm glad it was a trim 97 minutes. It makes its points & entertains (FAR more than, say, Rendition, a failed war movie from 2 months ago). Tom Hanks is great, as usual. But it's not a flashy role, and I don't think he can make it into the higher echelon of acting accolades this year. His scenes with Julia Roberts (stellar, but barely onscreen) are great to watch. PS Hoffman gives another good performance as the bloated, angry, rude & crude strategist. And though she has a miniscule role, it was awfully nice to see Emily Blunt (I'd say her body is enough to garner Oscar attention ... no? Aww, schucks).
There are several fine scenes. i.e., Gust confers with Charlie in his office, but his beautiful aides keep barging in with news about a pressing cocaine scandal. A scene like this was handled so well. But they came few & far between. As much as I appreciate an intelligent screenplay, it was very wordy, over-muddled with information. For people like me, who didn't know much about the covert war, picking up on everything they were saying (at a lightning pace) was difficult; and it took me out of the movie. It's also a movie that pays so much attention to 1980's details (books, furniture, hairstyles, alcohol, clothes, televisions, etc.), that I could barely keep my eyes, ears, & head focused on everything that was going on at once. As I left the theater, I knew I had just watched an occasionally gratifying, but mostly unimportant film; so wordy, and yet, somewhat hollow. It's a more than acceptable movie, but one that's hard to take seriously, or even love.
April 6, 1980: When we meet Charlie, we instantly realize that he's a flawed guy: a tad bit out of shape, a hefty drinker, a man who keeps company with strippers, drug users ... and a man of few ambitions. And he'd be lost without his lovely administrative assistant (Enchanted's Amy Adams) on his tail. Early on in the film, Charlie gets wind of the dire situation in Afghanistan. And after he visits their refugee camps, he decides to use his name and his clout to funnel $$ & weapons to the them. After being named to the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, Charlie is able to up the anti-Soviet budget from $5 mill to $10; but it's not enough, not at all. Odd enough, his only help comes (initially) from renegade CIA op, Gust, and his on-again-off-again love interest, Joanne.
We watch Charlie wheel & deal in Pakistan, where he meets the President (Om Puri). He also starts negotiating with the Israelis (who manufacture Soviet weapons!); this is a fairly humorous scene. The Pakistanis love Joanne. The Afghan freedom fighters (Mujahedins) love the chairman of the U.S. Defense subcommittee (Ned Beatty) ... and he loves them. A montage (laden with information) shows us just how many Soviet tanks & helicopters were being destroyed over the years of this 'war'. And the film ends (in 1993) with Charlie being honored for his incredible work. Over the years, he was responsible for diverting over $500,000,000 to the aid of Afghanistan. The irony, of course, is that that $$ (over the ensuing years) would go right into the hands of Al Qaeda/bin Laden.
Wilson's convictions were admirable. But look at what happened come 9/11. We can thank (or condemn him) for how a chunk of the world operates today -- Ironic that the 'good Afghan rebels' were anything but. All in all, this is a sophisticated film about America's part to play. I'm glad it was a trim 97 minutes. It makes its points & entertains (FAR more than, say, Rendition, a failed war movie from 2 months ago). Tom Hanks is great, as usual. But it's not a flashy role, and I don't think he can make it into the higher echelon of acting accolades this year. His scenes with Julia Roberts (stellar, but barely onscreen) are great to watch. PS Hoffman gives another good performance as the bloated, angry, rude & crude strategist. And though she has a miniscule role, it was awfully nice to see Emily Blunt (I'd say her body is enough to garner Oscar attention ... no? Aww, schucks).
There are several fine scenes. i.e., Gust confers with Charlie in his office, but his beautiful aides keep barging in with news about a pressing cocaine scandal. A scene like this was handled so well. But they came few & far between. As much as I appreciate an intelligent screenplay, it was very wordy, over-muddled with information. For people like me, who didn't know much about the covert war, picking up on everything they were saying (at a lightning pace) was difficult; and it took me out of the movie. It's also a movie that pays so much attention to 1980's details (books, furniture, hairstyles, alcohol, clothes, televisions, etc.), that I could barely keep my eyes, ears, & head focused on everything that was going on at once. As I left the theater, I knew I had just watched an occasionally gratifying, but mostly unimportant film; so wordy, and yet, somewhat hollow. It's a more than acceptable movie, but one that's hard to take seriously, or even love.