Juego de Poder

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.