La Guerre selon Charlie Wilson

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 It was interesting to watch and listen to the audience NOT get the historical references to their own history.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.