Directed by:
Mike NicholsScreenplay:
Aaron SorkinCinematography:
Stephen GoldblattComposer:
James Newton HowardCast:
Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Emily Blunt, Peter Gerety, Brian Markinson, Shiri Appleby, John Slattery, Erick Avari, Om Puri (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
In the early 1980s, Charlie Wilson is a womanizing US congressional representative from Texas who is a member of two major foreign policy and covert-ops committees. After being prodded by his major conservative supporter, Houston Socialite Joanne Herring, Wilson learns about the plight the people are suffering in the brutal Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. With the help of maverick CIA agent Gustav Avrakotos, Wilson dedicates his canny political efforts to supply the Afghan mujahideen with the weapons and support to defeat the Soviet Union. (Showtime)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (8)
Some effective links to the bizarre functioning of the US government system and a significant number of heated dialogues, which, however, get lost in the abundance of questionable references and the ineffective atmosphere of the 1980s. It's quite a shame because Congressman Tom Hanks and his “first lady” Julia Roberts are thoroughly enjoying their roles. There is little to say about the authentic footage of action scenes of shooting, which the editors and cameramen combine with visual effects (probably to save money), because the film doesn't rely on that at all. However, even the key elements on which the film should work don't quite work fully, and occasionally the whole thing becomes alarmingly shaky. Despite its relatively long running time, I found many scenes uninteresting and some were cold and distant despite the actors' best efforts.
()
Tom Hanks has decided to tarnish his image a bit and play a character who is not the fool that Forrest Gump was. He has a weakness for women and will sleep with anyone. His office looks like a hotel for high-class prostitutes and his effort is exactly what cost America the Twin Towers in a few years. The film is a satire. Well, it should be a satire, but it's not funny enough and especially not biting enough. So an incredible problem is being addressed, a history that shaped the future, but at the same time, it is not really criticized, everything is within limits so as not to cause too much controversy. Why is it not more biting? Isn't it possible to step on America's toes more? Isn't Russia's invasion of Afghanistan and American support for the Afghans reason enough for someone to really oppose America? If not this, then I don't know. Tom Hanks won't offend anyone, nor will Julia Roberts, but I can't say I was thrilled by this political satire. Everything is within limits, everything is fine. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/04/frost-vs-nixon-bos-vs-kung-fu-trocha.html
()
Not a bad movie by any means, but it lacks something that will make me remember it in a week. The acting is decent, the plot moves along quickly, but there really isn't a single emotionally powerful moment or downright interesting scene. It’s a very safe bet from everyone involved. But quite enjoyable.
()
This is exactly the kind of movie I love. Clever dramatic-satirical comedies about things that look unbelievable but really happened. Charlie Wilson's War offers a script full of extra dry humor, a charming trio of main characters (you couldn't pick better performers), great scenes such as the first meeting between Wilson and "Gus", a bathroom conversation, an audience with the Pakistani president, a visit to a refugee camp and a helicopter shoot-down... I give the film four and a half stars, which I'm rounding up because I just want to. Oh, and also for the shattered window in the office and for the final quote.__P.S. There are only two documentaries on the DVD, but one of them (Who is Charlie Wilson?) is surprisingly interesting.
()
Mike Nichols and Aaron Sorkin lightly scratch those sensitive social spots that an Oliver Stone would once have preferred to bite. This does not provoke arguments or a partial rebirth, but they do speak their minds on the subject, hitting the mainstream taste and those who find what they need in the film will leave with a very exhilarated feeling. However, do not look for negativity in this, because I myself must belong to such a group with overwhelmingly positive feelings. Tom Hanks's light disguise, jovial gestures, and at the same time believable character are several levels higher for me in balancing satire and political morality than the slightly lost performances of Julia Roberts and unfortunately also Philip Seymour Hoffman. Perhaps due to the script, Hoffman displays casual boasting that gradually turns into demolishing the right path, which affects the stingingly humorous aspect, becoming rather a sour farce in his performance. Apart from this unfortunate decision, however, I have no objections and I praise what I can.
()
Ads