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)
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.
()
Mike Nichols was one of the few certainties for me in film heaven, for whose films I always expected to give four or five stars. But disappointment had to come at some point. Charlie Wilson's War resembles, at first glance, a nice pool that invites you to swim in it, only to find out upon entering the water that it has a depth of about 40 cm. It doesn't help that the water is pleasantly warm and the pool design looks top-notch. It is not clever and analytical enough for satire, and not funny enough for comedy. My problem was that I couldn't laugh at the obvious attempts at comedic elements. The only truly interesting character was the CIA agent played with irony by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Tom Hanks is reliable, but the screenplay, which I consider the main weakness of the film, did not allow him to develop his acting abilities. Throughout the duration, I was slightly bored, partly because the events portrayed were well-known to me from far more informed sources. Overall impression: 45%.
()
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.
()
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
()
Ads