Charlie Wilson's War (Widescreen)

***1/2 2007. Based on George Crile's Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA Agent Changed the History of Our Times and directed by Mike Nichols. Academy award nomination for Hoffman and five Golden Globe nominations. Washington, 1980. A bored American congressman, enthralled by the Afghan war, tries to obtain secret funds in order to buy modern arms for the Afghan guerrilla warfare. I was a little surprised by some of the reviewers here which describe CHARLIE WILSON'S as if the film was a documentary or an accurate account of what really happened in the 80's. IT IS NOT. The movie is a funny satire of American morals in politics, that's all. Enjoy. Recommended.

Tom Hawks and Julia Roberts do a good job, but I really think Philip Hoffman who is exceptional as the old, crusty, operative. My wife and I bought the DVD for our viewing and watched a couple of times when our son and daughter borrowed it to watch it with their friends. Everyone has really enjoyed it.

It's been a long time since I've seen a comedy which doesn't have to depend on toilet or sex jokes to make it funny but instead have great dialogue and an excellent cast in order for it to succeed. This film succeeds in spade due to Aaron Sorkin's(The West Wing, A Few Good Men) witty script and top notch performances from Tom Hanks as Wilson and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in an Oscar-nominated supporting performance as a CIA operative. Julia Roberts is also good as the Texas heiress but all the great lines are delivered by Hanks & Hoffman. If you like your comedy or dramedy with a light, droll touch--check this out!! Ironically it's based on a true story.

This would be a 3.5* movie, except that Phillip Seymoour Hoffman absolutely nails his character and has some outstanding dialogue which is just hilarious. My favorite PSH character since Boggie Nights.

With this cast - how could it be bad? Oh, what a disappointment. This film could've used a large dose of subtlety in many ways while taking the large effort it spent on unimportant BS and using it to drive home more meaningful points.

This was a wasted opportunity to tell an important story of our time no matter on which side of the aisle your politics reside.

I don't know exactly where to place the blame for this collosal load of crap, but here are a few brief observations:

- As for the characters, Hoffman's was very believable while Hanks and Roberts came across like caricatures - annoying and fake.

- Superfluous innuendo. Public butt-grabbing, nude hot tub parties, Congressman Wilson staffing his office with a brood of 25 year old hotties in tight skirts and sweaters, a constituent's daughter who can't keep her clothes on around him.... o-v-e-r-k-i-l-l. Distracting and unnecessary.

- The characters are quickly thrown together without enough background as to how and why. It's never clear, for instance, why Robert's excruciatingly wealthy Houston-based philathropist/glamorous b*tch character was so motivated to get deeply involved in equipping the Afghan people w/arms to fight the Soviets.

- Totally irrelevant side-scenes are thrown in, adding nothing at all - some random constituent visits his office to complain about being sued for displaying a nativity scene in front of a firehouse. Whatever - we get that Wilson is an elected representative. Why waste that time on some meaningless, trivial thing when much more important scenes could've been created that added depth and meaning to this film?

- Not nearly enough about the real politics and struggles surrounding this story. Big, gaping holes are left wide open while the viewer is distracted by the ridiculous triviality of Wilson's libido and drinking habits.

I gave 2 stars because Hoffman is really good and Hanks and Roberts do try - not sure how the dynamics got all screwed up but it can't be blamed wholly on their performances. It baffles me that movies like this get so much hype, and so undeservingly.