Charlie Wilson's War

T

TexasTower

500+ Posts
One of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

It was a great political movie that mixed in humor way more than expected. Hanks is his usual charming self and Philip Seymour Hoffman steals the show. May be his best role yet.

I highly recommend this one. Can't wait to see it again.
 
Of course I have. I didn't say that he was great in Charlie Wilson's War and sucked in all other roles, just that this MAY be his best yet.

While he was great in both roles I find his character in this flick to be much more amicable.
 
Saw it last night and found it thoroughly enjoyable. Mike Nichols did a great job taking a subject that on the surface seems dry as toast--congressional funding for a covert war--and injects it w/ humor, humanity, & in easily digestable pieces that should help those w/little interest in the subject be able to follow the steps & see the big picture.

Hanks is solid as ever & deserves credit for playing a boozing, sleazy congressman totally straight, but PSH absolutely steals the show. Hoffman reminds me of a latter day John Malkovich: Obscenely talented, non-leading man looks, but first & foremost a consumate pro who seems incapable of delivering a wrong note.
 
It was a great movie with fine acting. And what I appreciated most was how accurate it was to most of the events. Sometimes the "based on a true story" can take some obscene liberties. Good movie!
 
i saw this movie today and it was really good. definately the best ending to any movie that i have seen this year. that quote on the screen at the end is just depressing, but a perfect way to end the movie.

i thought everyone was outstanding in their role. definately one of the top 5 movies of the year.
 
Thumb's up.

Hoffman was hilarious, as mentioned. His comedic timing and delivery was great.

A great flick. Should provoke a lot of healthy and introspective discussion about our foreign policy since the 80's.
 
I agree with softlynow. They mostly got it right. Sure it was Hollywoodized but this very important story wouldn't have gotten out if it didn't have Roberts and Hanks. Hopefully more people will go out and buy the book and read it.

My opinion is based on several conversations concluding with a lunch I had last week with someone who is mentioned several times in the book. And who ran the operation for months when Wilson for one reason or another was unable.
 
Watch the History channel show about Charlie Wilson that features Charlie and all the key players. The glaring difference I noticed is that the movie makes it seem like Joanne Herring led Charlie to take up this cause and that is not the way Charlie portrayed it on the History channel.

The movie's problem is not the accuracy, but trying to make a wacky, 'Stripes' like movie when it calls for a more serious tone.

BL
 
Austintxusa - How is Schnable doing? At least I'm guessing that is who you had lunch with. Agree with your points about the movie, BTW.
 
Outstanding movie. I previously read the book and it was mostly faithful to it.

Hoffman was of course superb in his scenery-chewing role, but Hanks is just so good also. It was a pleasure watching the two of them act. Julia Roberts is also in the movie.
 
Why would conservatives not like it? Wilson, despite being a Democrat, was a conservative. Remember, in his district, Reagan was considered a moderate.
 
There is a strong implication that we trained the jihadists in the ways of war they are now using against us. bin Laden wasn't specifically trained by Americans, but he was trained by Afghans who had been trained by Americans.
 
Charlie Wilson was no conservative. He may have played the good ol' boy when he was home campaigning in Nacogdoches, and he knew what his district really cared about (i.e., guns and low taxes, as stated in the movie). But on womens' issues, civil rights, civil service and union issues, he was a 100% liberal who consistently voted with the Democratic Party line.
 
Funny, most of the newspaper reviews I've read have said it was an awful movie, as did a friend who read the book.

I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it but I may wait for this one on DVD.
 
Thanks Dances. I just read the NYT and Texas Monthly reviews and they were both negative, and I think the WSJ was neutral.

To me the story is one about the unintended consequences of America meddling like that in other countries' affairs. No, the CIA didn't literally train Bin Ladin or any of his close associates, but our meddling helped create the conditions that led to the Taliban rule of Afganistan which directly led to 9-11. It's not even clear to me that rebuilding money and effort would have made a difference, because the people that we helped empower (i.e. the Taliban) probably wouldn't have allowed the kind of education and society we would want to help rebuild.

Was it worth it considering it helped preciptate the demise of the Soviet Union? Who knows how to answer that question. At the end fo the day is probably only hastened the inevitable.
 
I'll trade a bunch of cave dwellers for a nuclear armed superpower bent on world domination any day. But that's just me.

Fatcat, you say that something was "inevitable" without saying what that something is? I personally don't agree that the collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable outside of external forces. But even it I did agree, the peacefulness and the speed with which it collapsed was far from inevitable, and damn surprising to any honest viewer of history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

SEC CHAMPIONSHIP
Predict HORNS-DAWGS
Sat, Dec 7 • 3:00 PM on ABC
* * *
SEC Championship Website

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top