Charlie Wilson's War stars Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Amy Adams, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. The move is based on the true story of the covert U.S. war in Afghanistan in the 1980's, when America was trying to prop up the Afghan government and run the Soviets out of the country.

After Joanne, a rich and beautiful constituent (Roberts) impresses the gravity of the Afghan situation upon Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson (Hanks), he finds himself with a desire to help. Over the next several years, Charlie authorizes millions of U.S. dollars to quietly flow into Afghan armament and training, recruiting none other than Israel to help source weapons untraceable to America.

The armament is successful, allowing Afghan troops to defeat the Soviets and drive them from the country. However, when further funding (in a much smaller amount) is then needed for infrstructure/rebuilding, Charlie is unable to marshall the support required to appropriate additional dollars. Everyone is "over" the Afghan war.

I thought the movie started incredibly slowly (though folks who enjoy seeing Hanks hot tub with naked starlets might think it was the most AWESOME. THING. EVER.). It took a little while for me to begin caring about the story. However, once Charlie attends a swanky fundraiser at Joanne's house, the viewer begins to understand how all of the pieces might come together.

There are several notable angles to this story:
1.) Charlie is the most unlikely of supporters for a strictly Muslim nation. He's a heavy drinker. He's an unabashed womanizer. He loves a good time. He's more thoroughly unprincipled, even by Western standards, than most.
2.) Charlie doesn't seem to really be a "mover and shaker" in D.C. However, he sits at the nexus of two committees uniquely positioned to appropriate funds for covert actions.
3.) The plan works. 'Nuff said. As Charlie is quoted at the end of the movie - the endgame (rebuilding the country) is where everything fell to pieces.

Performances are uniformly good in this. Hanks, as always, is rock solid. (There's an awesome scene between Hanks and Hoffman at the end of the film, with the two characters discussing "victory" on a balcony. Both are priceless. Hanks' face speaks volumes in this scene.)

Worth seeing.

I knew this starred Tom Hanks and had something to do with politics, but I didn't expect to enjoy nearly as much as I did! I also didn't realize it was written by Aaron Sorkin, who I really like. Tom Hanks plays a congressman in the early 80s who decides that the US isn't funding the Afghanistans enough in their fight against the Russians, so he single-handedly tries to increase their aid. The movie is almost written as a farce, except that (most) of the facts are true. It moves along quickly and is really quite funny. Philip Seymour Hoffman is his usual great self as a long-suffering CIA man, and Hanks plays a charming drunk and playboy. The Boston Globe didn't like, but I really don't know why - I thought it was a fun and entertaining movie, with some historical info that I didn't really know that much about.

I liked this movie a lot. Tom Hanks plays a heavy drinking, coke snorting, playboy congressmen that is different from most of the roles that one sees him in. He is convincing in his portrayal of Congressman Charlie Wilson.

The movie is based on a true story. Congressman Wilson sees a short news clipping of Dan Rather in Afghanistan and that sets the wheels in motion for Wilson who wants to increase funding so that the Afghanistans have enough money and weapons to get the communists out of their country. He goes about raising and raising the money from the original one million dollars to several billion dollars.

Amy Adams does a wonderful job as Wilson's exceptionally adept administrative assistant. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, ever the actor's actor, is great as the renegade CIA agent who comes to Wilson's aid so that Wilson has the real facts and not the spin. Julia Roberts plays a rich Houston conservative who is instrumental in getting Wilson interested in this project by showing him her boudoir, if you get my gist.

All is all, the movie works. You learn some history by having fun with Charlie, the Texax Congressman from the small town of Nagadoches, Texas who had a huge influence in the direction of U.S. politics and funding during the 1980's until the present.

Mike Nichols has been responsible for a number of outstanding and entertaining motion pictures including The Graduate, Catch 22, Silkwood, and Working Girl. He's also directed the occasional dud: films such as Wolf and What Planet Are You From? fall into the latter category. Unfortunately, Charlie Wilson's War is not one of Nichols' more memorable efforts. Charlie Wilson is a good old boy from Texas, devoted to booze and broads, and, incidentally, a U.S. Congressman. Being a member of Congress during the period depicted sure looks like a pretty nice job: expensive cowboy boots, lots of fun parties, all the liquor you can drink, and a staff of aides that look like they've just stepped out of a Playboy magazine. Oh, and I almost forgot that there's the occasional session of Congress where you have to spend a couple of minutes voting on some minor piece of legislation. Honestly, I had to assure myself that I wasn't watching one of Dean Martin's Matt Helm efforts from the 1960s. Congressman Wilson is contacted one night by an old acquaintance, now married, who wants to enlist his support in aiding the Muhajideen fighting against the Russians in Afghanistan. She sleeps with him (I guess to convince him that she is serious) and then tells him what she wants him to do. Next thing you know he's on a plane to meet with General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, President of Pakistan. After spending some time in an Afghan refugee camp, he comes back to the States and convinces his Congressional committee to foot the bill for the added armaments the Muhajideen need in order to vanquish the Russian tanks and helicopters. Pretty soon, with triumphant music playing in the background, David defeats Goliath as the Muhajideen rids Afghanistan of the Soviet military machine which, of course, leads directly to the end of Soviet communism as we know it. Oh, and just in case the viewer has some qualms about distributing weapons without accountability, a pensive Charlie Wilson states at the end "This is what we always do. We go in there with our f-cking ideals and then we leave. ..." Well, sorry Charlie, that wasn't always so. After World War II, the Marshall Plan helped to rebuild a devastated and exhausted Europe. Why, unless Charlie was less sophisticated than this movie would have us believe, would he think that Congress would ante up a few million dollars to build schools? Wasn't the whole purpose of providing funding and weapons to use the Afghans as surrogates to defeat the Soviet Union? Having said that, I have to say that Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance is the standout in this film but the movie itself is as flat as a pancake. It never really goes anywhere and there's a smarmy, cynical feel to it that's very offputting. It also seems ironic in this post-9/11 world that it shows us happily giving out RPGs, sniper rifles, bicycle bombs, etc. to the same Muhajideen who now deploy these against US armed forces. In effect, when you think about it, with our advanced weapons systems and assault vehicles, from the perspective of the Muhajideen, we've become the new Soviet Union in Afghanistan. I'm sure the book is more informative but the film comes across like a post-Vietnam throwback.

Let's get this out of the way off the top: I loved Charlie Wilson's War. It was patriotic, funny, sexy, well-acted and great drama. Fabulous movie. Five stars. Kudos. Love it.

That said, just wanted to let it be known that the message of this film, at least one of the sub-texts of it, did not get past me. It was made by a liberal and meant to espouse a Democrat agenda.

Hollywood is not about to make conservative movies now or in the future. Charlie Wilson's War looks like a conservative movie at first, but watch closely and you will see it is something else. Yes, it is about how America, led by the CIA under the Reagan Administration, helped bring Communism, at least the Soviet variety, to its knees and end the Cold War in victory for the U.S. Hooray.

Hollywood is about promoting Democrats and down-grading Republicans. Take for instance the recent spy thriller Breach. Since the beginning of time it seems, every spy who committed treason against America and the West was a Left-wing radical or sympathizer. Hundres of spies over decades of time. Alger Hiss, Kim Philby, Franklin's Roosevelt aides, the Rosenbergs; the list is long. What is not long is the number of movies about them. Those movies virtually do not exist. Instead they get lying portrayals of Joe McCarthy accusing innocent Jews and Democrats. After the Venona archives opened in the Soviet Union in the early 1990s we discovered that many of those accused actually were Communists and spies. The poor, disgraced filmmakers, instead of living in abject poverty caused by mean conservatives, more often than not moved to the French Riviera or Cote d'Azur and made avante garde European movies with Luc Goddard. Such imprisonment!

Then along comes Breach. Holy cow, after 200 or 400 consecutive liberal spies, none of whom seemingly by law or mandate are allowed to be portrayed on screen, Breach highlights the single conservative, Catholic man ever found top be a spy. Good movie but you can't fool me.

Now comes Charlie Wilson's War by Left-wing screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The American President, The Left, er, West Wing). Like A Few Good Men, Charlie Wilson's War was honest enough that it almost killed Sorkin's liberal message in a stream of conservative triumph. Patton was a similar movie, originally planned to portray the general as a war-mongering lunatic, except that America fell in love with the idea of beating Nazi Germany and George C. Scott's portrayal of the maverick hero.

Charlie Wilson, played by Tom Hanks, was a Texas Democrat. The kind, which the movie does not tell us, who became a Republican when they saw how disgraceful the Democrats had become. A patriotic cDemocrat, which unfortunatly is an exception to the rule.

The movie would have you believe that Wilson worked against the Reagan Administration to fund and lead the Afghan resistance that ended the Soviet empire. Then it would you believe that Wilson alone warned Reagan that unless they funded schools and cultural life, "crazies" like Osama bin Laden would make us rue the day later.

Wilson deserves credit and he found some resistance here and there, but the idea that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War in Afghanistan kicking and screaming against his own policies is, well, not true. His CIA chief, Bill Casey, was wildly enthusiastic about the Afghan operation. I'll give Wilson his credit; the credit Sorkin never gives to Reagan and Casey.

Watch the little messages in the movie: Wilson tells Julia Roberts (who plays a conservative matron and never looked better in the process), "I'm a liberal." He's about as liberal as Tom DeLay. He also tells her she owes him because she "helped me out with the pro lifers," which of course is Sorkin's way of getting his vote in favor of abortion.

But the most obvious stuff concerns Charlie's drinking, drugging and womanizing. He does good things, the movie informs us, and should not be held back by indiscretions and immoralities. Who is this supposed to remind us of? Bill Clinton, who was out there making the economy hum, keeping abortion legal, doing "good work" while those evil Republicans fought him at every turn. Lying, cocaine use, drunkenness; who cares?

Sorkin gets a knock in at Rudy Giuliani. The movie was made in 2007 when Rudy was a front-runner for the 2008 GOP nomination which he eventually failed to capture. They also make sure to place forth the fiction that Congressman John Murtha was "clean." This was obviously an attempt by the filmmakers to apologize for the Democrat who opened his mouth and uttered the fiction that American soldiers were like Nazis in Iraq.

Hey, loved Charlie Wilson's War, but it did not get past my antennae.

I'm sure the film glosses over and overwise "Reader's Digest Abridges" the actual story, I thought it was a great film pleasure.  The film's Reagan era pastiche was on a par with the swinging 60's feel of the film Catch Me if You Can.

love this movie then again have not seen a movie with tom hanks that I have not liked

Well written, well acted and finely directed film with strong performances by Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts (surprisingly) and an absolutely brilliant piece of work by Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

The film deals with the covert funding of the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation of that country in the 1980's and the role played by a relatively obscure but influential playboy congressman called Charlie Wilson.

Its based on the book  Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History by George Crile, which I went out and bought after seeing the film this weekend.

Hanks, as Wilson, is excellent.  Witty, somewhat dissolute, and adept at the deal-making in the corridors of congress, Hanks portrayal of Wilson is thoroughly charming and believable.  Roberts, as a wealthy anti-communist socialite is also strong, and an excellent counterpoint to Hanks' role.  Many of the lesser characters are also very strong, particularly Ned Beatty, but also Om Puri, and Amy Adams.   All of the cast, however, takes a back seat to a spectacular performance by Hoffman as blunt-spoken quasi-rogue CIA analyst Gust Avrakotos, who is abrasive, brutally funny, and the mechanic to Wilson's role as paymaster.

I knock a star off because the film carefully skirts the intriguing question of the ultimate end-game of the Afghani operation.  While there are a few subtleties in the dialogue that reference the long-term implications of support for folks like Bin Laden, you have to be paying attention to hear them. 

Charlie Wilson's War is based on a true story about a serious subject, but the vast majority of the film is sophisticatedly funny and very witty. Excellent portrayals by Tom Hanks, as an influential playboy congressman who becomes interested in covertly helping the Afghanis fight the Russians, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, as a brilliant but cynical, acerbic, outspoken CIA analyst. Julia Roberts, in a more matronly role than usual, is good as a smart, shrewd socialite who does some of the heavy lifting for the congressman. I found myself laughing often at the clever humor throughout the first two-thirds of the film, which is where the film really shines. Then it turns serious as the covert funding and obtaining of weaponry for the Afghanis results in them chasing the Russians out of their poor, abused country. Predictably, Congress then drops the ball by refusing any further funding, even minor amounts to rebuild schools, etc., to the great dismay of Hank's character. But don't skip this movie because of the serious ending, particularly if you enjoy good, clever, witty humor.

I need to get caught up on the current movies. Martha and I caught this recently after dumping about fifty bucks on tickets, popcorn, soda, and candy. (Whew, prices are skyrocketing!)

Anyhow, I actually enjoyed Julia Roberts in this flick. She played the same stupid Julia Roberts character that she always plays, but it didn't seem so bad.

Tom Hanks plays Charlie Wilson, a playboy Texas Democratic Party Congressman. Charlie is in Vegas, sitting in a hot tub with a gaggle of whores, drinking and snorting cocaine. He sees Dan Rather in Afghanistan and gets interested in the fight against the USSR. Charlie has a power position, and gradually moves billions into the fight against the Russkies until they are booted out of Afghanistan.

I hope part of the flick, at least is true, as it was great fun. Go see it.