So what is it with Tom Hanks and Wilsons?


(BTW... how about them volleyballs? )

This is not really an "Oscar" movie, despite the subject matter, presence of four actors who've at least been nominated for one, director Mike Nichols, and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin. Instead, it's far more appealing in a conventionally enjoyable way. Nichols and Sorkin have made a film with top-notch performances and a sly, knowing sense of humor. Although the film is based on a pretty dramatic true story with hints of irony, it could easily be mistaken for a comedy with the amount of one-liners and whip-smart dialogue Sorkin throws in. Thankfully, Charlie Wilson's War does not make the mistake that other films this year (like Rendition) have in annoyingly "lecturing" the audience. Tom Hanks gives his usual wonderful performance, although I doubt this one will score him a nomination; although he's great, it's a pretty subtle performance. On the other hand, scene-stealer Philip Seymour Hoffman likely will score a nomination with his unabashedly funny performance. Julia Roberts has less to do than Hanks or Hoffman, but she gives a solid performance and develops a nice rapport with Hanks. Amy Adams is underused, but is as delightful as ever. Other supporting performances from Ned Beatty, Om Puri, and Emily Blunt (showing up very briefly) are also solid. This is a solid film that entertains and informs viewers of a rather intriguing true story in equal measures. B+

I thouroghly enjoyed this. The screenplay was superb. The actors (particularly Hoffman) were superb. It was always enjoyable, not a dull moment throughout. It took a little while to figure out exactly where it was headed but in the end I found it easily one of the best films I've seen all year (then again that number is very small).

A-

Ya wanna see a sweet little Xmas 2007 double bill?

I don't think ya could do better than Charlie Wilson's War and The Kite Runner.

Both movies take place in the same time frame and in the same spatial frame. For many "westerners", after watching these two movies, they will have increased then knowledge of Afghanistan tenfold, if not a hundredfold (not that that's saying much)...



Charlie Wilson's War is very nicely done.

Very funny.

Quite smart about the politics of politics, too.

Tom Hanks did a fine job, though his tomhankness does get in the way sometimes, since he portraying a real life guy. Julia Roberts is peripheral, but what about them dark eyes shinin'! And Philip Seymour Hoffman was fun, but also peripheral. Plus, Amy Adams and the rest of the "jailbait" were cute and charmingly efficient.

A well told slice of history, that raises the tantalizing point that Charlie Wilson was surely Osama bin Laden's progenitor and (first) sponsor.

7 out of 5.

I really enjoyed this film. Great screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. The acting was wonderful all around with good performances from Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and especially Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Great humor scattered throughout as well. This is one of my favorite films of 2007. A

The Good Shepherd had very good legs, and I felt the response to it was just so-so. I think this film is gonna cross $50m without much of a sweat. The WOM is just terrific everywhere.

Charlie Wilson's War was a film that looked very good, though I wasn't highly anticipating it by counting down the days until release, or anything of that nature. I saw it yesterday and I got a very funny satire with some good, though overrated performances. The strong link in the cast was definitely Philip Seymour Hoffman. He steals every scene that he was in and deserves to be nominated for the Oscar, though I don't think he deserves to win. Julia Roberts was absolutely terrible. She kept dropping her accent and didn't play the character to be believable at all. It didn't help that the wig was incredibly annoying and distracting as well. Tom Hanks was very good, and proves that he's one of the better Hollywood actors out there and should be in film more often. I'm waiting for him to have a big comeback. While this movie isn't it, I'm sure he'll get one eventually and win the Oscar once again. Amy Adams was good, though incredibly overused. While she was "there" a lot in the film, she didn't have much to do. As I said before, while this being a serious film, there is a huge amount of humor in it and the majority of it works. Many people won't get the humor though, as shown in my afternoon showing where only my friend and I were laughing. Overall, it's a very good film. Not Oscar worthy by any means, but a very good film that is worth seeing.

8/10 (B+)

Charlie Wilson believed in having a good time...and so did I. "Charlie Wilson's War" was a very enjoyable film with some serious themes, but was ultimately a quite lighthearted look at a serious event in history. Now, I really think it's great that Mike Nichols realized that general audiences don't want movies like "Syriana" or "Rendition" that are dramatic, complex, etc... he knew that giving 'em a fun, entertaining flick would be the only way to get them to want to go.

This was a film driven by story, not performances. Don't get me wrong, Tom Hanks was great and Philip Seymour Hoffman was hilarious, but this movie was more about its engaging story and historical relevance to today. Sometimes it was a bit confused about whether or not to be serious or funny in a situation [it often chosen to be funny], but the end product worked. Julia Roberts has yet to show me why she won an Oscar, and I'm in love with Amy Adams. Hanks led the show strongly with the only performance asking for that much, and Hoffman gave a strong supporting performance [although he had so much more to do in "The Savages"]. I guess with all the talent involved, I expected a little bit stronger of an effor, but you'll have fun if you see "Charlie Wilson's War," and I suppose that's a very good thing.

B+

I found Charlie Wilson's War to be a fun light-hearted romp through recent modern history. Sure one could've made the subject matter this film deals with in a very serious and heavy handed tone. But Nichols gave audiences what they were craving, history with humour. This film is so much fun and most of the performances (sans Roberts) were exceptional (Hoffman steals the film). If your looking for a little pre-text history lesson on Americas cold war/middle east policy in the late 70's early 80's and how it relates to our current situation. Then Charlie Wilson is a good stepping off point, though it should not be your only one.

Grade
A-

A good movie that could've been really great. Aaron Sorkin's script is very clever and while Nichols handles it's delivery well enough, his direction is overall flat and dissapointing. The war scenes feel detached and unimaginative, and because they so obviously barely bothered to film anything it makes the rest of the film feel far more staged than it should. There are many scenes, particularly when an erotic dancer is seducing the leader while his right hand man talks to Wilson, that a more youthful director could've really nailed. As for the acting, it's a mixed bag. Tom Hanks tries hard to distance himself from his nice guy image and almost pulls it off, but comes up short on a few too many occasions. Julia Roberts as well feels miscast in a role that requires more elegance than she can capably emit - Julie Christie, Cate Blanchett, or even Kate Winslet could have pulled this off handily. Luckily Phillip Seymour Hoffman sinks his teeth into his role with ablomb, stealing the show.

My biggest grievance with the film is that it ends about an act too soon. They try to sum up in two or three scenes information that the audience barely digests. Another 20 minutes could have easily been added to this short film to properly explain the repercussions. Without this, the films feels truncated and it's point forced.

I hope I don't sound too negative - this was actually an extremely pleasant surprise. It's not often we're given a political comedy this sharp and lively.

Granted I didn't go into this movie expecting much - I don't like Aaron Sorkin, Julia Roberts, or Tom Hanks - and while it wasn't mind-blowing cinema by any stretch of the imagination I did end up enjoying it. I had it in the mid-to-upper B range until the last 20 minutes or so, which felt like at tacked-on PSA. Not terribly out of the scheme of the movie, but the previous 90 minutes it teetered closely but never crossed that line of proselytizing, self-importance. The end though it dived over, almost headlong.

The performances are all over the map w/ this one. Hanks is solid if not extraodinary. Hoffman largely steals the show, though I found the scene w/ him & Mr. Mayor from Desperate Housewives forceably over-the-top. Roberts, bless her heart, gives it all she's got but clearly struggles with her scenes keeping that accent. Mercifully her screentime is limited...and I'm not sure what the point of the eyelash scene was. If they had an Oscar for "Best Performance of Almost, but Not Quite, Poking One's Eye Out" she would win hands down. Amy Adams is a pleasant, if unsubstantial, diversion.

Writing is up to snuff & seriously funny once in awhile, but has lapses where you wonder if what you're listening to was discarded from an episode of The West Wing.

And I know this takes place in the 80s, but still it had a dated (not in a good way) feel to it. Like it wanted to seem current & relevant, but no such luck.

Best scene = revolving door at Wilson's office when Hoffman and his administrative gals keep interrupting each other.

Overall I give it a B-

It wasn't the masterpiece I kind of expected when I first heard of it, but it was still pretty great. The screenplay was excellent and the acting (especially Hoffman) was superb. I loved Hanks, Adams, and even Julia (but then again I am a big fan of her). This is not the typical war movie btu I think that's what makes it work.

A-

when it was first announced I figured this would be my favorite movie of the year. It came close to being on the top but just loses out to Gone Baby Gone. Loved the film, thought it was great.

A. #2 of the year

Had potential, but merely good. The actings didn't impress me as much as I'd have liked, and only Hoffman stood out. Overall solid, but not really memorable in any department. B-.

A bit of a letdown. The writing is crisp but never pops, the acting is good but never great (even Hoffman, I'm reluctant to say), and it never really achieves the charm that a film - and cast - of this nature probably should have delivered.

Hanks is fine as Wilson, but it's ultimately a fairly slight role. Same with Julia Roberts, whom I think was cast well as an alluring, powerful figure but still seems a bit awkward fitting into the skin of one. Hoffman does the best job of the three with Sorkin's dialogue, but again, I don't think his performance is anything to go nuts over. He has one good scene where he gets in some shouting and elicits some laughs, but other than that, he's simply low key and laid back. I think it's unfortunate that he's likely to score a nomination for this over his lead work in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, where he's outstanding.

It's still an entertaining watch. Just not the kind of caliber I thought it'd be.

B-

I agree with the last half of this thread - for such a heavy subject these were pretty empty cinematic calories. There wasn't anything really AWFUL about the film, but as a whole nothing ever really stood out either, outside of Hoffman's performance (His opening scene is probably the best part of the movie, along with the already mentioned revolving-door scene) and the screenplay, which is what obviously runs the film and not the direction by legendary director Mike Nichols, amazingly enough. Not really a disappointment, but unfortunately it wasn't much of a surprise.

**½

I had low expectations, but yeah, I actually liked it.

It's less Oscar-y than I expected, which is a pleasant surprise. It's a funny, well-written and well-acted film. I didn't find it great or anything, but I enjoyed it. Great performances from Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman (the "revolving door" scene is good stuff). Amy Adams is solid, too. Julia Roberts wasn't, though.

Overall, a solid flick.

**½

There was one word that kept popping into my head while I was watching this movie: awkward.

Awkward editing that conveyed a severely cut version of a much longer movie, and Nichols' shots are often sliced to incomprehension. Awkward direction, which is surprising considering the source, though Nichols' strength has always been with material more stagy. Whenever he moves out of a three-walled set things get a little dicey here. And the icing on the cake, awkward (and random) CGI and bewilderingly awkward politics. The movie tries to eat its cake and have it too with creepy war-glory montages followed by a heavy handed guilt trip climax. I guess as long as it's a "good" war it's okay, right?

Still, Philip Seymour Hoffman is great, and the script is mostly razor sharp. It's not a terrible movie, it's just not what it could have been.

Zingy and I tried to watch this last night. I fell asleep, he didn't.

Though I haven't finished the movie (and will start it from the beginning), there's two things that irked me in the parts I did see:
- Julia Roberts. Is she the most overrated actress of all time?
- Mike Nichols. How did he go from Closer to this? This is incredibly uninspired direction. The movie flows like a TV movie. Everything here is so "matter-of-fact," even though the characters involved are all colorful and multi-dimensional. This had serious potential, to not only be a "great" movie, but also to raise questions about what countries we ignore (and in the context of Bhutto's assassination, could there be better timing?) and what countries we invest too much in (financially, physically, everything). Instead, Nichols seems bored with the material, leaving only the witty screenplay to captivate his audience's attention. Clever wordplay is not enough to capture middle america, Nichols. I'd almost prefer over-the-top Anthony Minghella or Ron Howard direction to this schlock.

Tom Hanks is solid (though we could've done without the butt shots). Screenplay, as most have said, is witty and entertaining. It prevents this from being a long, dense episode of the West Wing, or from being a History Channel special with tacky Disney-movie elements. At the same time, the screenplay chooses wit over realism. But maybe that's just Nichols' signature style...? In Closer, the characters' communications were too dry, intellectual, and detached (at times) to be realistic in a day-to-day setting (especially considering their social classes).

I'm going to watch it over, but this has gotta be one of the more overrated films of the year. A movie that puts me to sleep can't be good, right?

I just finished watching this.

Yeah, still not a fan. Second half is a little better, but I generally stand by what I said. Julia Roberts sucks, Mike Nichols seems uninspired.

**½ out of ****

You wish!

Am I the only one (apart from the HFPA) who thinks not only is Julia Roberts overrated but she does have a good performance here? Geez.

As for the whole movie, there's one word to describe the whole affair: witty. It's a screenwriter's movie, no doubt about that. But just because there are no big shots, doesn't mean it's badly directed, at all.

I really enjoyed this. Like, not a dull moment. In fact, it might make my absolutely final top 10 with some luck. If anything, the thing is a little too overpacked for my taste at some points, but that might be because I had some things on my mind at the moment it was hard to keep up with such dialogues.

As for the "awkwardness" of the politics, I just assumed it was part of the satire? Nobody's is saying here that "war is good". I didn't find the movie republican, lol It's laughing at them, not with them. Its portrayal of war is probably too light for some, that's all.

And this is overrated now? Where?

Nice review, droid!!!

The direction is so stiff and uninspired here that one really has to focus on the acting and writing, which, with this cast and Aaron Sorkin, wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but the film kinda disappoints in that regard to. It only occasionally achieves the perfect synthesis of performance and screenplay that works so well in Sorkin's other projects, and it's pretty much only Philip Seymour Hoffman who is responsible for it. Hanks is solid but pretty low-key, and Julia Roberts is fairly terrible in her attempt to both speak in a Southern drawl and sound intelligent. That said, the film actually works pretty well until the absolutely dreadful montage of war scenes, which is interrupted by a fairly uncomfortable and disturbing bit of black comedy that feels completely at odds with everything else the film has going for it. And it just leads into a really awkward finish. In general, the film is using a light tone to tackle some pretty heavy subject matter, and the abrupt shift to a 'message' of sorts at the film's finale just doesn't work. It's a decent film, but it's also a pretty big disappointment.