Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

To me, this movie is perfection.

Thanks for the memories!

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Tom Hanks was a good version of himself, Julia Roberts showed her usual thin acting, but PSH was outstanding. Totally believable, PSH nailed this , as usual.I was just out of college when this all happened and was fairly unaware. What events are going on right now that I am unaware of and will find out about in a movie, in the future?Fast moving, not too heavy-handed in moviesplaning what the war was about, who the players were, what the interest were.Wish PSH was still with us.

Political films are some of the hardest in Hollywood to pull off smoothly. Either the subject matter is too controversial, it paints someone in too positive/negative of a light, or it flat out messes with history to fit a dramatic tone. "Charlie Wilson's War" suffered from none of these problems, yet still managed to underwhelm due to a completely unexpected source: it couldn't decided whether it wanted to be gripping, or a farce.Basically, this movie tells the story of U.S. Senator Charles Wilson, who (during the Soviet- Afghanistan conflict) was so inspired by the courage of the Afghan troops in fending off the Russians that he launched a covert "campaign" of sorts to get the Afghans the funding/weapons they needed to defeat the spread of Communism from the Soviets. As history bears out, Wilson succeeds in this task and is regarded as a hero...at least for the time being.This entire film could have taken (and would have been much better off, in my opinion) a more serious tact to the political issues being dealt with, like the lack of funding to an Afghanistan "military" that was essentially fighting the Soviets for the United States, or the fact that Afghanistan went on to produce the terrorists that perpetuated 9/11 and we are now fighting. This approach could have been a great sort of dramatic "treatise" on those issues and could have made people really think about them.Unfortunately, the film does not take that sort of tone, and instead focuses on the character of Charlie Wilson. While obviously at the center of all the goings-on, this prolonged focus on Wilson's personality and private life only served to drag the film down. Plus, all the characters (but essentially Tom Hanks' Wilson and his lady-friend played by Julia Roberts) seem way too over the top in their interactions with each other and the plot at hand. I realize the intent of the filmmakers, which was to show what a maverick Charles Wilson really was, but to me that wasn't the most interesting part of the story.Thus, "Charlie Wilson's War" is a respectable film dealing with an interesting political event, yet views those happenings through a prism (the crazy Wilson) that isn't altogether engaging. While the focus on the Afghan-Soviet conflict is refreshing (not just World War 2 or terrorism), it isn't played for the type of drama that could have occurred. Involved political minds will find it interesting, while lesser scribes may drift off as the message gets lost in Hanks' over-the-top portrayal of Wilson.

This is a great movie telling of the behind the scenes of what US did to end the Russian invasions in the Middle East. 97% of the movie covers the steps leading up to the end of the invasion. The remaining 3% only mentions the terrible, terrible decisions the US and the Middle East countries did post aftermath. This is the part that most do not comprehend because they severely lack the knowledge to fully understand the implications this had on everyone, and I mean everyone even today.If you're one of the later watchers that doesn't know their history then you can't appreciate the movie in its entirety nor the subtle cries it makes. I would highly to either read up on the wars before watching it or doing that afterwards and watch it again.I make the above comment because although Charlie did do a great thing to end the invasions the US decisions afterwards essentially created what we have today. The lack of support allowed for the increase chaos over the decades to build to the horrors the world is seeing today.Do your research you'll enjoy and hate the movie a lot more.

Oh, an interesting watch, entertaining, yes. But disturbing in its one-sided portrayal that what Charlie Wilson and the rich of America did to undermine 'Russian atrocities', committed from high-flying helicopters, was good. OR was their complete, dope complacency inside America during this period of time that, when the Yank did this using drones from on high after 2001, 'someone else!' had better not dare to play Wilson's game in the support of radicals, like ISIS?Oh, maybe the movie is 'honest' (? according to quick research I did, it is not exactly true to history) to only 'some details', but it is at least a must watch to spur the debate as to why, nearing a decade later, we allow lies from all sides to define what 'good democracy' is.... while the rich continue to play their self-serving, high-paying influence games... not really caring about what happened to cause the Russians to enter the destitute nation of Afghanistan in the first place... that part of the story is vainly glossed over.Where was 'peace advocate' Jane Fonda when all of this was going on? Exercising her love handles away for the sake of 'that rich guy' who eventually dumped her anyway?