Duncan
12-31-2007, 09:57 PM
http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/Charlie-Wilsons-War-m34.jpg
Saw it yesterday. I thought that for the most part, it was very good. Especially the first two thirds where it's Hanks, Hoffman, and, yes, even Roberts bouncing lines off of one another, wheelin' and dealin'. I really liked Amy Adams too. How does she make her pony tail swing like that? Such mystery to that woman. With Sorkin's script and Nichols' direction it's an actor's showcase.
The last third, unfortunately, is a series of events. The goal is achieved, then we watch the results unfold. But we already know the results. The actors don't have as much room to breathe, the dialogue isn't as cutting, scenes (some of which I'm sure were intended to go on for longer) present us with just facts.
Also, I couldn't get past the fact that some of the beards on the Afghans were obviously fake. They looked like Californians playing dress up. Aside from the refugee camp scene and the Pakistani presidential palace, most everything set in the Eastern hemisphere seemed rather cheap. Budgetary restrictions, I guess.
As callous as this is to note, I think the assassination of Benazir Bhutto makes parts of this film much more effective than when it was released. "Bhutto" is not just a historical name drop anymore. It brings the film startlingly close to the present tense. In terms of politics, I've read criticisms claiming the film is too left wing and liberal, but I don't think so at all. I don't think criticizing evangelicalism, or reminding us that Muslims are, ya know, people, or showing the consequences of "fucking up the end game" are particularly left wing points. I mean, if this - the movie where the Communists are practically savages - is too left wing then...then, well, gosh I don't know what. But it does mean I have, once again, underestimated just how far right the United States has moved. I must make a note to stop doing that.
Saw it yesterday. I thought that for the most part, it was very good. Especially the first two thirds where it's Hanks, Hoffman, and, yes, even Roberts bouncing lines off of one another, wheelin' and dealin'. I really liked Amy Adams too. How does she make her pony tail swing like that? Such mystery to that woman. With Sorkin's script and Nichols' direction it's an actor's showcase.
The last third, unfortunately, is a series of events. The goal is achieved, then we watch the results unfold. But we already know the results. The actors don't have as much room to breathe, the dialogue isn't as cutting, scenes (some of which I'm sure were intended to go on for longer) present us with just facts.
Also, I couldn't get past the fact that some of the beards on the Afghans were obviously fake. They looked like Californians playing dress up. Aside from the refugee camp scene and the Pakistani presidential palace, most everything set in the Eastern hemisphere seemed rather cheap. Budgetary restrictions, I guess.
As callous as this is to note, I think the assassination of Benazir Bhutto makes parts of this film much more effective than when it was released. "Bhutto" is not just a historical name drop anymore. It brings the film startlingly close to the present tense. In terms of politics, I've read criticisms claiming the film is too left wing and liberal, but I don't think so at all. I don't think criticizing evangelicalism, or reminding us that Muslims are, ya know, people, or showing the consequences of "fucking up the end game" are particularly left wing points. I mean, if this - the movie where the Communists are practically savages - is too left wing then...then, well, gosh I don't know what. But it does mean I have, once again, underestimated just how far right the United States has moved. I must make a note to stop doing that.