PDA

View Full Version : Charlie Wilson's War (Nichols, 2007)



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.

number8
12-31-2007, 10:17 PM
I didn't care for this at all. It's a series of discussions about politics done Sorkin-style starring Charlie Wilson rather than a movie about Charlie Wilson's war. Mike Nichols is all but absent in this film, since everything looked like this was a West Wing spin-off.

Hoffman's the best part about it, and it is a fairly enjoyable film as a comedy, but there's not much more to it. It's a really dull and segmented series of events, filtered through Aaron Sorkin dialogue.

But yeah, the third act is atrocious. It spends an entire film building a certain achievement, proceeds to deconstruct it in less than two minutes, and then wants us to care about the hypocrisy behind it? No go. Way too abrupt of an end.

eternity
01-01-2008, 11:22 PM
It has it's fair share of problems, but it's a great mix of the already very interesting story presented here as well as token Aaron Sorkin's wit and finesse.

lovejuice
01-03-2008, 05:46 PM
i want to see it simply because of nichols.

Sxottlan
01-11-2008, 08:33 AM
So was that bookending award ceremony intended to come across as just awkward and phony?

Otherwise, this was a little better than I expected. The dialogue was everything you'd expect from Sorkin and while you can't shake the television-like feel to the whole endeavour (the special effects were pretty iffy), at least it didn't come across as preachy as Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.

Roberts was indeed obnoxious and self-satisfied and I couldn't tell if that actually helped the character or if that fake feeling to Joanna was also intentional. And I was a bit perplexed about how the film made it seem that the entire holy war rhetoric was because of a few Texan evangelicals. I mean, I guess I can see how that's some kind of dig at the neo-cons, but the film implies a former Ms. Cotton Bowl is responsible for al-Qaida (the 9/11 reference is subtle there at the end).

Hoffman and Hanks are very good in this and sprinkling in Amy Adams and a half-clad Emily Blunt passing through a haze of smoke can only help any production.

I've never detected any kind of style or method to Nichols' directing, but I thought he did alright here.

Raiders
01-11-2008, 05:35 PM
I've never detected any kind of style or method to Nichols' directing, but I thought he did alright here.

Don't know about style, but he's always had some of the best use of the film frame. Just watch The Graduate. Masterful composition.

That said, I am still extremely uninterested in this film.

Duncan
01-11-2008, 06:11 PM
I've never detected any kind of style or method to Nichols' directing, but I thought he did alright here. He's almost completely invisible. The one scene I remember liking for the direction is the one where Hoffman gives Hanks the bottle of Champagne, and people are constantly entering/exiting the room. I really liked the staging of that. He's also good at making women look sexy.

number8
01-11-2008, 07:19 PM
Roberts was indeed obnoxious and self-satisfied and I couldn't tell if that actually helped the character or if that fake feeling to Joanna was also intentional. And I was a bit perplexed about how the film made it seem that the entire holy war rhetoric was because of a few Texan evangelicals. I mean, I guess I can see how that's some kind of dig at the neo-cons, but the film implies a former Ms. Cotton Bowl is responsible for al-Qaida (the 9/11 reference is subtle there at the end).

You know what's interesting? I watched an hour-long feature on the subject on The History Channel, and they dug deeper into the 9/11 connection than the film did. The primary interviewees of the doc were actually the real Charlie Wilson and Aaron Sorkin. Aaron Sorkin's response to the 9/11 connection was this:

"Was Charlie Wilson responsible for 9/11? Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is responsible for 9/11 except for a group of twisted cocksuckers."

NickGlass
01-12-2008, 09:00 PM
The primary interviewees of the doc were actually the real Charlie Wilson and Aaron Sorkin. Aaron Sorkin's response to the 9/11 connection was this:

"Was Charlie Wilson responsible for 9/11? Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is responsible for 9/11 except for a group of twisted cocksuckers."

That makes sense, considering the last few minutes of the movie (which seems like an epilogue) are filled with the cinematic (or television) equivalent of "but don't worry, 9/11 wasn't his fault--Charlie really tried to help them."

To address what Duncan said about the criticisms for the film being too left-wing, I think they're very wrong. Sure, the film smugly dismisses a whole party because they're *whisper* Republicans, but the conclusion states a case to protract the war we're currently in. It ends with the understanding that we must stay in an occupied country until we believe they are completely autonomous. Lets build roads and schools--they need our help!

Nonetheless, the film isn't a complete waste. Sure Roberts and Hanks are irritatingly smug and the whole production feels like a long television show, with actors determined to say their lines fast, not actually understand them. Hoffman fares better, however, since his character is so highly-wired. The rapid-fire "witty" banter is rather ridiculous, but in a field such as politics, it makes sense that everyone--even the most informed--are full of hot air.