The tagline reads “Based on a true story. You think we could make this up?”
That’s funny because had I showed up late for the movie and missed the “Based on a true story” screen before the film — like I had for “The Great Debaters” – I would thought “Charlie Wilson’s War” was an overblown attempt at rewriting history. Because we all thought that former President Ronald Reagan put an kibosh on the Soviet Union, heyna? Not so much.
The movie centers around reckless Rep. Charlie Wilson of Texas, played by Tom Hanks, and his quest to bring an end to the Soviet’s rule in Afghanistan. With the help of a C.I.A. operative (Phillip Seymour-Hoffman), Pakistan and his philanthropist f.w.b. (Julia Roberts), Charlie attempts to bring weapons to Afghans to take down Soviet helicopters without the U.S. media and congress ever knowing.
Obviously, Charlie Wilson’s War brought out the big guns with a stunning cast. Tom Hanks in the lead role is like having Jake Peavy pitching on the mound in the first game of the playoffs. It’s a lock, regardless of the fact that he plays a crooked politician. Phillip Seymour-Hoffman and Julia Roberts as the film’s supporting actor/actress is equal to having Derek Jeter batting ahead of Ryan Howard. Even the nine-hitter, Pam from The Office (U.S), isn’t to shabby. Throw in writer Aaron Sorkin (West Wing) and director Mike Nichols (The Graduate) and you basically have Joe Torre coaching and Billy Beane managing the team. Basically, we have a lineup that could take on the Big Red Machine. (Pun intended).
The film’s strong points definitely reside in its writing. Unless it gets upset by an indie flic, Sorkin should take home the Oscar for best screenplay. The dialogue is funny, concise and fast-paced — basically everything great that I remember from the early seasons of the West Wing.
Its direction doesn’t hit the viewer square in the face like other Golden Globe-nominated films did this year. However, it isn’t choppy and you forget about it. I liked Nichols’ choice to use grainy videos of the Soviets. I thought it was interesting that Nichols chose only to show the Afghans’ oppression from either third-party American media coverage or from the eyes of Charlie. I feel it gives us a closer connection with Charlie as he has a change of heart, seeing images that actually make him care about something for once in his political life. It ended up being beneficial in the end, since it would probably be too much, given that Afghanistan-centered “The Kite Runner” is also being shown in theaters.
It did come off as though, once Wilson conjures up this plan and gets the wheels moving, events begin happening too quickly. While I’m gracious of the movie ending well short of two hours, I’m left wondering if I’m missing something in the story. Were the missing parts intentional or just happenstance?
Overall, I felt Charlie Wilson’s War was lively and witty when it could easily have been drab and too far-fetching. It tells an unmentioned story of importance in American history, one that goes untold because of ignorance or naïveté.
We fucked up the endgame.
