Ahoy, squirts. Quint here! Bungion Boy saw CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, so that means I hate Bungion Boy now. It's easy to get caught up in the big tentpole flicks. I'm dying to see IRON MAN and INDIANA JONES and THE DARK KNIGHT just as much as anybody out there, but I'm so looking forward to this flick. Mike Nichols is one cinema's best working directors and putting him with a script by Aaron Sorkin and giving Tom Hanks some rich scenery to chew sounds like a great combination. And Bungion Boy says it's great! Get the details below. Be warned of slight spoilers.

Hey Moriarty, et al. Bungion Boy here in New York with a review of Mike Nichol’s new film “Charlie Wilson’s War,” starring Tom Hanks, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Julia Roberts, Amy Adams, and penned by Aaron Sorkin. The talent involved suggests a great film and a major Oscar contender this year. I’m sure it will be that and am happy to report that it is also a very good film, just not quite a great one. The film, set in the mid 80’s, tells the story of Charlie Wilson a Texas congressman who leads the initiative to supply Afghanistan with weapons to fight the soviet invasion in their country. Wilson is a charismatic leader and a drunk womanizer, whose schovinism emerges, as only a politician’s can, in a funny, charming way. There is a large focus on politics and nonfictional characters in the film, and it has that based on a true story feel. But you spend most of the film wondering just how much of it is really true.

The thing that seems to define Charlie Wilson’s War the most is the screenplay. I’ve been a big Sorkin fan over the years, (especially of “The American President” and “Sports Night”), but as “Studio 60” showed us recently, (and “Malice” showed us years ago), he can be a lot more hit or miss than he’s sometimes given credit for. About a month ago, before the stagehands strike, I saw his new Broadway play “The Farnsworth Invention.” It was also based on true events, (in this case the invention of the television), and aside from being bogged down by way too much narration, it was an entertaining play. However there was one moment in the play that really spoke to me. Late in the play, two characters that have not yet shared the stage finally meet. After some moving dialogue that the play has been building to for nearly two hours, one of the characters turns to the audience and says “That never actually happened. I only added it in for dramatic effect.” That line sort of sums up Sorkin’s writing style for that play and for this film as well. I was thoroughly entertained for the whole film, but I couldn’t help but think that over half the scenes probably didn’t happen in the way they’re depicted in the film, and the rest of the scenes probably never happened at all. They’ve been enhanced with Sorkin wit so that when Wilson is demonstrating his debauchery he is doing so in spectacular ways, such as a Vegas hot tub with topless strippers. That’s expected, but even when he just having a meeting with an agent in the CIA, it is also played for outrageous laughs. I don’t know how to respond to that because both those scenes are very engaging, funny, entertaining, and well written, but they also detract a bit from the more serious scenes because we’ve become so used to the zany characters and snappy dialogue. There’s a serious and tragic story about the state of politics and foreign relations to be told here, but it’s somewhat undercut by a light frothy attitude geared toward pure entertainment. It reminds me of another Hanks film “Catch Me If You Can,” which at its core was a story about an emotionally disturbed kid who found himself the greatest victim of his own crimes. But that approach doesn’t make for a fun movie so most of the real danger and drama was taken away to make room for charm and sexy flight attendants. Before you attack me in the talkback, please know that I think this was the right decision for “Catch Me…” and about 60% of the time it is the right decision for “Charlie Wilson’s War,” but I think the subject of bombings and refugee camps should be handled a little more seriously than they were. I have not read George Crile’s book on which this film is based, so as far as I know the more outrageous scenes are very close to what actually took place, but somehow I doubt it.

All that said though, I ultimately found the film to be entertaining and engrossing. It took about 30 minutes for the story and characters to really settle, but once they did everything moved really well. Perhaps too well. The films was remarkably short at about 100 minutes. The ending was quite abrupt and although the main story had seemed to wrap up, I expected more about the after effects and consequences of Charlie’s and America’s involvement with the war. However that is all summed up in about two scenes and on Wilson quote before the end credits.

The performances all range from very good to excellent. Roberts is the weakest link and is still quite good. Just maybe a little miscast, and playing a character who is never as developed as the rest. She pops up here and there but never long enough to really get really involved with the whole story. I think she might be outshined by Amy Adams, the budding star on the rise. She also just has a small role as Wilson’s personal assistant but makes good use of her little screen time. There’s a nice bit part from the wonderful Ned Beatty and Om Puri brings a lot of grace and dignity to the film as the president of Pakistan. Hanks is going to be the focus of all the marketing and publicity. It really is his film and he carries the film in a way that we maybe haven’t seen him completely carry a film since perhaps “Road To Perdition.” He is funny and captivating as Wilson and continues to establish himself as one of our most reliable actors, if not quite our very best. That title might go to Hoffman. I don’t think I’ve ever uttered the phrase, “Wow. Phillip Seymour Hoffman really sucked in that movie,” though to be fair, I’ve never seen “Patch Adams” or “Flawless.” He steals every scene he’s in and gets huge laughs, even though they happen in some of the more out of place and theatrically witty scenes. He is having an amazing year, starting with the LAByrinth play “Jack Goes Boating,” to two of the best films of the year, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” and “The Savages.” His performance here is maybe not as devastatingly rich as in “Devil…” or as subtly poignant and naturally funny as in “Savages,” but he’s hysterical in this, very flashy, and aided by funny facial hair, so if there’s a performance that he’ll score an Oscar nod for this year, it will probably be for this,

And that logic will be the same thing that makes the film a success as well. This is yet another fall film that is about war and the middle east, but where films like the preachy and labored “Rendition,” “Redacted,” and “Lions For Lambs” failed this will probably reach audiences. Why? Because it’s less of a film than a movie. A fun movie. It features bright colors, big stars, snappy dialogue, and characters with funny facial hair. You may be surprised when this movie does turn effectively serious and political, but the people who are usually turned off by that won’t mind, though the people who want more of it may be disappointed.