Cool News
Shabby Reports From CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR!! Tom Hanks + Mike Nichols + Aaron Sorkin = ??
Merrick here...
Shabby wrote in with a look at CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, which opens in a few weeks.
This is the new Mike Nichols film that's scripted by THE WEST WING's Aaron Sorkin (who recently brought us STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP as well. If you blinked...)
I realize it's not terribly popular to admit this, but I've never been a huge fan of Nichols; I tend to find his work style-less, unengaging, and obvious. This said, I do think CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR seems interesting & I'm eager to check it out. Hanks invariably chooses compelling roles, even if the films they're a part of aren't always out of the park with greatness.
Here's Shabby...
Hey AICN, shabby here with a look at the relatively under the radar flick Charlie Wilson’s War.
Now I say under the radar since the film comes out in year’s weeks and I just started seeing TV ads. This would be normal if this was just an everyday movie, but this stars three Oscar winners Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julia Roberts in her first live action movie in three years.
The movie follows Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks), a Democratic Congressman, who one day decided to start a covert war against the Russians in Afghanistan by bringing together Pakistan, Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That is pretty much it in terms of plot, the film doesn’t pretend to be any bigger then the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
To start off with the good you must go with Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gust Avrakotos, a no BS CIA agent that gets assigned to the Middle East desk after pissing off his boss for the second time (which you watch in all of its amazingness). Every scene he has is a pure joy to watch, the man takes a role that seems could have been written as a serious part, and is played in a serious way but comes off very funny. PSH must be in the prime of his career because he can elevate every scene he has in a movie even if the movie is not that good (Along Came Polly). Thank god that is not the case here, because everybody else in this movie steps up and tries to carry their weight as well to make a good picture.
The center of the story is of course Charlie Wilson, and the role offers more then enough for Hanks to sink his teeth into. Charlie is not an everyday man, and this offers Hanks an opportunity to put aside his wholesome family image and do something new (or at least something he hasn’t done in 20 years). Do you remember the press Hanks received a few years ago for Road to Perdition? Remember when everybody was shocked to see Hanks play a contract killer, a murderer, but after seeing the movie you realize he was still just a family man. Well here Charlie Wilson is a married congressman from Texas, but don’t let that fool you because this distinguished gentleman gets down.
Have you ever seen Tom Hanks is in a hot tub with three naked women while everybody is doing coke? Only Bachelor Party came close to that. Have you ever seen a Tom Hanks movie where he shows some skin? I now have (something I’m not proud of and was shocked to see).
This movie shows a new Tom Hanks, the man ditches his squeaky clean image and still makes his character likeable. Despite all the stuff that could make this an unlikable character in some people’s eyes, Tom Hanks proves once again that he is just a likeable guy, despite all the alcohol, drugs, cursing and womanizing.
Hank’s makes Wilson a fully formed character, where you watch a man take on something that is truly bigger than him, use his power for something good and actually make a difference. All the flaws make you concentrate more because this is new ground for an actor we have watched for years. The whimsy attitude Wilson has at the beginning, playing around with his voluptuous staff, is a sharp contrast to the man he is at the end after he has been through the political machine.
Julia Roberts is where this movie starts to crack. Her character does serve a purpose but gets too much screen time. Julia plays Joanne Herring, an ultra right wing socialite who helps inform Wilson about the trouble in Afghanistan and in her spare time is a lover of the congressman. The problem with her character is that she does serve a purpose but ends up with way too much screen time for what that purpose is. Besides her opening scene of talking with Wilson about Afghanistan and a scene at a refugee camp in Pakistan where you see what she is capable of, she doesn’t have much to do. For the most part she is thrown in so Hanks has somebody else to play off of.
The biggest problem with the movie is also one of the things that makes it so entertaining, the Charlie Wilson character. Hanks is such a great actor, and Wilson is a great character but there is nothing to make you connect with him. Hanks was always able to make the audience connect with a character. When he figures out what the average audience member can latch onto to make them care the movies can be magic (Cast Away, Green Mile) and if he can’t we end up with the opposite end (Da Vinci Code, Bonfire of the Vanities).
There was nothing about Wilson I could latch onto. Now I’m not expecting to have an instant connection with a drug using, alcoholic, philandering congressman but besides a 30 second shot of Wilson alone in his apartment and a scene at the end, we never see Wilson where he is not in party mode. Even in the middle of a scandal, Wilson just gets drunk and has a fun time. We never see or hear of his home life, only the Washington life. This does not make a bad movie; it just makes an impersonal movie.
Some of this blame goes on Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter. Now I love Sorkin, The West Wing, The American President, and A Few Good Men are all prime examples of how to take a political story and make it accessible to a wide audience without watering it down, that is almost the case here.
The film doesn’t know what side of the line it wants to ride, sometimes it is a deeply political film where references are made without explanation that add depth to character if only you know what they are talking about (the John Murtha comments come to mind) and other times it takes the formation of a covert war between four unfriendly countries and wraps it all up with two quick scenes and a belly dancer.
I would give this movie a light 7 out of 10, while you watch it you can tell everybody involved was going for something special, unfortunately the tone just doesn’t remain constant and the movie is merely good.
For what tries to be a tight 100 minute political comedy, 30 minutes of it gets distracted trying to preach about the US giving power back to the Afghani’s, ignoring them and causing the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the country eventually leading to you know what.
All intentions were good in making this movie, and it is entertaining, but it's just not the Oscar bait the filmmakers and its stars went out to make.
Now I say under the radar since the film comes out in year’s weeks and I just started seeing TV ads. This would be normal if this was just an everyday movie, but this stars three Oscar winners Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julia Roberts in her first live action movie in three years.
The movie follows Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks), a Democratic Congressman, who one day decided to start a covert war against the Russians in Afghanistan by bringing together Pakistan, Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That is pretty much it in terms of plot, the film doesn’t pretend to be any bigger then the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
To start off with the good you must go with Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gust Avrakotos, a no BS CIA agent that gets assigned to the Middle East desk after pissing off his boss for the second time (which you watch in all of its amazingness). Every scene he has is a pure joy to watch, the man takes a role that seems could have been written as a serious part, and is played in a serious way but comes off very funny. PSH must be in the prime of his career because he can elevate every scene he has in a movie even if the movie is not that good (Along Came Polly). Thank god that is not the case here, because everybody else in this movie steps up and tries to carry their weight as well to make a good picture.
The center of the story is of course Charlie Wilson, and the role offers more then enough for Hanks to sink his teeth into. Charlie is not an everyday man, and this offers Hanks an opportunity to put aside his wholesome family image and do something new (or at least something he hasn’t done in 20 years). Do you remember the press Hanks received a few years ago for Road to Perdition? Remember when everybody was shocked to see Hanks play a contract killer, a murderer, but after seeing the movie you realize he was still just a family man. Well here Charlie Wilson is a married congressman from Texas, but don’t let that fool you because this distinguished gentleman gets down.
Have you ever seen Tom Hanks is in a hot tub with three naked women while everybody is doing coke? Only Bachelor Party came close to that. Have you ever seen a Tom Hanks movie where he shows some skin? I now have (something I’m not proud of and was shocked to see).
This movie shows a new Tom Hanks, the man ditches his squeaky clean image and still makes his character likeable. Despite all the stuff that could make this an unlikable character in some people’s eyes, Tom Hanks proves once again that he is just a likeable guy, despite all the alcohol, drugs, cursing and womanizing.
Hank’s makes Wilson a fully formed character, where you watch a man take on something that is truly bigger than him, use his power for something good and actually make a difference. All the flaws make you concentrate more because this is new ground for an actor we have watched for years. The whimsy attitude Wilson has at the beginning, playing around with his voluptuous staff, is a sharp contrast to the man he is at the end after he has been through the political machine.
Julia Roberts is where this movie starts to crack. Her character does serve a purpose but gets too much screen time. Julia plays Joanne Herring, an ultra right wing socialite who helps inform Wilson about the trouble in Afghanistan and in her spare time is a lover of the congressman. The problem with her character is that she does serve a purpose but ends up with way too much screen time for what that purpose is. Besides her opening scene of talking with Wilson about Afghanistan and a scene at a refugee camp in Pakistan where you see what she is capable of, she doesn’t have much to do. For the most part she is thrown in so Hanks has somebody else to play off of.
The biggest problem with the movie is also one of the things that makes it so entertaining, the Charlie Wilson character. Hanks is such a great actor, and Wilson is a great character but there is nothing to make you connect with him. Hanks was always able to make the audience connect with a character. When he figures out what the average audience member can latch onto to make them care the movies can be magic (Cast Away, Green Mile) and if he can’t we end up with the opposite end (Da Vinci Code, Bonfire of the Vanities).
There was nothing about Wilson I could latch onto. Now I’m not expecting to have an instant connection with a drug using, alcoholic, philandering congressman but besides a 30 second shot of Wilson alone in his apartment and a scene at the end, we never see Wilson where he is not in party mode. Even in the middle of a scandal, Wilson just gets drunk and has a fun time. We never see or hear of his home life, only the Washington life. This does not make a bad movie; it just makes an impersonal movie.
Some of this blame goes on Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter. Now I love Sorkin, The West Wing, The American President, and A Few Good Men are all prime examples of how to take a political story and make it accessible to a wide audience without watering it down, that is almost the case here.
The film doesn’t know what side of the line it wants to ride, sometimes it is a deeply political film where references are made without explanation that add depth to character if only you know what they are talking about (the John Murtha comments come to mind) and other times it takes the formation of a covert war between four unfriendly countries and wraps it all up with two quick scenes and a belly dancer.
I would give this movie a light 7 out of 10, while you watch it you can tell everybody involved was going for something special, unfortunately the tone just doesn’t remain constant and the movie is merely good.
For what tries to be a tight 100 minute political comedy, 30 minutes of it gets distracted trying to preach about the US giving power back to the Afghani’s, ignoring them and causing the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the country eventually leading to you know what.
All intentions were good in making this movie, and it is entertaining, but it's just not the Oscar bait the filmmakers and its stars went out to make.
-
+ Expand All
-
...in Charlie Wilson's War. It wasn't awesome. No, indeed.
-
it's a good movie and Shabby just has incredibly high standards. It's not a bad thing, we should have high expectations even if this means most movies will fall flat. But I'm thinking the average person would rate it a little higher/
-
This movie sounds AWESOME!! I'm looking forward to seeing it.
-
And that's all I've got to say about that.
-
"and other times it takes the formation of a covert war between four unfriendly countries and wraps it all up with two quick scenes and a belly dancer."What could be a more ringing endorsement for a movie? Certainly makes me want to see the film more than any reference to food and bodily fluids that Harry would make about a movie he likes.
-
For calling out Mike Nichols, the most overrated hack of all time.
-
Hack you say? The man did WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF, THE GRADUATE, CARNAL KNOWLEDGE and CLOSER, for fuck's sake. I can't believe the lack of respect.
-
While the players in the project are all top notch, every review i've heard so far says that Seymor Hoffman is great, but the film is otherwise nothing great. Given the performance of Lions for Lambs and other similar films over the past few months, I'm not thinking this movie will do over $50 to $60 million. Decent, but no blockbuster.
-
For Charlie Wilson's War. They look like--and mostly are--completely different kinds of films. Lambs has a domestic gross of $14 million (flop!), although worldwide it's gone $44 million (break-even by the time the DVD and cable dust settles).$60 million domestic would kick Lions for Lambs butt, and probably mean $120 million worldwide. I predict $100+ worldwide box office for Charlie Wilson's War. Which isn't a blockbuster, but I said solid: not blockbuster.
-
But he ain't no Scorsese, neither. Remember "Wolf" with Jack Nicholson? Nuff said.
-
"Hanks is such a great actor, and Wilson is a great character but there is nothing to make you connect with him." Um, okay? So he's a great character and Hanks is a great actor but you didn't connect with him? Is that making sense to everyone else but me?
-
Tired of movies about war, even if this one is suppose to change my mind. Hanks needs to sadle up and get on the Gump 2 Script: Return of LT. Dan pronto! Also I really like Seymor Hoffman but is really a name player in Hollywood yet? He is like the new Chris Cooper, and Cooper has an Oscar. I don't know why they aren't big draws yet, they have really memeroble names. But if you ask any slueb on the street they won't know who those two actors are.
-
Wow. Sorkin pens a script that gets bogged down by it's own self importance? I'm shocked, because that never happens...
-
..."Schlub On the Street Test"! ...and we wonder why Mairka is fast approaching banana republic status...
-
Not sure whether Hoffman is a "name player" yet, but he as a Best Actor Oscar (for Capote) -- Cooper's is just for Best Supporting Actor (for Adaptation).
-
Holy shit do I hate his films.
-
RUBBER LIPPED ASSHOLE!
-
You are not alone. I was also baffled by that comment.
-
Oh wait, no you haven't. In fact, I didn't even know you were gone. So kindly fuck off.
-
This movie won't gross over $60 million domestically. The trailers look like uppercrust CNN and has that coke head-nostriled Julia Roberts ever looked more hung out to dry? She's old and that smile is fucking more annoying and played than Tom Cruise's. Nobody wants to watch another movie about fucking politicians trying to make a difference or botching the world during the fucking Christmas season. I think everyone is fucking tired of these greasy double-talking bastards, even if Charlie Wilson is a throw-back. It's enough being force-fed debates every week with Bush still having a shit load more time in office to fuck up the world and spew his bullshit rhetoric. I'm boycotting this movie off principle. Give me some eggnog and National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation and a large helping of cocaine and a fucking snowman in the yard. Go see There Will Be Blood twice instead of seeing this once. FLOP FLOP FLOP.
-
Is great. Although I, strangely enough, wasn't blown away by The Graduate. It was great, but one of the top 20 American films of all time? I don't think so. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, however, is top 20 material in my mind. Brutal and funny with one of the great screen performances with Richard Burton. Anyway, I'm looking forward to this flick, but I'm not terribly excited for it.
-
I'm not the world's biggest Nichols fan, but if you think The Graduate lacks style, I can't begin to tell you what a sad man you are.
-
hu? What? Were audiences really hankering for that?
-
Because we see in retrospect that 'managing' Afghanistan, even with the best intentions, was a complete muck up . . . and the really, really confusing part of it is that Wilson's a Democrat, and we've been led to believe that the Democrats are the only pure hearts in the political world and their good intentions, their bottom lip biting looks of concern will redeem every effort. Turns out anybody in politics can be wrong, and that won't play well in the super extended dance mix that election "Years" politics has become.
-
...for filming Natalie Portman doing her pole dancing scenes in "Closer" stark naked and then shelving them for a more "tasteful" version. Jackass.
-
This reminds me so much of that disaster, Bonfire of the Vanities, which Hanks also starred in. Big budget Hollywoodized satire just doesn't work.
-
I have high hopes, and I don't know how anyone can hate Nichols. "Closer" is such a fucking emotional, raw film it tears me up every time I watch it.
-
I'm Rick James, bitch.
-
and proof alone that Nichols is no hack.
-
There's plenty of places you can find it if you Google...the most awful piece that I read about it was an interview with Nichols himself - he said that while editing the movie, he couldn't bring himself to use those nude scenes because he felt too much like a father to Natalie after working with her. Urge to kill...rising...
-
Floppity flop flop flop. Flinstone Flop. Mike Nichols doesn't make good movies anymore. Aaron Sorkin doesn't write for the masses. Americans don't wants to watch cynical, self-important films about war while other Americans are fighting one. And Tom Hanks going all "edgy" will be taken as a betrayal by his fans. Mark my words.
-
I saw this last week and wrote a review. I think we're on the exact same page. Especially about Sorkin. Love him but somebody needs to tell him that he's not pure genius and sometimes clever/cute doesn't work. But Hoffman is incredible in this. He has more Oscar gold in his future.
-
Is inconsistency. He he can make a brilliant Angels in America, Virginia Wolf, and Silkwood then turn around and give us What Planet Are You From? and Wolf. Chop 4 or 5 films from his resume and he'd be one of the greatest directors of all time. By the way, his Day of the Dolphin, about Dolphins trained to kill the president, is one of my very guilty pleasures.
-
The Graduate and Virginia Wolf are great movies, Silkwood and Catch 22 are pretty good. Everything after that--from Working Girl to the Birdcage to Regarding Henry to Wolf--is middlebrow junk. Guess more than anything, I'm just wishing he'd dig in a little deeper and tap the talent he once showed.
-
pretty damn good category. And not a stylist..? Rewatch Carnal, or Graduate, Or Woolf...
-
I wonder if this will show how the CIA used al Qaeda to blow up Serbs in the mid to late 1990's?
Between this movie, Morgan Spurlock's Osama movie, Michael Moore's upcoming Fahrenheit sequel, Brian de Palma's Redacted, etc it's open season on "exposing" the US government. Not that I have an issue with this...afterall, it wasnt long ago this was all considered "unpatriotic conspiracy" stuff. -
The reviewer said he wanted to see Charlie's life outside of Congress. There wasn't any - this was it. If he wasn't lobbying, he was partying. That's his story. The book stayed neutral, so I can't see the movie swinging left, especially with Nichols directing. We did screw the pooch in Afganistan on many levels, so I am glad to see the movie include that.
-
Nnnnnnnice try Sorkin.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts