Charlie Wilson's War

This is exactly the kind of movie I love. Clever dramatic-satirical comedies about things that look unbelievable but really happened. Charlie Wilson's War offers a script full of extra dry humor, a charming trio of main characters (you couldn't pick better performers), great scenes such as the first meeting between Wilson and "Gus", a bathroom conversation, an audience with the Pakistani president, a visit to a refugee camp and a helicopter shoot-down... I give the film four and a half stars, which I'm rounding up because I just want to. Oh, and also for the shattered window in the office and for the final quote.__P.S. There are only two documentaries on the DVD, but one of them (Who is Charlie Wilson?) is surprisingly interesting. (07/24/2010)

Not a bad movie by any means, but it lacks something that will make me remember it in a week. The acting is decent, the plot moves along quickly, but there really isn't a single emotionally powerful moment or downright interesting scene. It’s a very safe bet from everyone involved. But quite enjoyable. (01/27/2008)

Mike Nichols was one of the few certainties for me in film heaven, for whose films I always expected to give four or five stars. But disappointment had to come at some point. Charlie Wilson's War resembles, at first glance, a nice pool that invites you to swim in it, only to find out upon entering the water that it has a depth of about 40 cm. It doesn't help that the water is pleasantly warm and the pool design looks top-notch. It is not clever and analytical enough for satire, and not funny enough for comedy. My problem was that I couldn't laugh at the obvious attempts at comedic elements. The only truly interesting character was the CIA agent played with irony by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Tom Hanks is reliable, but the screenplay, which I consider the main weakness of the film, did not allow him to develop his acting abilities. Throughout the duration, I was slightly bored, partly because the events portrayed were well-known to me from far more informed sources. Overall impression: 45%. (11/03/2016)

Some effective links to the bizarre functioning of the US government system and a significant number of heated dialogues, which, however, get lost in the abundance of questionable references and the ineffective atmosphere of the 1980s. It's quite a shame because Congressman Tom Hanks and his “first lady” Julia Roberts are thoroughly enjoying their roles. There is little to say about the authentic footage of action scenes of shooting, which the editors and cameramen combine with visual effects (probably to save money), because the film doesn't rely on that at all. However, even the key elements on which the film should work don't quite work fully, and occasionally the whole thing becomes alarmingly shaky. Despite its relatively long running time, I found many scenes uninteresting and some were cold and distant despite the actors' best efforts. (02/01/2009)

Tom Hanks has decided to tarnish his image a bit and play a character who is not the fool that Forrest Gump was. He has a weakness for women and will sleep with anyone. His office looks like a hotel for high-class prostitutes and his effort is exactly what cost America the Twin Towers in a few years. The film is a satire. Well, it should be a satire, but it's not funny enough and especially not biting enough. So an incredible problem is being addressed, a history that shaped the future, but at the same time, it is not really criticized, everything is within limits so as not to cause too much controversy. Why is it not more biting? Isn't it possible to step on America's toes more? Isn't Russia's invasion of Afghanistan and American support for the Afghans reason enough for someone to really oppose America? If not this, then I don't know. Tom Hanks won't offend anyone, nor will Julia Roberts, but I can't say I was thrilled by this political satire. Everything is within limits, everything is fine. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/04/frost-vs-nixon-bos-vs-kung-fu-trocha.html (02/16/2013)