Charlie Wilson’s War – B

Literally just got back from Charlie Wilson’s War and I couldn’t feel better. I’m back on my film a day high and I got some news to report! Mike Nichol’s new film is a success. The director of classics such as Catch 22, The Birdcage, Primary Colors, and Angels in America is on a hot streak. Closer is one of my favorite plays so I might be a little biased here in loving everything this guy does.

He teams up with West Wing god Aaron Sorkin. Fresh off the Studio 60 debacle (and it was just that) he adapts the amazing story written in novel form by George Crile. Now that the credentials are out of the way, I can share with you how good this story is. It’s true, which bodes well from the start. I’m sure some parts were exaggerated or left out for defamation reasons, but Sorkin is on his A game.

He adapts the story of the Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson (played by Tom Hanks). The mean idea (as you can see in the preview) is that a regular ol’ congressman was able to launch a covert war by being in the right congressional committees. Sorkin gives us as much of Charlie as he can, without beating us over the head with it. I’ve always admired his seamless ability to jump from situation to situation while showing how different people respond.

Probably my favorite part of the West Wing is the depth of character. People like Toby or Josh are just so damn real that you can’t help but keep watching. Well Philip Seymour Hoffman provides the best character work in the show. He is quick witted, funny, and just lovable as the fat CIA cat who tells people what to do. Hanks does his role fine. He’s not doing the Da Vinci Code random eye gazing, which is a start. I think certain parts are better than others.

His office for instance is littered with beautiful women. Sorkin plays on this a few times but leaves it for the sentimental and meaningful path at the end of the film. Roberts is utterly forgettable. Now I’m not a really big fan of hers, but I imagine those of you who are fans (my brother) will see this flick for her. Sorkin leaves out her agenda. It is utterly unclear why she is so interested in the Afghan cause. Is it her religious fervor? I couldn’t tell you.

Before this film came out I mentioned how it looked promising as one “issue films” I so cleverly named. It succeeds where others haven’t, but we’re still waiting for the Forrest Gump of our war with the middle east. Sorkin includes an epilogue of why we had to invade Afghanistan in 2001. We backed the war, but wouldn’t back the schools. It’s a message that can be put towards Iraq. “If we pull out now, we invite the same problems of the past to creep up on us.” An interesting take considering Sorkin’s liberal background.

There are currently (and interestingly) two films out about Afghanistan. The first is Charlie Wilson’s War, the second is The Kite Runner. I would suggest you see The Kite Runner instead of this film unless you are a die hard Sorkin fan.  Marc Forster is a better maestro than Mike Nichols in this round, but I liked both films.  As “the issue film of our mid east (really Asia) involvement” I don’t think it lives up to my billing. I am intrigued by Stop Loss a film combating the abuse of willing armed forces who are told to return to battle. THERE WILL BE BLOOD Now showing Saturday….:-(