Charlie Wilson's War (Widescreen Edition)

RARELY CAN A SERIOUS MOVIE BE THIS FUNNY AND STILL SOMEWHAT FACTUAL -- A MOVIE WITH SURPRISINGLY GREAT WIT! ***see notes on historic context below if you're interested***Let me first caution everyone to apply just a tiny grain of salt when viewing any Hollywood movie based on true events. However, this one does a pretty good job. It depicts the true life involvement of U.S. Congressman Charlie Wilson in expanding the US budget for support of Afghan rebels during the Soviet involvement. This was a critical and dramatic chapter in the Cold War that affects the later history of the 20th century and beyond. That may not sound interesting to some viewers, but let me tell you, this movie has moxy and mirth at every turn. The characters have such natural wit that it can entertain even non history buffs.THE PLOT (no spoilers): Texas Congressman and notorious playboy Charlie Wilson (a liberal Democrat but hawkish on foreign policy) becomes interested in the Afghan plight after seeing a news report. He sits on the house appropriations committee with the ability to affect flow of funds to entities like the CIA in order to supply better weapons and training to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. The movie depicts his endeavor working with a CIA case officer, weapons specialists, a wealthy female right wing advocate and other members of congress. All are united in their fervent hate of communism. Charlie will need his exceptional skills in "horse trading", as well as his personal charm, to win others to his side and cause something truly momentous. His charm is matched with the surly disposition of CIA Case Officer Avrakotos. Both have a biting wit. Though some accents are a little exaggerated, generic southern (not Texan), and some scenes are a little melodramatic (particularly the combat involving attack helicopters), the spirit of Charlie's personality is quite faithful. Tom Hanks is more than token star power. He actually looks a bit like Wilson at that age. Hanks' accent was only a little exaggerated, Julia Roberts a little more so. She does make a very interesting character though. The verbal tête à tête between Wilson and almost every other character is hilarious! It's all done with a straight face. This is not a comedy. It's just that good! Verbal fencing occurs in almost every scene and the visit to Pakistan was a highlight for me as he spars with Pakistani officials.HISTORICAL CONTEXT: (no political statements, just information).....DID AFGANISTAN WIN THE COLD WAR?: That statement by itself is way too simplified. It is a critical chapter in a much bigger story. There were independence movements going on in Soviet States before Afghanistan, an untenable arms race against the west that outspent them, over half century of crushing economic policy, and a new generation of leaders embodied by Gorbachev that wanted to end the cold war. However, it is fair to say that Afghanistan is that proverbial "straw" on a very overburdened back. For those labeling the Soviets "occupiers", it's important to remember that the Taraki led government had a treaty with the USSR for protection and actually called on them for support. Initially that support was begrudging. After the coup led by Hafizullah Amin which deposed Taraki, they still called on the USSR for help in the north, though the new regime was somewhat anti Soviet. Russia had military involvement in Afghanistan going back to Tsarist times and the "Great Game" against Britain. The problem is that the actual people of Afghanistan were overwhelmingly against the atheist ideology and a brutal suppression was underway by the Afghan government against it's own people to curtail some religious practices and political opposition. So much of the populace would consider them occupiers......DID U.S. CREATE BIN LADEN AND THUS RESULTING TERROR ATTACKS?: Another huge topic, but here's what to consider - The repression in Afghanistan already had a religious context. The foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia and other places were also drawn specifically by the idea of religious jehad. There was an idea of "America next someday" that already existed. So much money and arms were poured into the region that it isn't as relevant whether Bin Laden was supported directly or indirectly. Most opposition groups, including his, would get resources one way or another. How we interacted with Afghans afterward might have influenced history. But that history is written now and it's hard to speculate if it could have gone differently. The fact is, we were there so we get some ownership of the problem. A weak government was left after Soviet withdrawal, allowing the Taliban to take power. Whether we could avoid the terrorist attacks later is a question history is still exploring. As someone with experience in that region, I am not convinced we could have avoided them by avoiding the Soviet Afghan conflict. We didn't create the genesis of that extremism. But certainly they fixated on us later and our actions create a certain variable.MOVIE ACCURACY: I already mentioned the faithfulness to at least the spirit of Charlie Wilson's personality. The accusations of cocaine use, investigations by Juliani, the hot tub scene in Vegas (minus the TV news report I believe), all happened. Charlie's alcohol use was more detrimental to his personal life and those around him than the movie depicts. But he deserves the place in history the movie and book suggest. It is also interesting that he openly acknowledged his foibles, rather than pretending to be a family man in public and then playing differently in his personal life. I don't know if you can call that admirable, but it's a trait that many hypocritical politicians on either side could never claim.

I don't write many reviews, but I just finished rewatching this on Amazon Prime and was reminded of what a truly outstanding film this was.Let's start with the actual events, which I lived through. When Reagan took office in 1981, our Cold War policy--such as it was--came down to "don't try too hard to win it, just stay in the game." We were still in the grip of George Kennan's Era of Containment we entered into shortly after the end of WW2. There were a few cracks in the walls starting to show, but they were entirely undiscovered by our ever-so-clever intelligence services.In one of his first national security briefings, Reagan told the briefer who was pushing this unimaginative strategy, "How about a new strategy? 'We win, they lose.'" And so it was from that point forward. I played a (very small) role in one (very small) aspect of this policy, an aspect of weapons systems development we referred to as "competitive strategies."But much of the Reagan Administration's effort was dedicated to capitalizing on opposition to the Soviet Union within its own sphere of influence, and of course pushing back hard when it tried to expand beyond it. Thus we came to support the Afghan Mujaheddin.But until Congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas decided to take an interest, Afghanistan occupied a decidedly subsidiary role in our hierarchy to places like Poland and Nicaragua. So his efforts count for something. How much? Unknown. As Jack Kennedy famously observed after the Bay of Pigs, success has many fathers, failure is an orphan. In the winning of the Cold War, Congressman Wilson was one of those fathers.Did we screw up the endgame, as the movie suggests? Could be. Or maybe not. Given our complete failure in bringing liberal democracy to most of the places we've been involved in lately--Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria...the list goes on--I find it hard to believe that a million dollars to rebuild the Afghan schools would have averted 9/11. The Taliban would have seen to that!So...on to the movie. Does the movie romanticize, simplify and clean up a messy, complicated situation involving flawed human beings? Duh. If it hadn't, it would be the first time a Hollywood movie "based on actual events" had NOT done so. Is the movie faithful in its larger contours to the situation and its participants? Speaking only from my own worm's-eye perspective from within Reagan's Navy Department, I would say so.Tom Hanks--one of my favorite actors, who is in my opinion one of the greatest if not THE greatest of his generation, does a magnificent job in his portrayal of Congressman Wilson...warts and all. It is in some ways astonishing to see how a deeply flawed, obscure, near-joke of a congressman can rise to the occasion and truly make a difference.Julia Roberts, at this point perhaps a trifle past the white-hot apogee of her career, does a great job as well, as does Philip Seymour Hoffman, a truly underrated actor whose career was tragically cut short. And then there are the cameos: the late, great Om Puri doing a turn as President Zia Ul-Haq of Pakistan, a pre-Mad Men John Slattery as an arrogant, old-school preppie CIA officer, and many others.The dialogue is crisp, yet never seems contrived. Every line is delivered with conviction without slowing things down. And even the small details seem to be gotten right.I agree with some of the critics that the combat sequences seem amateurish, though the cockpit chatter of the Soviet pilots--chilling in its dehumanization--rings very true. In the words of the song, "...He just flies the bomber, he never sees their eyes when the Hell comes down..." But if anything the attacks are too epicene and do not convey the horrors of the war.Conclusion: if you want two hours of great acting and great dialogue, involving a plot that would be regarded as implausible if it were fiction...you should definitely see this movie. Strongly recommended!

Well told true story. Tom Hanks doesn't disappoint and Philip Seymour Hoffman delivers an outstanding performance, the real star of this movie in my opinion.

Good movie