(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Funiversal_pictures%2Fcharlie_wilson_s_war%2F_group_photos%2Fjulia_roberts3.jpg&hash=ce9e592920c733bcd06b25403fbb0f7d234a64ae)
Trailer here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809774261/video/4486824/standardformat/)
Release Date: December 25th, 2007 (wide)
Starring: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Mayte Garcia
Directed by: Mike Nichols
Premise: A drama based on a Texas congressman Charlie Wilson's covert dealings in Afghanistan, where his efforts to assist rebels in their war with the Soviets have some unforeseen and long-reaching effects.
is this sposed to be the feel good comedy of the year?
i like the idea of a covert war. every "joke" in the trailer seems to highlight the absurdity of it.
"me.. and two other guys".
uh, i have a feeling julia roberts is going to ruin this movie with her bad acting.
looks fun
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywood-elsewhere.com%2Fimages%2Fcolumn%2F11107%2Fcharliewilsontease.jpg&hash=203b0211cf0a7dea481ee23fee4516f31e7aa582)
unless PSH is playing Hanks' Kuato that is the worst placement of a Hoffman ever on a movie poster.
something doesn't seem right w/this...i mean i found closer to be one of the best films i've seen in recent memory..so, natually i'm intrigued...but after that trailer..i can't help but be annoyed at the cast..i hate julia roberts..she's ugly, annoying, has a big mouth, and can't wear blond...tom hanks is too sugary for me...he's sweet, cute and silly-willy- but i can't really latch on to him as a believable character in this part...and hoffman's mask is to annoying to look at....in fact all make-up and costumes are awful..i like the music..and i may still see this.
I think that Jeffrey Welles from Hollywood Elsewhere is right about how the only porpuse of this poster is to hide the Afghanistan subject matter of the film, in light of the recent failures of all those irak-afghanistan-middle east related movies. They even talk about "the soviet empire" instead of Afganhistan.
I think Hanks needs a new haircut (or go back to the old one please, right now he freaks me out). I have problems with Roberts also, and I'm intrigued by Hoffman. He might be the saving element of this whole thing.
i have problems with tom hanks' hairline, julia roberts' shoulders, and psh's right eyebrow. (his right)
this was really great. funny, mean, and very powerful. kudos to nichols and sorkin for making one of the tightest, most economic movies i've seen. it's amazing how much they cover in just 97 minutes. not a second is wasted, and yet the movie never feels rushed. and all the sorkin haters need to shut it b/c this script is razor-sharp. studio 60-aside, the man knows how to string together a sentence and make intricate political vernacular engaging.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on May 07, 2006, 11:27:18 AMWith each new PSH movie, I wonder how he can possibly create an entirely new character, and yet... here's another one... completely distinct and unlike any character he's done before.
and here's yet another one. our boy phil stands alongside danny-day as one of the most captivating actors ever. you can so see how every other actor who occupies the same frame has to step up his/her game, and it definitely works, for hanks and roberts are really good too. as the man himself said, it's like playing tennis with roger federer. when you're rallying with a master you bring your a-game and ultimately, get better.
see it.
Quote from: ©MBBrad on December 25, 2007, 06:38:19 PM
this was really great. funny, mean, and very powerful. kudos to nichols and sorkin for making one of the tightest, most economic movies i've seen. it's amazing how much they cover in just 97 minutes. not a second is wasted, and yet the movie never feels rushed. and all the sorkin haters need to shut it b/c this script is razor-sharp. studio 60-aside, the man knows how to string together a sentence and make intricate political vernacular engaging.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on May 07, 2006, 11:27:18 AMWith each new PSH movie, I wonder how he can possibly create an entirely new character, and yet... here's another one... completely distinct and unlike any character he's done before.
and here's yet another one. our boy phil stands alongside danny-day as one of the most captivating actors ever. you can so see how every other actor who occupies the same frame has to step up his/her game, and it definitely works, for hanks and roberts are really good too. as the man himself said, it's like playing tennis with roger federer. when you're rallying with a master you bring your a-game and ultimately, get better.
see it.
What he said....
No, but of all the political movies that came out over the past year, this, I hope (because I haven't seen Lions for Lambs or rendition yet), is the best of all of them. Phil keeps getting better and better with each film. He really can transform. Tom and Julia, step up as Cbrad said....yeah, see it.
Yes, I agree.
The movie, I thought, was a bit much at first, and didn't really like it. Until PSH showed up. Jesus, that first scene featuring him, it would be a brilliant scene completely out of context. It is sheer bravado and hysterical. He is a fucking force in this movie, and every scene with him is better than you could imagine.
I also like that the film was political and relevant without being preachy. There are allusions to Iraq, but they're made in the guise of smart criticisms of America's behavior and policies overall. The opening shot was good, but the final line is so honest and truthful, it's depressing.
And of course this has Amy Adams, so I approve.
nichols and sorkin have adapted this amazing story into a film devoid of insight or even information. their "smart criticisms" are mostly shallow and obvious. i learned almost nothing i didn't already know. i'd rather just see a documentary about the covert war that actually addresses its significance. even as a biopic, this movie fails.. wilson's persona or at least hanks's interpretation of it is not interesting enough to carry the film, especially with JULIA ROBERTS weighing it down.
Primary Colors was about a fun-loving politician but it was still insightful about the political process and the conflict between integrity and success. this one has almost nothing, save for a few moments near the end (hoff's zen master joke) where the greater impact of the war is suggested.
it's not worth it to see the whole movie in order to read the closing title card, so if you're interested, here's the full quote:
closing title card spoiler
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world.
And the people who deserved the credit are the ones who made the sacrifice.
And then we fucked up the endgame."
A few great scenes surrounded by a lot of really mediocre script. All the good stuff featured PhiSH. I've never disliked Julia Roberts in a movie more than I did with this one.
yea i agree this film decided not to be great until the last ten minutes. PSH saves every scene he's in. the scene where charlie keeps kicking him out of the room as he handles the coke scandal was very west wing-ish. julia roberts didn't bother me as much as i thought she would, but she's still horribly miscast.
it's really an impossible subject to turn into a feel good political film, especially now. how did this get greenlit?
Quote from: ddiggler on January 10, 2008, 07:48:14 PM
it's really an impossible subject to turn into a feel good political film, especially now. how did this get greenlit?
Directed by Mike Nichols, written by Aaron Sorkin. TH, JR, PSH.