Interesting enough story, but painfully cheesey. Horrible little speeches about falling in love with america, plucky endearing villagers and their hilarious japes with a rocket launcher (war has never been so much fun) and the chess scene made me want to wretch.
I like the west wing and I can take the Sorkin cheddar there, but this beggared belief. If it hadn't been for Hoffman I would have bailed.
Dick, this is nuts.
I concur.
shareMediocre at best, and very forgettable (I already had forgotten about the chess scene). But Hollywood loves Mike Nichols and Aaron Sorkin, so I'm sure it'll be fawned all over at the Oscars
share[deleted]
Well, they did leave a lot of good stuff out, and went for the more quirky bitd and the anecdotes, but its a hollywood movie for *beep* sake, what did you expect?
Of course theyre gonna go for something thats easy to swallow.
And beside, whats the alternative? sure they couldve made the film 3 hours long, and I would've liked that, me and a few others, but that wouldve probably lost them money.
Or they could've gone the Syriana route, totally serious, very *beep* boring.
Also, I enjoyed Philip seymour hoffman immensly. I finally got what the big deal about that guy is. His first scene in the film where he is having a big fight with his boss, is *beep* great.
All in all, good movie.
Well, they did leave a lot of good stuff out, and went for the more quirky bitd and the anecdotes, but its a hollywood movie for *beep* sake, what did you expect?
Of course theyre gonna go for something thats easy to swallow.
And beside, whats the alternative? sure they couldve made the film 3 hours long, and I would've liked that, me and a few others, but that wouldve probably lost them money.
Or they could've gone the Syriana route, totally serious, very *beep* boring.
Also, I enjoyed Philip seymour hoffman immensly. I finally got what the big deal about that guy is. His first scene in the film where he is having a big fight with his boss, is *beep* great.
All in all, good movie.
[deleted]
It's OK. It's not crap. It is a movie adaptation of a very good book.
shareDid nobody else notice that this film is crap?
Well apparently it isn't doing a good "word of mouth" business....
60 million take in over a 5 week period.
Theater counts according to Box Office Mojo, has it losing 1,061 theaters this weekend. That cuts their theaters practically in half....
About 4 million in foreign totals. I highly doubt that it will see any more than that in foreign totals.
I would classify this as a bomb, seeing as they had "2 of the biggest powerhouses/actors" in the film.
75 million dollars to make this movie along with probably another 25-30 million to market......
Its still in the RED....
And I highly doubt it will attract any Oscar nods..
Plenty of reviewers and commentators noticed.
A small case in point.
What 'good time Charlie' brought
In the film "Charlie Wilson's War," the nitwit and deeply corrupt congressman elevated to heroic status through Tom Hanks' ever-charming performance has a meeting with Pakistan's then-dictator Zia ul-Haq, in which they broker a deal for a joint effort to "save" Afghanistan from the Soviets. It's all great fun; the United States is, as always, on the side of the good guys, in this case the Afghan mujahedeen, who later morphed into the Taliban, hosts of al Qaeda.
The movie does not mention that the mujahedeen went to war against the Soviet-backed government then in power in Kabul after it committed the unpardonable crime of allowing female students to attend rural schools. The film casually notes that General Zia, the U.S. ally in this effort to bring "freedom" to Afghanistan, was, like so many of the movie's heroes, a hard case full of contradictions, as exemplified by his having murdered Pakistan's previous ruler, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/02/EDO7U7L5P. DTL
[deleted]
[deleted]
America has done more to free people from tyranny, hunger, disease and poverty than all the countries of the world added up. You cant name a country that would be as benevolent as the US with the power the US has.
shareYou cant name a country that would be as benevolent as the US with the power the US has
America has done more to free people from tyranny, hunger, disease and poverty than all the countries of the world added up.
"On the debit side, the US has done more to prop up genocidal rightwing dictatorships and thwart secular nationalists in the Middle East (using the Islam card no less) than any other country since WWII."
here here
[deleted]
"America has done more to free people from tyranny, hunger, disease and poverty than all the countries of the world added up. You cant name a country that would be as benevolent as the US with the power the US has."
Having not seen the film, I'm curious to know if any mention is made of what the people armed by Wilson and trained by the CIA went on to do from their base in Afghanistan, after the US abandoned the country and allowed it to fall into the hands of the Taliban when it was no longer strategically important.
Having not seen the film, I'm curious to know if any mention is made of what the people armed by Wilson and trained by the CIA went on to do from their base in Afghanistan, after the US abandoned the country and allowed it to fall into the hands of the Taliban when it was no longer strategically important.
All those countries America has freed from tyranny like Guatemala, Iran, Egypt, Chile and every other tin-pot dictatorship that was anti-communist. Good job boys.
America has destroyed many times as much too. I believe that going to a country killing people, innocent or not, is awful. War, as a word, has lost it's power. It's gone casual. War is awful, terrible and disgusting and I doubt anything good has ever come out of starting an unfought war. Half of the world's budget for military purposes is spent by the USA. This is spent on weapons, bombs, soldier payments, tanks and so on, and freeing people from hunger, disease and poverty can be done much more efficiently and benevolently by sending food, giving them fresh water, and medical supplies.
Also on the movie, thankfully someone noticed that too. I couldn't help but laugh when they shot they choppers down, or the choppercam shots with red spray coming out shooting at camels. Also, Wilson's way with women is so heavily overdone and naked women have nothinbg at all to do with politics.
[deleted]
"Did the Soviets butcher all of those Afghan women and children as the film says or not? You know it is their country. If they want to repress their women and govern by theocracy they have that right. Everywhere in the world does not have to be a liberal democracy. There may be some who find that their moral sensibilities are offended by so called liberal democratic values. American popular culture is disgusting. It is full of mindless celebrity worship of a lot of moral reprobates and degenerates. The only core American values are greed, infidelity, promiscuity, selfishness, apathy, indifference, and the celebration of blissful ignorance."
The strength of a liberal democractic model is that the right to freedom of speech, amongst other things, is protected by law, even if it 'offends your moral sensibilities'. I'm assuming you live in a liberal democracy, as few other systems would tolerate such criticism.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Tom Hanks is disappointing for the last decade or so. His last memorable film was Ryan in 98, and he began his trajectory in 93 with Philadelphia I believe. But since then it has been slim pickings for a dare I say has-been who has become complacent comfortable wealthy and typecast, the exact same things he railed against in the first place. The Ladykillers was terrible. Same old Southern accent garbage. Do not take on Alec Guinness. Hanks is nowhere remotely near Alec Guinness (Fagin in Oliver Twist).
share"If they want to repress their women and govern by theocracy they have that right."
Who is "they"? Clearly not the women. Just some old (and some not so old) men who want to retain power over other people's lives. I'm not arguing the general points here, just this specific one--this is EASILY argued as a human rights issue.
Was it the American South's right to keep slaves? After all, if "they want to repress their [blacks] and govern by [their their theocracy which they ratioanlize as supportive of slavery] that's their right."
I really don't think they have that right. They don't have to right to put homosexuals to death, either. Or do you think every country has that right, too?
"Everywhere in the world does not have to be a liberal democracy. There may be some who find that their moral sensibilities are offended by so called liberal democratic values. American popular culture is disgusting."
You confuse governance with culture. Bad mistake.
[deleted]
I disagree on both counts. To say that fundamentalist Muslim countries' cultures and governments are the same would pretty much make them all the same, regardless of histories, of past cultures and experience. Certainly theocracies are enmeshed in cultures, but it doesn't mean they're same, and reducing them as such reduces all of them to a stereotype. They're all different.
As someone else pointed out, government and people aren't the same.
I agree there is a certain degree of perpetuation... and a reflection. The US citizenry continue to support aspect of our governance, and reject others. But that doesn't negate a wealth of historical forces that didn't always directly have to do with governance. Anyway, regardless, this degree of perpetuation and reflection clearly varies across cultures and governments.
[deleted]
"The movie does not mention that the mujahedeen went to war against the Soviet-backed government then in power in Kabul after it committed the unpardonable crime of allowing female students to attend rural schools." (nbjeff)
Thank you! I'm relieved to see someone here knows that!!!I thought this was a really awful movie and I got tired of reading through the comments the first time so I introduced the above as a message board question!
My pleasure and I agree with you. To those who've taken the trouble to study up on Afghanistan's history and the history of the Soviet-Afghan conflict, this film was an abomination.
share"If it hadn't been for Hoffman I would have bailed."
I have to agree that Hoffman redeemed this film and lifted it from "completely boring" territory up to just "average". Imagine the film without Hoffman's performance and you'd basically have a Lifetime Movie Of The Week.
I would have preferred to see this story told from Hoffman's perspective, with him as the main character. Now THAT could have been a classic. It would certainly have more energy and passion than what hit the screen.
I never once thought of Charlie Wilson as heroic. His being charming was a necessary part of his character. It was through this considerable charm that he managed to achieve all of which he did. It always seemed clear to me that what he was doing had very ominous potential such as the scene when that religious comittee chairman gives his rousing religious speech in the refugee camp and Charlie himself holding up the stinger launcher. The zen master anecdote clearly implied that while his actions could, from a certain perspective, be deemed heroic in that particular moment, a few years down the line the ominous potential of his actions could and did come to fruition.
But the point of the film, as opposed to the 2005 script, was that the blowback happened through no fault of Charlie's, who might have prevented it had Congress granted his requests for reconstruction funds. And this, of course, is utter bosh.
shareYeah, it sucked
shareI think this movie was rather good. I see it as having been
done in an ironic symbolic way, since no one really knows
what happened or why this movie has some fun with throwing
around stereotypes and painting a broad picture.
I was really not expecting to be able to sit through the
whole thing. I read the book, and I know some of the
history, as well as having seen what has been going on
since.
The people of the world are herded around like animals
by their governments who just party and talk all about
morality.
Crap or not, this film like such other left leaning films was not the financial success that its makers hoped it would be. If the grosses of 2007 have taught us anything, it that support for these films is minimal. Allow me to break this down
Left Leaning Hits of 2007
1. The Bourne Ultimatum: With its portrayal of the CIA as torturing its own and consistently killing civilians as well as the villians wearing US flag lapel pins and the "DO you know what you are fighting for" sentiment from Bourne at the end, this film was a certified hit with 230 Million dollars.
Left Leaning Films that were not hits.
1. Shooter: Mark Whalberg himslef stated that this was a film with "Blue State Politics". This film made only 47 million with a 60 million production budget. It failed to breal even so it was not a hit.
2. Redacted: Did not even break a million
3. In the Valley of Elah: also failed to break even with a 6 million gross compared to its 13 million budget.
4. Rendition: With its approximately 30 Million dollar budget and its 9 million dollar gross. This fil too failed to break even
5. A Mighty Heart: A film that Judea Pearl himslef had issues with because it tried to show a moral eqivalency between the terrorists and those tring to rescue Daniel PEarl also failed to break even at the box office with a 9 million dollar gross versus its 16 milion dollar budget.
6. Charlie Wilson's War: With its Democratic Hero winning the Cold War to its Conservative characters portrayed as sexually loose and encouraging the radicallizing of the AFghans, this film was no flop but still was unable to break even at the box office. A 65 million dollar gross versus its 75 million dollar budget.
Lions for Lambs: Grossed 14 million versus its 35 million budget.
Lets look at the films that did gather up some steam
1. Transformers: The film where the US military comes off as heroic, the President is seen making the right decisions throught the Secretary of Defense, and Optimus Prime saying that all beings have the right to freedom (as well as the no sacrifice no victory motto. This film made over 300 milion with a 150 million budget.
2. 300: With its freedom isn't free motto, its Persian villians and sub plot arguing for a troop surge, the film made 210 million versus its 60 Million budget.
3. Lve Free or Die Hard: while the film admits that AMerica isn't perfect, it still does not deserve to be the recipient of a terrorist attack and no matter what the reason, there is no excuse to resort to terrorist tactics; this film made over 130 Million versus its 110 Million budget.
4. National Treasure 2: A film that wears its partiotism on its sleeve and calls and praises Abraham Lincoln for his efforts has grossed over 200 million.
You could even push it and look at I AM Legend with its miltary scientist hero and the message of how faith (along with science) can lead to salvation. This film had made over 250 Million.
What it comes down to is that the films making money are not the ones with the more left leaning messages, but in fact the ones with the message that they would prefer to ignore.
If you say so!
Funny all the left leaning films are films about real
things mostly, all of which i did not much care for,
but your examples of right leaning films are all
abstract fantasies, which I cared for even less.
In fact the only one I liked was "Charlie", and
that was because it was not left leaning as I saw
it. I think you have exposed left-leaning
nerves that recoil in horror anytime you hear
something that you think reminds you of something
that reminds you of something that reminds you of
something ...
It's an OK movie. But the $75,000,000 budget? It should have been made for under at least the half.
shareWhich films with messages "they prefer to ignore" did well at the box office, presuming there is such a thing as a thoughtful, wonkish film on the right? If you include an imbecilic propaganda piece like Expelled, you would have to point out that it made only $7 mil at the box office after 35 days compared to $26 million for Rendition after a run of only 28 days.
share
I'll agree it was a disappointing movie that was 'saved' by Hanks and PSH performances. Hanks played the lovable rogue as well as he usually does and I suspect the real Wilson was far from the charming rogue Hanks played! Without Hanks, or a probably more realistic portrayal, this would have been a stinker. The writing was poor, cheesy and straight from a manual with cardboard cut out by the numbers characters. Julia Roberts was just weird and out of place.