Charlie Wilsonin sota

Nichols and Sorkin lightly scratch those sensitive social spots that a Stone would have preferred to bite before. This does not provoke arguments or a partial rebirth, but they do speak their minds on the subject, hitting the mainstream taste and those who find what they need in the film will leave with a very exhilarated feeling. However, do not look for negativity in this, because I myself must belong to such a group with overwhelmingly positive feelings. Hank's light disguise, jovial gestures, and at the same time believable character are several levels higher for me in balancing satire and political morality than the slightly lost expression of Julia and unfortunately also Hoffman. Perhaps due to the script, Hoffman displays casual boasting that gradually turns into demolishing the right path, which affects the stingingly humorous aspect, becoming rather a sour farce in his performance. Apart from this unfortunate decision, however, I have no objections and I praise what I can. (22.07.2008)

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%. (03.11.2016)

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. (27.01.2008)

“Who wants to build a school in Pakistan?” – “In Afghanistan.“ As long as you don't get lost in the plethora of pithy dialogue, you will enjoy Nichols's cynical view of how tactlessly the US wages its struggle to spread its influence in the world. When it comes to strengthening armies – here specifically the Afghan Mujahideen – it does not hesitate to spend even a billion on anti-aircraft missiles and weapons of all kinds, but when it comes to the second, much more serious step – the post-war building of infrastructure, schools, healthcare, etc. – it mistakenly squeaks like Uncle Scrooge, turning against its own interests. The current events in Iraq show that the US administration has not quite learned the lessons of the Afghan-Soviet war, and Wilson's final words speak for themselves. Hanks as an indulgent congressman was perfect. (16.06.2008)

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. (01.02.2009)