Comments on: First Impressions: Charlie Wilson’s War

By: Craig Kennedy

Craig Kennedy — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:25:17 +0000

When you strip away Oscar expectations, CWW is a perfectly enjoyable adult entertainment.

It’s not perfect, it’s a bit of a softball that had trouble finding the right tone (I also hated the bookend awards ceremony business), but it was fun.

It’s funny though, I normally like Julia more than you Joel, but she didn’t do too much for me here. She was ok, but I wonder if some of her stuff ended up on the cutting room floor.

Also, as Alison pointed out, the movie was way better than the trailer. I really hated that trailer.

By: joel

joel — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:59:48 +0000

I’m not surprised Charlie Wilson’s War was considered Oscar-bait only a short while ago and after having seen it, I’m even less surprised the hype over it has abated. It’s a good, enjoyable movie with a funny script and some strong performances from veteran actors, but it didn’t feel like anything so overly memorable we’ll be talking about it years from now (or even necessarily in February). Hoffman is amazing once again and I liked the dialed-down performance from Hanks. Roberts is good but she’s not a large presence in the movie’s second half (nor is Amy Adams, which is mildly disappointing). I liked Roberts, which is much better than my typical response to her.

I’m disappointed to hear that Sorkin’s script may have been gutted or the film as written may have been heavily edited. I was a bit surprised at the film’s length, as Nichols and Sorkin are both known for everything but brevity. I’m not sure why the studio would buy an Aaron Sorkin script on this (or any other remotely political) subject without buying into his politics, but studio execs often make odd choices that I don’t grasp. Maybe Sorkin’s script as filmed was annoyingly over-the-top and preachy and the studio cut it down to make the film more manageable for audiences. Who knows? I’d love to see the Sorkin-version of the script if it were filmed and heck, I’d even be willing to read the script if I could get my hands on it.

Regardless, we got an entertaining (if not amazing) movie with a standout supporting performance. Could have been much worse, I suppose.

By: Craig Kennedy

Craig Kennedy — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:31:45 +0000

I’m going to go out on a limb Sartre and guess that you’ll be able to overlook some of the more obvious flaws (uneven tone, weak Julia Roberts, softball politics) and at least enjoy PSH.

I could be wrong.

By: sartre

sartre — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:24:18 +0000

Thanks for the typically well written heads up about this one, Craig. My expectations going in will be more aligned now to the scope of its ambition.

By: Craig Kennedy

Craig Kennedy — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:16:35 +0000

I haven’t seen Big for a million years. I remember liking it a lot at the time, but looking back I can see how it probably suffers from Marshall syndrome. Still, he was more deserving of awards for that than for Forrest Retard….a movie I avoided like the plague…for YEARS. Then I finally watched it at gunpoint. I didn’t hate it or anything, which is actually a high compliment considering what I thought of it before I watched it.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:52:09 +0000

The perverse law of Tom Hanks movies is that he’s much better in mediocre movies than pretty good ones. Turner and Hooch? Mediocre movie. Also a wonderful Tom Hanks performance. Big? Many would argue that its a great movie, and its fine, but it falls under the Shawshank category of decent movie that is a little too syrupy for my tastes. Still, its another great Hanks performance.

Hanks is wonderful in A League of Their Own, a movie that makes Big look like 2001 in terms of sentimentality.

Let’s look at the good movies now: well, I actually don’t really like many of Tom Hanks movies, but the more respected ones: Philahdelphia, Cast Away, Road to Perdition, all feature dull, Respected Actor Hanks performances.

It’s telling that the closest that Hanks the interesting performer has come to appearing in a film that isn’t crummy is in Hank’ own film, That Thing You Do! But Hanks isn’t in that very much.

By: Craig Kennedy

Craig Kennedy — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:44:48 +0000

I’ve always been a quiet defender of Ladykillers 2.0, but I just watched it recently and I have to admit, I’m liking it less and less every time.

I agree with your point though. Hanks was at his most interesting.

Wait, did you just make a Turner and Hooch reference? Nice!

He’s still Tom Hanks though but he’s more likeable rogue and less…well less Saving Private Ryan.

As a fan of Hoffman, you kind of have to see this. Depending on your take on Sorkin, you might hate it, but you will love Hoffman. I think.

That was a long rambly way of agreeing with everything you just said.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:36:40 +0000

I will see this because I can’t ever imagine not watching a Philip Seymour Hoffman performance again. It would also appear that Hanks has shed that boring rich guy Oscar thing that has clouded his work since, I don’t know, Big? Turner and Hooch? That’s why I don’t come down on The Ladykillers as hard as some do, it at least has, if not his best, his most ALIVE performance in the better part of fifteen years.

By: Craig Kennedy

Craig Kennedy — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:03:58 +0000

There’s a lot of talking. Much of it is funny, but it’s still talking.

Depends on if you like the cast or not. For me, Philip Seymour Hoffman was worth the effort. Plus it’s only like 95 minutes or something.

By: glimmer

glimmer — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:44:38 +0000

i have no idea what movie type i am. but i really have zero interst in this. but hey i say the same thing about atonement too. hey…..