list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Charlie Wilson's War on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Charlie_Wilson_s_War/267718/default.aspx Title: Charlie Wilson's War
Year: 2007
Director: Mike Nichols
Plot: Produced by Tom Hanks, written by Aaron Sorkin, and directed by Mike Nichols, this adaptation of George Crile III's incendiary bestseller tells the remarkable story of the Texas congressman whose efforts to prevent the Red Army from overtaking Afghanistan eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union while simultaneously fueling the rise of radical Islam. In the early 1980s, a hastily assembled army of Afghan "freedom fighters" achieved the remarkable feat of fending off Soviet invaders despite the fact that the odds were overwhelmingly stacked against them. At the time, firebrand Texas congressman Charlie Wilson (Hanks) was a key member of the hugely powerful House Appropriations Committee. Illuminated to the specifics of this remarkable war by a high profile Houston socialite, Watson personally spearheaded an effort to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and training to the Mujahideen with more than a little help from brilliant but suspect CIA operative Gust Avrokotos - whose handpicked selection of CIA outcasts subsequently gained a nefarious reputation for cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and bending the rules of the Agency to their breaking point. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 60
Number of Lists: 24
Number of blog posts: 19
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:48:24 GMTCharlie Wilson's War2007Mike NicholsProduced by <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____93341/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Hanks</a>, written by <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___112161/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Aaron Sorkin</a>, and directed by <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___104435/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mike Nichols</a>, this adaptation of George Crile III's incendiary bestseller tells the remarkable story of the Texas congressman whose efforts to prevent the Red Army from overtaking Afghanistan eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union while simultaneously fueling the rise of radical Islam. In the early 1980s, a hastily assembled army of Afghan "freedom fighters" achieved the remarkable feat of fending off Soviet invaders despite the fact that the odds were overwhelmingly stacked against them. At the time, firebrand Texas congressman Charlie Wilson (Hanks) was a key member of the hugely powerful House Appropriations Committee. Illuminated to the specifics of this remarkable war by a high profile Houston socialite, Watson personally spearheaded an effort to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and training to the Mujahideen with more than a little help from brilliant but suspect CIA operative Gust Avrokotos - whose handpicked selection of CIA outcasts subsequently gained a nefarious reputation for cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and bending the rules of the Agency to their breaking point. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide60Tag Target (>10)241923http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s267718.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Charlie_Wilson_s_War/267718/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_10_Scene_Stealers/190/39504/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: flair
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 1/14/2009 1:11:11 AM
Body: Any reason why this list of Top 10 Scene stealers took a turn toward testosterone? Here's some women who stand out even in strong casts: For redress, here's: 1) Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada (2006) 2) Sarah Polley in Go (1999) 3) Arsinée Khanjian in The Sweet Hereafter (1997) 4) Kerry Washington in The Dead Girl (2006) 5) Jenny Seagrove in Local Hero (1983) 6) Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice (1988) 7) Cher in Silkwood (1983) 8) Jane Birkin in La Belle Noiseuse (1991) 9) Natasha Richardson in A Month in the Country (1987) 10) Christina Hendricks in anything, including Firefly: Serenity, Part 1 (2002)
]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:11:11 GMTflairTop 51/14/2009 1:11:11 AMAny reason why this list of Top 10 Scene stealers took a turn toward testosterone? Here's some women who stand out even in strong casts: For redress, here's: 1) Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada (2006) 2) Sarah Polley in Go (1999) 3) Arsin&eacute;e Khanjian in The Sweet Hereafter (1997) 4) Kerry Washington in The Dead Girl (2006) 5) Jenny Seagrove in Local Hero (1983) 6) Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice (1988) 7) Cher in Silkwood (1983) 8) Jane Birkin in La Belle Noiseuse (1991) 9) Natasha Richardson in A Month in the Country (1987) 10) Christina Hendricks in anything, including Firefly: Serenity, Part 1 (2002) http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/2/37857.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/2/2008 3:00:54 PM
Body: When I first had the idea to assemble a dream cast for a movie about Somali pirates, I envisioned a typical actioner with a dash of tense international politics. The pirates would be played by unknown actors of African descent, with the exception of “the good one,” who would be played by either Djimon Hounsou or Chiwetel Ejiofor. He would realize his folly, then become an integral part of the hero’s harrowing siege of a captured vessel. The hero, of course, would be a white, male, American naval officer, rough around the edges, not afraid to cut the crap and do the right thing. As it turns out, the truth of what’s going on in the Gulf of Aden is much more fascinating. Enter Michele Ballerin: Virginia socialite, investment banker, weapons dealer. When she’s not breeding horses or fending off allegations of fraud in Austria, she’s running Select Armor, Inc. The company is not your typical private security firm competing for lucrative anti-terror contracts. It’s a small, nimble company, run by a woman, with small town roots, and plenty of murky dealings in places like Somalia. What does Ballerin have to due with the pirates? More importantly, who should play her in a movie? More after the jump. Not a lot of information is available on Ballerin, but one thing is clear: she would make a great movie character. She’s someone whose leaked e-mails make disparaging remarks about “the f*cks” from the UN who snoop around Select Armor’s dealings. After being put up for a few days Kampala, Uganda by the president of that country, she reportedly said that, “Kampala is a real shithole.” Nevertheless, she has a tremendous amount of traction in Africa, especially in Somalia. Enter the pirates: According to this ABC News story, Ballerin personally took over negotiations with the bandits aboard the Saudi oil tanker Sirius Star, when official talks broke down. A senior government official told ABC News, “It’s pretty sad when a horse country socialite has more sway in Somalia than the whole US government.” So, the real casting question is who could play Michele Ballerin, the potty-mouthed, middle-aged, Southern debutante who shoots from the hip? She needs to have loads of charm. According to a business contact, Ballerin is treated as royalty in Somalia, even having gained the nickname “Amira,” Arabic for princess. I’ve assembled three candidates, with speculation about how their films would differ. Got a better idea? Leave it in the comments. Julia Roberts As realized by Roberts, Ballerin would be a cross between Erin Brockovich and Joanne Herring, the Houston socialite and conservative political meddler she portrayed in Charlie Wilson’s War. When the contradiction between her patriotic mission and her crass business dealings are clearly juxtaposed, she would laugh them off with unparalleled grace. For the majority of the film, we would suspect that she was simply floating through her strange life, amused by the spectacle. But in the third act, an incident of piracy would strike a personal chord. She must exit her armored Cadillac, board the hi-jacked vessel, and put her charms to good use. Kate Winslet Winlset’s version of Ballerin would be considerably more naïve than Julia Roberts’, and younger. Instead of being an entrepreneuring arms dealer tooling around Africa on her charms and business savvy, Winslet’s Ballerin would begin as a bored heiress of a private military fortune. Towed along on business trips by her father, it seems his dream that she’ll one day take over the mercenary business will go unfulfilled, her sense of entitlement is matched only by her apathy. But then, something goes wrong in Somalia, daddy is killed by pirates. With a heavy heart, she takes up her father’s mantle and enters negotiations with the pirates, determined to halt the cycle of needless violence. Meryl Streep Streep’s Ballerin would be primarily compassionate, echoing her portrayal of another famous white woman in Africa, Karen Blixen in Out of Africa. Her warm smile and genuine personal dealings would deftly hide her shrewd business sense. For the first half of the film, her involvement in international arms dealing would seem like a complete non-sequitur, the movie would hold together only due to Streep’s tremendous talent. Once a business deal goes sour, the rage she so carefully masks is revealed. In the final sequence, she must harness both her gentle charms and her seething anger to negotiate the release of a captured cruise ship carrying not only innocent people, but a hidden arms shipment worth millions. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:00:54 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/2/2008 3:00:54 PM When I first had the idea to assemble a dream cast for a movie about Somali pirates, I envisioned a typical actioner with a dash of tense international politics. The pirates would be played by unknown actors of African descent, with the exception of “the good one,” who would be played by either Djimon Hounsou or Chiwetel Ejiofor. He would realize his folly, then become an integral part of the hero’s harrowing siege of a captured vessel. The hero, of course, would be a white, male, American naval officer, rough around the edges, not afraid to cut the crap and do the right thing. As it turns out, the truth of what’s going on in the Gulf of Aden is much more fascinating. Enter Michele Ballerin: Virginia socialite, investment banker, weapons dealer. When she’s not breeding horses or fending off allegations of fraud in Austria, she’s running Select Armor, Inc. The company is not your typical private security firm competing for lucrative anti-terror contracts. It’s a small, nimble company, run by a woman, with small town roots, and plenty of murky dealings in places like Somalia. What does Ballerin have to due with the pirates? More importantly, who should play her in a movie? More after the jump. Not a lot of information is available on Ballerin, but one thing is clear: she would make a great movie character. She’s someone whose leaked e-mails make disparaging remarks about “the f*cks” from the UN who snoop around Select Armor’s dealings. After being put up for a few days Kampala, Uganda by the president of that country, she reportedly said that, “Kampala is a real shithole.” Nevertheless, she has a tremendous amount of traction in Africa, especially in Somalia. Enter the pirates: According to this ABC News story, Ballerin personally took over negotiations with the bandits aboard the Saudi oil tanker Sirius Star, when official talks broke down. A senior government official told ABC News, “It’s pretty sad when a horse country socialite has more sway in Somalia than the whole US government.” So, the real casting question is who could play Michele Ballerin, the potty-mouthed, middle-aged, Southern debutante who shoots from the hip? She needs to have loads of charm. According to a business contact, Ballerin is treated as royalty in Somalia, even having gained the nickname “Amira,” Arabic for princess. I’ve assembled three candidates, with speculation about how their films would differ. Got a better idea? Leave it in the comments. Julia Roberts As realized by Roberts, Ballerin would be a cross between Erin Brockovich and Joanne Herring, the Houston socialite and conservative political meddler she portrayed in Charlie Wilson’s War. When the contradiction between her patriotic mission and her crass business dealings are clearly juxtaposed, she would laugh them off with unparalleled grace. For the majority of the film, we would suspect that she was simply floating through her strange life, amused by the spectacle. But in the third act, an incident of piracy would strike a personal chord. She must exit her armored Cadillac, board the hi-jacked vessel, and put her charms to good use. Kate Winslet Winlset’s version of Ballerin would be considerably more naïve than Julia Roberts’, and younger. Instead of being an entrepreneuring arms dealer tooling around Africa on her charms and business savvy, Winslet’s Ballerin would begin as a bored heiress of a private military fortune. Towed along on business trips by her father, it seems his dream that she’ll one day take over the mercenary business will go unfulfilled, her sense of entitlement is matched only by her apathy. But then, something goes wrong in Somalia, daddy is killed by pirates. With a heavy heart, she takes up her father’s mantle and enters negotiations with the pirates, determined to halt the cycle of needless violence. Meryl Streep Streep’s Ballerin would be primarily compassionate, echoing her portrayal of another famous white woman in Africa, Karen Blixen in Out of Africa. Her warm smile and genuine personal dealings would deftly hide her shrewd business sense. For the first half of the film, her involvement in international arms dealing would seem like a complete non-sequitur, the movie would hold together only due to Streep’s tremendous talent. Once a business deal goes sour, the rage she so carefully masks is revealed. In the final sequence, she must harness both her gentle charms and her seething anger to negotiate the release of a captured cruise ship carrying not only innocent people, but a hidden arms shipment worth millions. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/28/34492.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/28/2008 11:00:45 AM
Body: So, Aaron Sorkin, writer of such films as A Few Good Men, The American President and Charlie Wilson’s War, and, of course, creator of TV’s The West Wing, is apparently now working on a movie about Facebook for Sony Pictures and producer Scott Rudin (No Country for Old Men). Yes, that’s right, a Facebook movie. News comes to us directly from the social networking site, as Sorkin himself announced the project by admitting that he has absolutely no clue what Facebook is. And I guess he’s looking for assistance or questions or something. Obviously he’s the perfect guy to be scripting a film about the founding of the site. I’m drawing a blank right now as to whether or not any websites have officially spawned movies (does AOL count?), but I do recall an idea from 3 years ago to make an internet dating movie sponsored by Friendster, which was to be directed by Harold Ramis and star Topher Grace. I guess the fact that Friendster faded from popularity in favor of MySpace and then Facebook ruined those plans. But is it possible that this new project will fare any better? Social networking sites have a habit of falling out of fashion rather quickly. Oh well, if Facebook: The Movie doesn’t work out, Rudin and Sorkin are welcome to go with any of these other ideas: 10. Friendster - Just because the other Friendster project didn’t pan out doesn’t mean the site can’t still inspire another movie. This one would be all about how Friendster rose to the top quickly and lived the good life until attempts to get even higher went awry and its fans abandoned it. You know, the age old story of celebrity. Sorkin might be interested because of the way it could parallel his hit stage play (and upcoming film) The Farnsworth Invention. 9. MySpace - Not to be confused with the user-generated MySpace movie project, or the parody video titled Myspace The Movie, this would be more of a thriller involving sexual predators. Because even if this social networking site, which was once the cool alternative to Facebook when that site started sucking, is one day completely left behind, it will at least be remembered in internet history books as synonymous with pedophilia and child safety legislature. 8. Funny or Die - More than just inspired by the website, the movie would actually involve its founders, Will Ferrell and Adam McKay, as well as the other hilarious celebrities that provide content to the site, such as Judd Apatow and James Franco. Hell, even Steve Guttenberg can make an appearance. It could either be a movie about the start of the site or a sketch compilation — as long as it’s more Kentucky Fried Movie than The Onion Movie. 7. MapQuest - It would take place around the turn of the century, when GPS wasn’t so common and people still depended on printed-out directions from the newly popular MapQuest. Chevy Chase and family get lost, though, when it turns out the directions aren’t actually that dependable. Either the details are confusing, or construction, street name change or new roads complicate matters. 6. Wikipedia - Take any event in history and make a movie based solely on its Wikipedia page. Even when the site was new and less dependable than it is now, such a film still wouldn’t have been as loose with facts as most “historical” films from Hollywood. 5. Flickr - An art film consisting of only still images, each randomly picked from the website. The filmmakers will arrange the pictures in an intended order, yet the finished product will feature no direct narrative, so the viewer is free to interpret the story as he or she wishes. 4. YouTube - I don’t care what the plot is or if it’s even shot amateur style. All I know is that it has to be distributed exclusively on YouTube and it must only be available as 10 separate clips, each no more than 10 minutes in length, and it can’t even be that easy to find when you search for it. 3. Napster - I thought there was supposed to be a movie about Napster founder Shawn Fanning, but I must have dreamed it, because I can’t find any sign of such a project ever pitched. But it would make a great film, anyway. Of course, it would only be appropriately watched after downloading it illegally. 2. Mr. Skin - This would be the most popular movie ever. And again it doesn’t matter what the plot is. Basically, the point would just be to get as many well-known actresses together in one movie and have them all bare some skin. They don’t all have to even get naked. One actress could just be topless, another may just flash one breast or just her butt. Nicole Kidman would be the star, though, and would just be completely naked throughout the entire film. 1. Spout - Obviously. Who wouldn’t want to see a movie starring Karina Longworth? I should let her comment with what it would entail, but I imagine it being directed by Joe Swanberg and mostly consisting of Karina watching Turner Classic Movies and providing commentary. I predict it’ll be #1 at the box office for 5 straight weeks, and it’ll out-gross The Dark Knight, too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:00:45 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/28/2008 11:00:45 AM So, Aaron Sorkin, writer of such films as A Few Good Men, The American President and Charlie Wilson’s War, and, of course, creator of TV’s The West Wing, is apparently now working on a movie about Facebook for Sony Pictures and producer Scott Rudin (No Country for Old Men). Yes, that’s right, a Facebook movie. News comes to us directly from the social networking site, as Sorkin himself announced the project by admitting that he has absolutely no clue what Facebook is. And I guess he’s looking for assistance or questions or something. Obviously he’s the perfect guy to be scripting a film about the founding of the site. I’m drawing a blank right now as to whether or not any websites have officially spawned movies (does AOL count?), but I do recall an idea from 3 years ago to make an internet dating movie sponsored by Friendster, which was to be directed by Harold Ramis and star Topher Grace. I guess the fact that Friendster faded from popularity in favor of MySpace and then Facebook ruined those plans. But is it possible that this new project will fare any better? Social networking sites have a habit of falling out of fashion rather quickly. Oh well, if Facebook: The Movie doesn’t work out, Rudin and Sorkin are welcome to go with any of these other ideas: 10. Friendster - Just because the other Friendster project didn’t pan out doesn’t mean the site can’t still inspire another movie. This one would be all about how Friendster rose to the top quickly and lived the good life until attempts to get even higher went awry and its fans abandoned it. You know, the age old story of celebrity. Sorkin might be interested because of the way it could parallel his hit stage play (and upcoming film) The Farnsworth Invention. 9. MySpace - Not to be confused with the user-generated MySpace movie project, or the parody video titled Myspace The Movie, this would be more of a thriller involving sexual predators. Because even if this social networking site, which was once the cool alternative to Facebook when that site started sucking, is one day completely left behind, it will at least be remembered in internet history books as synonymous with pedophilia and child safety legislature. 8. Funny or Die - More than just inspired by the website, the movie would actually involve its founders, Will Ferrell and Adam McKay, as well as the other hilarious celebrities that provide content to the site, such as Judd Apatow and James Franco. Hell, even Steve Guttenberg can make an appearance. It could either be a movie about the start of the site or a sketch compilation — as long as it’s more Kentucky Fried Movie than The Onion Movie. 7. MapQuest - It would take place around the turn of the century, when GPS wasn’t so common and people still depended on printed-out directions from the newly popular MapQuest. Chevy Chase and family get lost, though, when it turns out the directions aren’t actually that dependable. Either the details are confusing, or construction, street name change or new roads complicate matters. 6. Wikipedia - Take any event in history and make a movie based solely on its Wikipedia page. Even when the site was new and less dependable than it is now, such a film still wouldn’t have been as loose with facts as most “historical” films from Hollywood. 5. Flickr - An art film consisting of only still images, each randomly picked from the website. The filmmakers will arrange the pictures in an intended order, yet the finished product will feature no direct narrative, so the viewer is free to interpret the story as he or she wishes. 4. YouTube - I don’t care what the plot is or if it’s even shot amateur style. All I know is that it has to be distributed exclusively on YouTube and it must only be available as 10 separate clips, each no more than 10 minutes in length, and it can’t even be that easy to find when you search for it. 3. Napster - I thought there was supposed to be a movie about Napster founder Shawn Fanning, but I must have dreamed it, because I can’t find any sign of such a project ever pitched. But it would make a great film, anyway. Of course, it would only be appropriately watched after downloading it illegally. 2. Mr. Skin - This would be the most popular movie ever. And again it doesn’t matter what the plot is. Basically, the point would just be to get as many well-known actresses together in one movie and have them all bare some skin. They don’t all have to even get naked. One actress could just be topless, another may just flash one breast or just her butt. Nicole Kidman would be the star, though, and would just be completely naked throughout the entire film. 1. Spout - Obviously. Who wouldn’t want to see a movie starring Karina Longworth? I should let her comment with what it would entail, but I imagine it being directed by Joe Swanberg and mostly consisting of Karina watching Turner Classic Movies and providing commentary. I predict it’ll be #1 at the box office for 5 straight weeks, and it’ll out-gross The Dark Knight, too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/8/25/34329.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/25/2008 11:53:43 AM
Body: Charlie Wilson’s War tells the story of a Texas congressman and the impact he made on the Cold War and in the politics of Afghanistan. Tom Hanks portrays the Democrat congressman who guided money to Afghanistan that armed the mujahedeen and enabled them to win a war against the might of the Soviet Empire. The movie portrays his actions as decisive in the collapse of the Soviet system at the end of the 1980s and touches upon politicians’ short-sightedness in abandoning Afghanistan at the end of the conflict which allowed the radicals to take charge. Wilson is a six term congressman whose greatest achievement is that he has been re-elected five times. We quickly learn of his chaotic personal life. He is a drinker, spending most of the film with a glass in his hand, and is indiscreet in his sexual and social connections. He is enjoying some indiscreet connections when he spots Dan Rather on the news and hears the newscaster report on the Soviet force’s aggression against the largely defenceless Afghan people. Spurred on to learn more, partly out of his own interest but also because he has a soft spot for right wing Houston socialiate Joanne Herring, he flies to Pakistan where he sees the refugee camps and is spurred on to do something. When he confronts the head of CIA operations there he is disgusted to see that America’s efforts are tokenistic and have little to do with defending those fighting the war. He returns to Washington wanting to find a way to support the Afghan forces and help them to defend themselves against the Soviet army. Demanding to meet with somebody from the CIA back in the capital, he is disappointed when low-ranking outsider Gust Avrakotos appears in his office rather than a head of service. Avrakotos, played superbly by Philip Seymour Hoffman, explains the scale of funding needed to help the Afghans win their war and Wilson sets about getting it for them by striking deals with arms dealers and pressuring fellow committee members to back his proposals and appropriate the funding he needs. This film has a lot of potential for greatness but is too determined to sanitise Charlie Wilson. By making this as a mainstream movie, director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin tread an uncomfortable line between drama and humour, never subjecting either Wilson or his actions to proper scrutiny. After all, Wilson is a man who avoids democratic accountability by using the rules of the committee he sits on to funnel money and arms. Even if the filmmakers did not wish to devote the body of the film to the aftermath of his actions and the rise of the Taliban, Wilson’s methods are never scrutinised or debated. A more critical portrait could well have made this movie work more for me, not as a romp but as an examination of a man who, bored with his lifestyle, longs to do something of lasting significance and to give himself purpose. Who manages to use the Washington systems and persuade people with political objectives (the fall of communism) to back him in his more moral crusade to enable the Afghan people to stand up for themselves but who does not realise that his actions could create problems. The film goes some way towards addressing these themes but is never savage enough in its satire or in its portrayal of its lead. Charlie Wilson’s War can be very funny at points, particularly in the farcical doors opening sequence when Wilson juggles discussions with Avrakotos and his secretarial pool, “Jailbait”. It features slick dialogue and strong performances from most of its cast (I am still undecided whether I liked Julia Roberts as Joanne Herring). Compared to Primary Colors, a previous Mike Nichols political drama, this film feels too affectionate towards its main character and towards Washington. A bit more viciousness and a bit more bite could have transformed this film into something more consequential and more interesting instead of a film that is merely entertaining.
]]>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:53:43 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture8/25/2008 11:53:43 AMCharlie Wilson&rsquo;s War tells the story of a Texas congressman and the impact he made on the Cold War and in the politics of Afghanistan. Tom Hanks portrays the Democrat congressman who guided money to Afghanistan that armed the mujahedeen and enabled them to win a war against the might of the Soviet Empire. The movie portrays his actions as decisive in the collapse of the Soviet system at the end of the 1980s and touches upon politicians&rsquo; short-sightedness in abandoning Afghanistan at the end of the conflict which allowed the radicals to take charge. Wilson is a six term congressman whose greatest achievement is that he has been re-elected five times. We quickly learn of his chaotic personal life. He is a drinker, spending most of the film with a glass in his hand, and is indiscreet in his sexual and social connections. He is enjoying some indiscreet connections when he spots Dan Rather on the news and hears the newscaster report on the Soviet force&rsquo;s aggression against the largely defenceless Afghan people. Spurred on to learn more, partly out of his own interest but also because he has a soft spot for right wing Houston socialiate Joanne Herring, he flies to Pakistan where he sees the refugee camps and is spurred on to do something. When he confronts the head of CIA operations there he is disgusted to see that America&rsquo;s efforts are tokenistic and have little to do with defending those fighting the war. He returns to Washington wanting to find a way to support the Afghan forces and help them to defend themselves against the Soviet army. Demanding to meet with somebody from the CIA back in the capital, he is disappointed when low-ranking outsider Gust Avrakotos appears in his office rather than a head of service. Avrakotos, played superbly by Philip Seymour Hoffman, explains the scale of funding needed to help the Afghans win their war and Wilson sets about getting it for them by striking deals with arms dealers and pressuring fellow committee members to back his proposals and appropriate the funding he needs. This film has a lot of potential for greatness but is too determined to sanitise Charlie Wilson. By making this as a mainstream movie, director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin tread an uncomfortable line between drama and humour, never subjecting either Wilson or his actions to proper scrutiny. After all, Wilson is a man who avoids democratic accountability by using the rules of the committee he sits on to funnel money and arms. Even if the filmmakers did not wish to devote the body of the film to the aftermath of his actions and the rise of the Taliban, Wilson&rsquo;s methods are never scrutinised or debated. A more critical portrait could well have made this movie work more for me, not as a romp but as an examination of a man who, bored with his lifestyle, longs to do something of lasting significance and to give himself purpose. Who manages to use the Washington systems and persuade people with political objectives (the fall of communism) to back him in his more moral crusade to enable the Afghan people to stand up for themselves but who does not realise that his actions could create problems. The film goes some way towards addressing these themes but is never savage enough in its satire or in its portrayal of its lead. Charlie Wilson&rsquo;s War can be very funny at points, particularly in the farcical doors opening sequence when Wilson juggles discussions with Avrakotos and his secretarial pool, &ldquo;Jailbait&rdquo;. It features slick dialogue and strong performances from most of its cast (I am still undecided whether I liked Julia Roberts as Joanne Herring). Compared to Primary Colors, a previous Mike Nichols political drama, this film feels too affectionate towards its main character and towards Washington. A bit more viciousness and a bit more bite could have transformed this film into something more consequential and more interesting instead of a film that is merely entertaining. http://www.spout.com/blogs/chrismorrell/archive/2008/8/10/33828.aspx Post By: chrismorrell
Post To: chrismorrell Blog
Post Date: 8/10/2008 6:48:08 PM
Body: Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts,along with Philip Seymour Hoffman,make this pretty entertaining for the most part. The boozing "good time " Charlie with his glamorous office staff,perhaps providing the blueprint for "Charlie Angels"?. However although there are threads of truth about the covert War against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the story, i cannot find direct reference to Wilson. CIA Chief Bill Casey was the real-life "enabler" from what i can see. He ordered a guy called Milton Bearden (maybe Seymour Hoffman's character comes from him?) to take "stinger missiles and a billion dollars" covertly into Afghanistan..this is the period that people recount when they say,"well you trained the terrorists out there in the first place.." including Bin-Laden,and the grouping of fundamentalists now identified as "Al Qa'eda"... One of "Avacado's last lines about "the crazies flooding into Kabul" ,hints at the rise of the fundamentalists that the Reagan Admin were warned about,and of course we heard how Julia Roberts threatened to walk if they had pasted scenes of 9/11 into the film... Check out Adam Curtis' brilliant and impartial series..."The Power Of Nightmares"... Part two "the Phantom Victory" deals with this period, and refers to the perceived defeat of the Soviet Union claimed by both the USA and the Muhajadine ,when it was the Soviet Union that collapsed from within,like a house of cards....Now,there IS a story. Like other Hollywood films that rewrite history,or tell it as a story of American heroism, i should really hate Charlie Wilson's War. However, there is enough of an accurate outline of events here,and the hokum is sufficiently enjoyable to stop that happening,and maybe it will prompt some interest in our near history,that shows just how we arrived at the incredible MESS we are now in.
]]>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:48:08 GMTchrismorrellchrismorrell Blog8/10/2008 6:48:08 PM Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts,along with Philip Seymour Hoffman,make this pretty entertaining for the most part. The boozing "good time " Charlie with his glamorous office staff,perhaps providing the blueprint for "Charlie Angels"?. However although there are threads of truth about the covert War against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the story, i cannot find direct reference to Wilson. CIA Chief Bill Casey was the real-life "enabler" from what i can see. He ordered a guy called Milton Bearden (maybe Seymour Hoffman's character comes from him?) to take "stinger missiles and a billion dollars" covertly into Afghanistan..this is the period that people recount when they say,"well you trained the terrorists out there in the first place.." including Bin-Laden,and the grouping of fundamentalists now identified as "Al Qa'eda"... One of "Avacado's last lines about "the crazies flooding into Kabul" ,hints at the rise of the fundamentalists that the Reagan Admin were warned about,and of course we heard how Julia Roberts threatened to walk if they had pasted scenes of 9/11 into the film... Check out Adam Curtis' brilliant and impartial series..."The Power Of Nightmares"... Part two "the Phantom Victory" deals with this period, and refers to the perceived defeat of the Soviet Union claimed by both the USA and the Muhajadine ,when it was the Soviet Union that collapsed from within,like a house of cards....Now,there IS a story. Like other Hollywood films that rewrite history,or tell it as a story of American heroism, i should really hate Charlie Wilson's War. However, there is enough of an accurate outline of events here,and the hokum is sufficiently enjoyable to stop that happening,and maybe it will prompt some interest in our near history,that shows just how we arrived at the incredible MESS we are now in. http://www.spout.com/blogs/tenenbaums/archive/2008/7/23/32936.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Tenenbaums Blog
Post Date: 7/23/2008 10:30:06 AM
Body: Mike Nichols and Aaron Sorkin's star-studded collaboration is a well written, directed, and acted movie that is ultimately denied "great" status by the first two components. The writing crackles for the first hour, especially in the hands of Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the direction is quality Nichols fare, but when the all-too-quick ending arrives, one is left wondering where the magic went. What this film lacks is a believable struggle. While Charlie Wilson is a remarkable, charming character in a unique situation, he is able to secure funds and other necessities for his covert war without trouble. Among his many successes, he gets Jews and Muslims to collaborate, and though these two groups display mutual hatred in their shared scenes, the overall effect is as if the drama was only for show and to weakly reinforce Middle-Eastern stereotypes. Practically no one says "no" to the guy and the stready stream of affirmatives leaves one wondering when something, anything, will come crashing down. That moment never really happens. Yes, Wilson was able to call in a number of "back-scratching" favors to have his way in Congress, but is it really that easy to subvert the U.S. authorities and alter world history without attracting attention? If so, the perks of being a politician far exceed the public's understanding, but the omission of difficulty experienced by Wilson, though apparently true, remains the film's primary weakness. If Wilson was really able to cakewalk through to a successful operation, then the ease of his work should be hyperbolized; the string of "yes"es should be so outrageous that it reaches fairy tale levels. And if it was not so simple, then the tension and resulting miracle of achievement should likewise be depicted. The film gets so close to being as remarkable as Wilson himself, but suddenly the story is over and feels noticeably unfinished. In this case, the writing and directing are at fault for failing to satisfactorily complete a fantastic yarn. Though all aspects were successful for the majority of the film, the limited running time and lack of a compelling conclusion raise awareness of the gaping absence of drama. Without struggle, or an almost cartoonish sense of accomplishment, the story remains limited, though at times it offered glimpses at perfection.
]]>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:30:06 GMTTenenbaumsTenenbaums Blog7/23/2008 10:30:06 AMMike Nichols and Aaron Sorkin's star-studded collaboration is a well written, directed, and acted movie that is ultimately denied "great" status by the first two components. The writing crackles for the first hour, especially in the hands of Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the direction is quality Nichols fare, but when the all-too-quick ending arrives, one is left wondering where the magic went. What this film lacks is a believable struggle. While Charlie Wilson is a remarkable, charming character in a unique situation, he is able to secure funds and other necessities for his covert war without trouble. Among his many successes, he gets Jews and Muslims to collaborate, and though these two groups display mutual hatred in their shared scenes, the overall effect is as if the drama was only for show and to weakly reinforce Middle-Eastern stereotypes. Practically no one says "no" to the guy and the stready stream of affirmatives leaves one wondering when something, anything, will come crashing down. That moment never really happens. Yes, Wilson was able to call in a number of "back-scratching" favors to have his way in Congress, but is it really that easy to subvert the U.S. authorities and alter world history without attracting attention? If so, the perks of being a politician far exceed the public's understanding, but the omission of difficulty experienced by Wilson, though apparently true, remains the film's primary weakness. If Wilson was really able to cakewalk through to a successful operation, then the ease of his work should be hyperbolized; the string of "yes"es should be so outrageous that it reaches fairy tale levels. And if it was not so simple, then the tension and resulting miracle of achievement should likewise be depicted. The film gets so close to being as remarkable as Wilson himself, but suddenly the story is over and feels noticeably unfinished. In this case, the writing and directing are at fault for failing to satisfactorily complete a fantastic yarn. Though all aspects were successful for the majority of the film, the limited running time and lack of a compelling conclusion raise awareness of the gaping absence of drama. Without struggle, or an almost cartoonish sense of accomplishment, the story remains limited, though at times it offered glimpses at perfection. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2008/7/4/32105.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 7/4/2008 12:50:39 AM
Body: These are the top ten films I’ve seen at the mid-point of the year. I think it is a good idea to post a semi-annual list because instead of complaining about mundane theatre offerings the list confirms that there are enough excellent films out there to watch. In no particular order: Mother of Mine (2005; Finland/Sweden)—A young Finish boy is torn from his family by WWII and later in life comes to terms with both of his mothers and how they treated him. Gone Baby Gone (2007)-- Dennis Lehane, the author of the novel on which the movie is based, says that we as a society have not figured out how to protect our children. The search for a missing little girl dramatizes his concern. 51 Birch Street (2005; documentary)—Doug thought that in his parents’ marriage, his mother was the loving and approachable one and his father was remote and cold, but when Doug’s mother died and his father quickly married his former secretary, everything Doug thought he know about his family started to change. The Italian (2005; Russia) follows a young, plucky Russian boy’s attempt to escape adoption to Italy and instead find his birth mother. Starting Out in the Evening (2007) develops two complex relationships among New York’s intelligentsia. The course of any kind of love never did run smooth. Sharkwater (2006; documentary) examines sharks’ behaviour, their importance to the planet, and our complex rush to exterminate them. Charlie Wilson’s War (2007) is a high-spirited look at how US politics works, and our tour leader is the extremely complex and always interesting Senator Wilson. Longford (2006) portrays the public struggle and the personal growth of Lord Longford as he visits in prison a woman involved in the murder of several children. Get Smart (2008) may be the funniest movie in theatres this year, and it improves on the original series by creating more well-rounded characters and more serious action. Elizabeth I (2005) transports you to London in the late 1500s and embroils you in Queen Elizabeth’s loves and politics.
]]>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 04:50:39 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog7/4/2008 12:50:39 AMThese are the top ten films I&rsquo;ve seen at the mid-point of the year. I think it is a good idea to post a semi-annual list because instead of complaining about mundane theatre offerings the list confirms that there are enough excellent films out there to watch. In no particular order: Mother of Mine (2005; Finland/Sweden)&mdash;A young Finish boy is torn from his family by WWII and later in life comes to terms with both of his mothers and how they treated him. Gone Baby Gone (2007)-- Dennis Lehane, the author of the novel on which the movie is based, says that we as a society have not figured out how to protect our children. The search for a missing little girl dramatizes his concern. 51 Birch Street (2005; documentary)&mdash;Doug thought that in his parents&rsquo; marriage, his mother was the loving and approachable one and his father was remote and cold, but when Doug&rsquo;s mother died and his father quickly married his former secretary, everything Doug thought he know about his family started to change. The Italian (2005; Russia) follows a young, plucky Russian boy&rsquo;s attempt to escape adoption to Italy and instead find his birth mother. Starting Out in the Evening (2007) develops two complex relationships among New York&rsquo;s intelligentsia. The course of any kind of love never did run smooth. Sharkwater (2006; documentary) examines sharks&rsquo; behaviour, their importance to the planet, and our complex rush to exterminate them. Charlie Wilson&rsquo;s War (2007) is a high-spirited look at how US politics works, and our tour leader is the extremely complex and always interesting Senator Wilson. Longford (2006) portrays the public struggle and the personal growth of Lord Longford as he visits in prison a woman involved in the murder of several children. Get Smart (2008) may be the funniest movie in theatres this year, and it improves on the original series by creating more well-rounded characters and more serious action. Elizabeth I (2005) transports you to London in the late 1500s and embroils you in Queen Elizabeth&rsquo;s loves and politics. http://www.spout.com/blogs/dacarden/archive/2008/6/1/30274.aspx Post By: dacarden
Post To: dacarden Blog
Post Date: 6/1/2008 4:53:43 PM
Body: The acting between Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the best I've seen in ages. They played off each other so well. Tom Hanks begins as a notorious Texan Congressman and womanizer but can't help but notice television pictures of what was happening in Afghanistan. He becomes involved in building the money budget for these people to keep them from being totally taken out by the Russians. Visits the country several times to see for hmself what these people are going through, how everyone is being killed by the Red Army and is overtaken by his emotions towards the events there. Philip Seymour Hoffman joins Hanks as a comrade in solving this catastropic dilemma, traveling from country to country to put a stop to the Russians and by raising more and more money by just "showing" the other politicans is REALLY going on in that country. If you want to see a movie that has humor, drama and suspence, then this movie is for you.
]]>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:53:43 GMTdacardendacarden Blog6/1/2008 4:53:43 PM The acting between Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the best I've seen in ages. They played off each other so well. Tom Hanks begins as a notorious Texan Congressman and womanizer but can't help but notice television pictures of what was happening in Afghanistan. He becomes involved in building the money budget for these people to keep them from being totally taken out by the Russians. Visits the country several times to see for hmself what these people are going through, how everyone is being killed by the Red Army and is overtaken by his emotions towards the events there. Philip Seymour Hoffman joins Hanks as a comrade in solving this catastropic dilemma, traveling from country to country to put a stop to the Russians and by raising more and more money by just "showing" the other politicans is REALLY going on in that country. If you want to see a movie that has humor, drama and suspence, then this movie is for you. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28524.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 10:23:08 AM
Body: My friends like to make fun of him (constantly) but my favorite critic, Roger Ebert, often has moments of keen insight. Consider his thoughts about Mike Nichols from his review of What Planet Are You From?: "Half of his films are good to great and the other half you're at a loss to account for." Bingo. It is really hard to believe that the same artist who made such classics as Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and The Graduate also made forgettable pictures like this and Regarding Henry, among others. It's as if Nichols has no ability to self critique his own work, unable to tell his great ideas from his really bad ones. To be fair, Charlie Wilson's War is not a bad film, just a mediocre and forgettable one. In fact, I had originally decided to give it three stars, enough for a positive review, when I realized that the move failed the six-dollar test. It is not boring and will hold your interest, but it's not worth six bucks of your hard earned cash to see, especially when there are so many really good movies out this time of year. Nichols purports to tell the story of Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks), a Democratic congressmen from Texas with substantial ethical problems who was (according to the film) the principal figure behind a covert movement to help Afghanistan defeat the invading Soviet army. This is apparently factual. However, Nichols uses too many cheesy cliches to set up his story. I can believe, for example, that he might actually hire only large-breasted women to staff in his office. I can't believe however, that said women would enjoy working there, or they would be one big happy, non-traditional family. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan took the world a few steps closer to World War III, but you would never know it from the inappropriately lighthearted tone of this movie. This movie wants to be a comedy when it should be a smart political thriller. Wilson himself would also be a far more interesting character if the movie would take him seriously. The only way this material could work as a comedy would be as an all-out black farce, like Dr. Strangelove, but goes for such an easy going, middle-of-the-road tone that it's hard to believe that it's about a war in which thousands of people are dying! To be fair, as I said earlier, this is not a terrible movie. There are two impressive performances from the wonderful Amy Adams as one of Wilson's aides, and from Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a gruff CIA agent with the unlikely name of Gust Avrakotos. The art direction is impressive at inducing an 80's look and feel, even though it's sometime unclear what year events are actually taking place in. Although I know next to nothing about this subject, I had trouble believing everything portrayed in the movie because it all seemed so whimsical. This movie tells me nothing I couldn't learn with more reliability from a Wikipedia article, in far less time and for free. Charlie Wilson's War (2007)
]]>Mon, 12 May 2008 14:23:08 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 10:23:08 AMMy friends like to make fun of him (constantly) but my favorite critic, Roger Ebert, often has moments of keen insight. Consider his thoughts about Mike Nichols from his review of What Planet Are You From?: "Half of his films are good to great and the other half you're at a loss to account for." Bingo. It is really hard to believe that the same artist who made such classics as Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and The Graduate also made forgettable pictures like this and Regarding Henry, among others. It's as if Nichols has no ability to self critique his own work, unable to tell his great ideas from his really bad ones. To be fair, Charlie Wilson's War is not a bad film, just a mediocre and forgettable one. In fact, I had originally decided to give it three stars, enough for a positive review, when I realized that the move failed the six-dollar test. It is not boring and will hold your interest, but it's not worth six bucks of your hard earned cash to see, especially when there are so many really good movies out this time of year. Nichols purports to tell the story of Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks), a Democratic congressmen from Texas with substantial ethical problems who was (according to the film) the principal figure behind a covert movement to help Afghanistan defeat the invading Soviet army. This is apparently factual. However, Nichols uses too many cheesy cliches to set up his story. I can believe, for example, that he might actually hire only large-breasted women to staff in his office. I can't believe however, that said women would enjoy working there, or they would be one big happy, non-traditional family. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan took the world a few steps closer to World War III, but you would never know it from the inappropriately lighthearted tone of this movie. This movie wants to be a comedy when it should be a smart political thriller. Wilson himself would also be a far more interesting character if the movie would take him seriously. The only way this material could work as a comedy would be as an all-out black farce, like Dr. Strangelove, but goes for such an easy going, middle-of-the-road tone that it's hard to believe that it's about a war in which thousands of people are dying! To be fair, as I said earlier, this is not a terrible movie. There are two impressive performances from the wonderful Amy Adams as one of Wilson's aides, and from Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a gruff CIA agent with the unlikely name of Gust Avrakotos. The art direction is impressive at inducing an 80's look and feel, even though it's sometime unclear what year events are actually taking place in. Although I know next to nothing about this subject, I had trouble believing everything portrayed in the movie because it all seemed so whimsical. This movie tells me nothing I couldn't learn with more reliability from a Wikipedia article, in far less time and for free. Charlie Wilson's War (2007) http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28523.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 10:23:06 AM
Body: My friends like to make fun of him (constantly) but my favorite critic, Roger Ebert, often has moments of keen insight. Consider his thoughts about Mike Nichols from his review of What Planet Are You From?: "Half of his films are good to great and the other half you're at a loss to account for." Bingo. It is really hard to believe that the same artist who made such classics as Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and The Graduate also made forgettable pictures like this and Regarding Henry, among others. It's as if Nichols has no ability to self critique his own work, unable to tell his great ideas from his really bad ones. To be fair, Charlie Wilson's War is not a bad film, just a mediocre and forgettable one. In fact, I had originally decided to give it three stars, enough for a positive review, when I realized that the move failed the six-dollar test. It is not boring and will hold your interest, but it's not worth six bucks of your hard earned cash to see, especially when there are so many really good movies out this time of year. Nichols purports to tell the story of Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks), a Democratic congressmen from Texas with substantial ethical problems who was (according to the film) the principal figure behind a covert movement to help Afghanistan defeat the invading Soviet army. This is apparently factual. However, Nichols uses too many cheesy cliches to set up his story. I can believe, for example, that he might actually hire only large-breasted women to staff in his office. I can't believe however, that said women would enjoy working there, or they would be one big happy, non-traditional family. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan took the world a few steps closer to World War III, but you would never know it from the inappropriately lighthearted tone of this movie. This movie wants to be a comedy when it should be a smart political thriller. Wilson himself would also be a far more interesting character if the movie would take him seriously. The only way this material could work as a comedy would be as an all-out black farce, like Dr. Strangelove, but goes for such an easy going, middle-of-the-road tone that it's hard to believe that it's about a war in which thousands of people are dying! To be fair, as I said earlier, this is not a terrible movie. There are two impressive performances from the wonderful Amy Adams as one of Wilson's aides, and from Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a gruff CIA agent with the unlikely name of Gust Avrakotos. The art direction is impressive at inducing an 80's look and feel, even though it's sometime unclear what year events are actually taking place in. Although I know next to nothing about this subject, I had trouble believing everything portrayed in the movie because it all seemed so whimsical. This movie tells me nothing I couldn't learn with more reliability from a Wikipedia article, in far less time and for free. Charlie Wilson's War (2007)
]]>Mon, 12 May 2008 14:23:06 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 10:23:06 AMMy friends like to make fun of him (constantly) but my favorite critic, Roger Ebert, often has moments of keen insight. Consider his thoughts about Mike Nichols from his review of What Planet Are You From?: "Half of his films are good to great and the other half you're at a loss to account for." Bingo. It is really hard to believe that the same artist who made such classics as Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and The Graduate also made forgettable pictures like this and Regarding Henry, among others. It's as if Nichols has no ability to self critique his own work, unable to tell his great ideas from his really bad ones. To be fair, Charlie Wilson's War is not a bad film, just a mediocre and forgettable one. In fact, I had originally decided to give it three stars, enough for a positive review, when I realized that the move failed the six-dollar test. It is not boring and will hold your interest, but it's not worth six bucks of your hard earned cash to see, especially when there are so many really good movies out this time of year. Nichols purports to tell the story of Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks), a Democratic congressmen from Texas with substantial ethical problems who was (according to the film) the principal figure behind a covert movement to help Afghanistan defeat the invading Soviet army. This is apparently factual. However, Nichols uses too many cheesy cliches to set up his story. I can believe, for example, that he might actually hire only large-breasted women to staff in his office. I can't believe however, that said women would enjoy working there, or they would be one big happy, non-traditional family. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan took the world a few steps closer to World War III, but you would never know it from the inappropriately lighthearted tone of this movie. This movie wants to be a comedy when it should be a smart political thriller. Wilson himself would also be a far more interesting character if the movie would take him seriously. The only way this material could work as a comedy would be as an all-out black farce, like Dr. Strangelove, but goes for such an easy going, middle-of-the-road tone that it's hard to believe that it's about a war in which thousands of people are dying! To be fair, as I said earlier, this is not a terrible movie. There are two impressive performances from the wonderful Amy Adams as one of Wilson's aides, and from Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a gruff CIA agent with the unlikely name of Gust Avrakotos. The art direction is impressive at inducing an 80's look and feel, even though it's sometime unclear what year events are actually taking place in. Although I know next to nothing about this subject, I had trouble believing everything portrayed in the movie because it all seemed so whimsical. This movie tells me nothing I couldn't learn with more reliability from a Wikipedia article, in far less time and for free. Charlie Wilson's War (2007) http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 607

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 940

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:10 GMT607316940Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6176

Number of people who tagged: 180

Number of times used: 607

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:50:24 GMT6176180607Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drugs/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrugs
Number of films tagged: 1643

Number of people who tagged: 130

Number of times used: 488

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:36:00 GMT1643130488Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2414

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 548

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:42 GMT2414126548Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 524

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 623

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:04:41 GMT524102623Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/religion/MemberTagFilms.aspxreligion
Number of films tagged: 1123

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 176

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:31:00 GMT112367176Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politics/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitics
Number of films tagged: 698

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 194

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT69854194Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/history/MemberTagFilms.aspxhistory
Number of films tagged: 998

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 155

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:29 GMT99848155Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/money/MemberTagFilms.aspxmoney
Number of films tagged: 508

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 145

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:03:25 GMT50846145Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/women/MemberTagFilms.aspxwomen
Number of films tagged: 598

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 107

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT59844107Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/powerful/MemberTagFilms.aspxpowerful
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 70

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:29 GMT484370Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/power/MemberTagFilms.aspxpower
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 104

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:55 GMT60639104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nudity/MemberTagFilms.aspxnudity
Number of films tagged: 297

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 99

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:36:31 GMT2973199Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cocaine/MemberTagFilms.aspxcocaine
Number of films tagged: 146

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 91

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT1462991Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/army/MemberTagFilms.aspxarmy
Number of films tagged: 867

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 76

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT8672776Tag