Your browser does not support or blocks cookies. The site will not function properly. Do not ask for support.

Stream it now

Charlie Wilson's War 2007

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...

Release Date:
December 21, 2007
102 min
Mike Nichols
John Slattery, Carly Reeves, Spencer Garrett, ...
Drama, History, Comedy, ...
USA, Germany

Your rating:0

Solar rating:8.2


Imdb rating:7.1

Show More...


Really good film ... Acting was great!!
GREAT TRUE STORY...followed this guy's career when i was in texas..worked with joanne herring when i helped design H.L. Hunt's EAST TEXAS OIL MUSEUM and THE KILGORE RANGERETTE MUSEUM..i admire the character of texans..DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS.
It was ok. Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman were usual. I didn't like Julia Roberts in this movie though. The southern accent sounded a little weird and kinda threw me off from her performance I guess. I just feel that it is a great story and they could have done so much more with the material. It felt almost rushed (especially the second half of the movie) and ran only a little over 90 minutes. I feel if they had went deeper into the story it could have been a much better movie. But as is it was just ok for me.
PLOT SPOILER: True story of Charlie Wilson congressman who witnesses Afghani suffering during war with Soviets so he pushes money for covert weapons (mainly shoulder-mounted missiles to shoot down helicopters). Suggests post-war rebuilding is neglected and instability leads to seeds of 9/11. REVIEW: Excellent.
Strong performances by the powerhouse cast made this movie a lot better than it otherwise could've been.
A humerous, seditive political comedy. Enjoyable and satisfying throughout.
Charlie Wilson was one of the most ignored congressmen at the time he was doing the "WAR" this Mike Nichols movie talks about. Well, he wasn't supported either! Watch this movie to know how the Soviets were destroyed by Afghanis with the help of Charlie, his CIA friend Gus, and the married socialite Joanne whom he loves! A highly entertaining flick that has the power to keep you on your seat to know more.
I didnt know much about the subject matter of this film, but the trailer made me interested. i am a big tom hanks fan, so i will give any movie he is a try.

I loved this movie, i love tom hanks performance aswell as philip seymore hoffmens. the movie tells the story how a representative from texas goes on to help fund the war in afganastan against invaders russia. usually i would find such a politically based story very boreing but the trials and tribulations that charlie wilson faces makes this a must watch for anyone.
Why the hell doesn't blockbuster have anything by David Mamet or David Cronenberg?
Sharp as a knife political satire, Hanks is on (unusually) naughty form, Hoffman, well what can i say hes as superb as ever and Roberts makes a fine return to where she belongs. Its a shame its outcome doesn't carry the emotional wallop it clearly should when the fianl credits roll.
I watched this movie simply because of its good rating, without knowing much about CHARLIE WILSON. The movie started bad and meaningless, but then it slowly got better.

I liked the short documentary "Who is Charlie Wilson" available in the DVD, I could see the true man, whose help -along with Saudis & Arab nations- contributed to saving Afghanistan from Russia's invasion.

Neither Tom Hanks nor Julia Roberts were particularly believable in this movie, which did have a good original message, but wasn't delivered right.
Story (10 out of 30 Points)
Acting (30 out of 30 Points)
Costumes (5 out of 10 Points)
Pictures (10 out of 15 Points)
Sound (10 out of 15 Points)

TOTAL (65 out of 100 Points)
Having read the book, I had superior expectations for the movie. Tom Hanks delivers a good performance as Charlie Wilson but the movie ended up being more of a drama than the action thriller it was.
OK, here's what put me off. Relatively quickly after the movie starts somebody asks (while looking at the pictures of war on television): "Is it Uzbekistan?" To which Charlie Wilson responds "No, Afghanistan." The scene was probably there to suggest the ignorance of one of Charlie's girls who asked the question. But it suggested something much more. It suggested the deplorable ignorance of the writer. Why? Well, quite simply, the question was senseless. In 1980, when the action is taking place, there was no such thing as Uzbekistan. Or, more exactly, Uzbekistan was one of Soviet republics. At that point it would have been impossible for anyone to mix up Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, quite simply because the first of the two didn't exist.
The writer obviously didn't know this, for him it was just a random name of one of the '-stan' countries. It was a little bit like that website that ridicules Sarah Palin, where every time you touch the globe Palin says: 'Somethingstan' or 'Northcoreastan'.
But this is not just me being pedantic. The same laxity and ignorance is seen in the movie's overall treatment of history. Its understanding of world politics and international relations is naive to a point which is simply unbearable. This is clearly inscribed in the movie's final message, which was basically, "We did everything right, but then we screwed up by letting go of post-war Afghanistan. If we only gave schools to the Afghans, everything would have turned out ok, and we would have a wonderful democracy". Yeah, right. I mean, I didn't exactly expect some far-left critique of the war, but at least some sense of the complexities and pitfalls of American interventionism would be welcome. Actually, it would be necessary. Unfortunately, the movie remains imprisoned in this terribly naive and ideologically determined world-view. And there is absolutely no genuine attempt to break out of this prison. In fact, it seems to me that the whole idea that you can bring freedom to the world if only a charismatic, good-natured cowboy wants to do so, is dangerously close to straightforward propaganda.
Hollywood's revisionist historians never cease to amaze me. This movie tells the story of how the Soviet Union was defeated by the efforts of a single Democratic congressman from Texas. And WHAT a Democratic congressman!! His partying, cocaine use and womanizing are enough to bring a patriotic tear to any leftist eye! Why, he's so deliciously charming (think Bill Clinton) that he even staffs his office exclusively with large-breasted rejects from the Russ Meyer circuit who he affectionately refers to as "jail-bait".

But enough about the blatant pandering to lefty audiences, my main concern is not with the factual content of the movie, which I'm sure is accurate, but with, as with most left-wing Hollywood (was that redundant?) films, the manipulation, the slant and the parts cunningly left out.

Actually, the film deserves kudos for including a single line uttered by one of the Pakistani officials..."it must appear as if the aid is coming from Pakistan"...of course, it's significance was downplayed and it was portrayed as a noble sentiment.

In reality, Pakistan's only condition for agreeing to U.S. aid to Afghanistan was absolute silence as to the source of the funds. Islamabad (and the ISID secret police in particular) doled out aid to the Mujahideen on the pretext that Pakistan was the sole source of the funds and weapons. The only caveat to receiving this assistance was a requirement for the Afghans to send all of their school-aged children to an Islamic madrasah for education. The madrasah were staffed solely by imams from, you guessed it, Saudi Arabia. Thus these young people who couldn't speak a word of Arabic learned Wahhibi Islam (the most intolerant sect of an intolerant religion) by rote.

And 20+ years later, you have Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan...but, never mind, I'm sure it was America's fault for their evil attempt to prevent more mutilated children...not Russia's, not bin Laden's, not the Saudi's and not the ISID...only the U.S. It's simpler that way.
:rotten: The film was based on a trully important historical event that depicted in this film was absolutely uninvolving. I just think putting Hanks and Roberts acting together wasn't the right choice, the cast was too Hollywood and both look weak and fake. The rest of the cast is wasted, specially Hoffman and Adams. I generally like Mike Nichols' work but I didn't like this film.
Totally uninvolving, I didn't like it, it was boring, Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are terrible. The only one that surprised me once again in another of its tottaly different interpretations was Philip Seymour Hoffman, I liked escepecially the scene where he breaks a window.
I surprisingly liked this movie. Sharp dialogue.
Based on a true story, "Charlie Wilson's War" starts in 1980 as Congressman Charlie Wilson(Tom Hanks) is distracted from the mixed company of a hot tub in Las Vegas by Dan Rather reporting from Afghanistan on television about the Soviet invasion.(Note: this movie takes place before the invention of Viagra.) He is inspired to help the brave freedom fighters with a little bit of help from the wealthy and ultraconservative Joanne Herring(Julia Roberts) who sets up a meeting with President Zia(Om Puri) of Pakistan. An embittered CIA Officer, Gust Avrakotos(Philip Seymour Hoffman), is also able to lend assistance to Charlie's borderline illegal crusade.

A history teacher in high school supported the idea of arming the Afghan resistance in order to keep the Soviets busy which made sense to me at the time. Of course, there are concepts that sound plausible to a teenager that should never be tried out in the real world, this being one of them, especially considering that Wilson's actions might have indirectly led to the rise of the Taliban(and the Contras were not very nice people either). And even the fall of the Soviet Union did not turn out as well as expected. Just ask anybody in Chechnya or Georgia.

"Charlie Wilson's War" is a simplistic movie about the simplistic worldview of the Cold War when events were viewed in black and white and the only good Commie was a dead Commie. The movie's overwhelming fault is that it tells this story without an ounce of irony, satire or critical thought, treating Charlie Wilson as the hero he probably thinks he is. Of course, Mike Nichols directing Tom Hanks is like the bland leading the bland. The less said about Julia Roberts the better. But Om Puri and Philip Seymour Hoffman are very good.
Report a problem