Charlie Wilson's War
Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 21, 2007
6.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 166 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
110
Mixed:
40
Negative:
16
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
5
StephenS.Apr 30, 2008
If you can turn your brain off, its something funny and soap-opera great. If you can't you soon realize it's nothing more than a good comedy about the actions that lead to 9/11.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
OliverC.Jan 9, 2008
Suffers from its lack of poignancy. When did Hoffman become such a beast? His acting is awesome to watch (Unfortunately, his make-up is not). This movie has no idea what its trying to say and ends up pulling out some kind of meaning out of Suffers from its lack of poignancy. When did Hoffman become such a beast? His acting is awesome to watch (Unfortunately, his make-up is not). This movie has no idea what its trying to say and ends up pulling out some kind of meaning out of nowhere in the final scenes. It celebrates war, womanizing and good old irresponsibility only to reprimand the viewers at the end. Forgive me for wanting more in a political comedy.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AlexBJan 10, 2008
You could spend a worse 90 minuntes for sure - Roberts and Hanks are reliable, Hoffman is wonderful. The events are simplified, but then its not a documentary, so people should get over that. My only real criticism is that I felt all the You could spend a worse 90 minuntes for sure - Roberts and Hanks are reliable, Hoffman is wonderful. The events are simplified, but then its not a documentary, so people should get over that. My only real criticism is that I felt all the charicters were fairly two dimensional charicatures - the socialite, the playboy, the CIA man - none of them seemed very real and Hanks can't help but put a comedy twist on everything - even a chronic alcoholic in charge of a $1 billion dollar arms budget.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
nickg.Jan 2, 2008
Tom Hanks is always watchable, but the story is told in totaly exposition. Few laughs. Little new insight.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KevinMay 18, 2008
This movie is horrifically overrated. The acting was at times diabolical, direction was very poor....script was almost as cheesy and cringe inducing as Bobby. I seriously don't understand the praise this is getting, sure the subject This movie is horrifically overrated. The acting was at times diabolical, direction was very poor....script was almost as cheesy and cringe inducing as Bobby. I seriously don't understand the praise this is getting, sure the subject matter is VERY interesting, but deserves a much more intelligent piece of work than this. Poor.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RichR.May 3, 2008
Is Tom Hanks supposed to have a Texas accent in this? What a joke. He sounds like Robert E Lee.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JayH.Apr 16, 2008
What a great cast, with a very fine performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Good story, but was surprised at some rather slow moving stretches. Well produced, fine score. A good, but not great movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
TonyB.Jun 24, 2008
I wasn't bored, but I could hardly believe much of it. even though we're told the basic facts are true. Tom Hanks is out of his element, and Julia Roberts is seriously miscast. It's no surprise that the great Phillip Seymour I wasn't bored, but I could hardly believe much of it. even though we're told the basic facts are true. Tom Hanks is out of his element, and Julia Roberts is seriously miscast. It's no surprise that the great Phillip Seymour Hoffman steals the show. The film ends too quickly with an almost casual brush off of the significance of the consequences of Charlie's adventure. Mike Nichols did much better with "Primary Colors."… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
cinemaquoteJun 23, 2019
this film is such a let-down. the story, cast, writer and director would seem a recipe for magic, though the aspect ratio, colouring, editing and the sheer rhythm are off. cliché over matter.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
Tss5078Feb 23, 2013
When I sat down to watch Charlie Wilson's War, I thought it would be a can't miss. A true story, covered up by the government, starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts!? How could that be bad!? Well, for a change, Tom Hanks isn't playing aWhen I sat down to watch Charlie Wilson's War, I thought it would be a can't miss. A true story, covered up by the government, starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts!? How could that be bad!? Well, for a change, Tom Hanks isn't playing a likeable character. Charlie Wilson is portrayed as a sex addicted man whore, who follows his dick more than his brain. As for the film, it was just so confusing to me, they jump from scene to scene so quickly and introduce a ton of characters so fast, that by the time they got to Julia Roberts, I was already sick of the film. I didn't even get through the whole thing to be completely honest with you. It's an unbelievable cast and a pretty cool story, but I was not happy with the way the movie was done. It was not easy to sit through or follow.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
beingryanjudeSep 3, 2014
Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are meant to be. Charlie Wilson's War is a fun, political addition to Mike Nichols' impressive catalogue of films. Although, not Nichols' finest achievement, this one is worth watching for Phillip Seymour Hoffman alone.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
SpangleMay 31, 2014
"Charlie Wilson's War" is nothing more than an ok film. First and foremost, Philip Seymour Hoffman kills it and really is the brightest star here. In a small role, Amy Adams is also quite good. I cannot say the same for Tom Hanks or Julia"Charlie Wilson's War" is nothing more than an ok film. First and foremost, Philip Seymour Hoffman kills it and really is the brightest star here. In a small role, Amy Adams is also quite good. I cannot say the same for Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts, however. For some reason, Hanks' performance here was not up to snuff for me and I am not typically a fan of Roberts and this film was no difference. Both seemed to be out of their league compared to a talent such as Hoffman. As for the film, the story was...eh. The parts surrounding the operations in Afghanistan were interesting, but far too much time was spent on establishing Wilson as a drug addicted womanizer, rather than focusing on, you know, the story the film was trying to tell. So much time is devoted in fact that by the end, you are left wondering how this one was an hour and a half long since it feels like so little was truly covered. The depth it goes into on the issues in Afghanistan is cursory at best and it really feels as though we got maybe half of the story at best, which is really too bad. However, there are positives. As mentioned, Hoffman turns in a stellar performance and, in addition, when the film focuses on the main story, it is very interesting. It is even more interesting considering what we know now and how all of the events here wind up hurting us later (as hinted to by Hoffman towards the end). In terms of its attempts at satire, most of the time it hits and you find yourself laughing, which is obviously a plus. Overall, this one feels as though far too much was cut and we are instead left with some interesting pieces that do not add up to what they should.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
amheretojudgeMar 7, 2019
More Like A Mock Trial.

Charlie Wilson's War Nichols is far from being authentic like some Spielberg's documentation but almost close enough to be gritty as Polanski. Either way, the result is a big mixed bag of feelings. You are leftMore Like A Mock Trial.

Charlie Wilson's War

Nichols is far from being authentic like some Spielberg's documentation but almost close enough to be gritty as Polanski. Either way, the result is a big mixed bag of feelings. You are left unsatisfied and a bit peckish for frankly anything, any sort of content to feed upon. The director Mike Nichols, clearly can't absorb the behemoth range of the screenwriter Aaron Sorkin's script on the screen. It is disappointing to see him fumble like such despite of having support from every possible directions. But I would blame Sorkin's take too. His game is actually a one long tennis match.

There is a great serve in the beginning act and a hefty rebound in its second one due to its previous powerful boost. But as it grows iterative, the audience gets tired and the pain is not felt in the head anymore. What was supposed to be a head scratching content is now a flimsy attempt to grasp the viewers. And these fatal attempts of Sorkin trying to get hold of something beyond the range of the storyline, turns it into a quirky foolish socialite world that is always read to negotiate but never shakes on it. The cast is undoubtedly the highlight of the film.

Tom Hanks playing once again a real persona gives a promising performance that is elevated by no one but Amy Adams as her secretary that literally helps him on tiny aspects of the film. Other supporting cast like Julia Roberts, Emily Blunt, Om Puri and John Slattery gets lost into words and never conquers them. The real crispy and juicy ingredient of the dish is Phillip Seymour Hoffman climbing the ladder along with waking people up. He is the unexpected chocolate delight in the cake, he is the cherry of this desert that comes in complementary and what might enrage you then, is that this is Charlie Wilson's War.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
FilipeNetoJul 11, 2021
An interesting film, in which the hypocrisy of politics is skillfully exploited.

This movie is difficult to assess. At first, it seems like a kind of satire on American politics, where an American congressman, in a totally improbable way,An interesting film, in which the hypocrisy of politics is skillfully exploited.

This movie is difficult to assess. At first, it seems like a kind of satire on American politics, where an American congressman, in a totally improbable way, will play a decisive role in the development of one of the most important conflicts of the end of the 20th century: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

In fact, Texan Charles Wilson is the most unlikely congressman for a situation that was both delicate and risky for the US: at the beginning of the film, we see him having fun with women, alcohol and drugs, and the way he looks be irresponsible, just another politician living off taxpayers. However, he will be able to handle the situation in Afghanistan and be the right man for the task, funding through the CIA the guerrillas who held the Russians back. In real life, he served in Congress between 1973 and 1997, and his actual contribution to the events reported here is, to say the least, debatable. However, the film was able to take advantage of George Crile's biographical book and make a good story out of that material, where Americans do what they have to do, look after their interests, regardless of what happens in the country of others. Yes, the chaos and human drama of the Afghans is just collateral damage and nothing more.

Tom Hanks is a very good master of the film and is excellent at the work ahead. It's not his best movie, and I think the actor is within a certain comfort zone here, without challenging himself too much, but it's a positive performance. Julia Roberts also did well, especially when she starred with Hanks. She hasn't been around much and seems to have had some bad luck along the way, but participating in this film was the actress's right choice. Seymour Hoffman had a sympathetic role in this film, playing the role of a sarcastic veteran spy, who becomes adorable in our eyes for the realistic and harsh way he looks at his surroundings. Even though I got famous with “Capote”, it's in this movie that I feel Hoffman really shows his worth.

Technically, the film is very good and has good production values, but it doesn't stand out, it lets the story and cast stand out. The cinematography is good and makes interesting use of a lot of old footage, and while the film isn't always happy about making us feel that this story takes place in the 80s (the sets and costumes sometimes seem undated), it will. being overtaken by the recurring mention of characters and events from that time. The soundtrack is good and plays its part discreetly.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

67 Critic Reviews

6.7 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 71 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL