Lavonardo

Saw Mike Nichols’ Charlie Wilson’s War yesterday. Went in expecting to see an average movie, filled with potentially annoying actors, but was pleasantly disappointed: this was a very good movie, and all the big-name actors managed to stay on the not-so-annoying side of things.

Charlie Wilson is an average congressman from the Texas 2nd district, who just happens to end the cold war by driving the Soviet Union out of Afghainstan. That’s the film in a jiffy, and cannot be considered to be even mildly spoilerish, since the first minute of the movie explains exactly that.
But again, it’s not the end result that matters, but the journey from place A to place B. And here the plot takes a few pleasant turns, is packed with interesting characters and absolutely stacked with quality dialogue.

I had no idea who the scriptwriter was until the credits rolled in, but had a hunch, based on a few scenes from the Congress, in which the characters engage in meaningful dialogue while walking around. Yes - this movie marks Aaron Sorkin’s return to the world of political drama.

It’s not only the scriptwriter that makes this movie a joy to watch, but the acting is good across the board. Neither Tom Hanks nor Julia Roberts exhibits too much of pretentiousness, and Philip Seymour Hoffman’s CIA agent fills out the triangle at the expected highly enjoyable way. Hanks is excellent as the affable congressman with a penchant for single malts and pretty employees.

This is an old school movie, where a quality plot supersedes a budget dominated by CGI-costs. Stock footage is used instead of pyrotechnical pornography, a nice change of pace. Charlie Wilson’s War is over in about a hundred minutes, and the time is well-spent, the pacing of the movie is just about right.

And even though it hits a worrisomely preachy note at the end for half a scene, it pretty much expects the viewers to build the connection between the muffed end game of Charlie Wilson’s War and the 2001 tragedy. If any exists.