Director: Mike Nichols
Rating: 6/10

It comes as no surprise that the director of "Catch-22" (1970) directed this political comedy. The movie is about the man who got the funding and weapons for the Afghans to fight the Russians that ended up became one of the direct causes of the end of the Cold War and the decline of Soviet Power. For a modern history buff like me, there are too many inaccuracies in the film, but Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman managed to convince me during the course of this movie that what they acted out was actually what happened.

The story revolves around a charismatic Congressman (Hanks) who felt the need to do something memorable instead of partying and drinking, the latter of which he never gave up. A CIA agent (Hoffman) needed someone to support his cause to help the people in Afghanistan. Their paths cross while a rich, well-connected former beauty queen (Julia Roberts), an Israeli arms dealer, a refugee camp, and a belly dancer all intertwine in a hopelessly complicated story that was quite clear during the film but was actually a simplified version of the event that took place.

The film is basically an ego trip for Congressman Charlie Wilson, who is also portrayed as a lady’s man, with pretty secretaries following him around at all times in his office, and the fresh-faced Amy Adams as a personal assistant. I first thought Tom Hanks was not suitable for this role, and felt maybe Woody Harrelson, who has a knack for humor, would be better. And it turned out that Hanks was great as Wilson. The fact that his serious face often betrayed the extraordinarily funny dialogues made the conversations all the more hilarious. And then there is the awesome performance from Hoffman. This man has been on a roll since…ever. Outside of cameos, I have never been disappointed by Hoffman’s acting abilities. His character’s coarse demeanor and street smarts served as the perfect opposite to Charlie Wilson, yet the two of them share the same goal and the same drive for success.

The flaw of this film lies with Julia Robert’s performance; I think I should let you know that the years had not been kind to her. I tend to forget the fact that she is supposed to be a rich woman and just thought of her scenes with Tom Hank as, well, Roberts and Hanks. She was a distraction in the movie. Her acting was not convincing, and became such a stark contrast to her two male co-stars. This was the same problem with the director’s other film, "Catch-22", which cast the by then rotund, but still authoritative and commanding Orson Welles.

I love the scenes that showed us the real winner of the war: the Stinger missiles. Although I would like more emphasis on the Stinger missile weapons system, and less acting from Julia Roberts, I guess I can’t have them all. Not all films are made to be perfect. This is an entertaining movie for those who are not particularly familiar with the Afghanistan conflicts, but if you are like me, you might find yourself comparing real events to this film and in turn, destroy much of its entertainment value.