grantss Early 1980s. Charlie Wilson is a relatively unimportant and unproductive Texas congressman. He does have one advantage - he is on two important committees, covering foreign and military policy. He learns of the situation in Afghanistan and how the Russians are treating the Afghanis and is determined to help, through providing the Mujahideen with weapons. This sets in motion an unlikely sequence of deals and alliances. Excellent movie. Covers an important series of events in world history, the short-term consequences of which were positive, the long term less so. Does so in very light, funny fashion. This highlights the farcicalness of some of the events, and helps the story move along. It would have been a very dry movie if it was entirely serious.Despite the non-seriousness of much of the movie, has a very powerful and profound final message.Great acting by Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and, especially, Philip Seymour Hoffman.

archer191273 Sadly this is an educational and extremely entertaining movie. Some people say that it is propaganda and that it bias to the Americans war effort in Afghanistan. Obviously they didn't have the brains to watch this movie all the way through. It shows how the USA clearly shot itself in the foot by arming the mujahideen and testing it's weapons against the Soviet army only to leave them cold in a war torn country with no education and a future the would see them attack the USA in the most terrifying fashion in modern history. The Soviet army invades Afghanistan in order to bring in a communist state and is engaged in a war with the mujahideen displacing many of the citizens of this country making them refugees. Charlie Wilson, a US senator is bought to the attention of this situation and decides that he must convince the US government to help dislodge the Soviets through arming the insurgents. Of course the US government is more than happy to try an array of its weapons without creating an international incident. This is an very well made and educational movie that made me sad for the Afghans and quite angry at the US government for the lack of care following this war but i sympathise with Charlie Wilson who had a full heart during and after the conflict but was powerless to help Afghanistan recover. A must see for the younger generation especially. I fpund it a very entertaining piece of cinema. It could of paid more attention to detail but it would of made this flick too ling.

studioAT Aaron Sorkin has had back to back big screen hits with 'The Social Network', 'Moneyball' and 'Steve Jobs' but here is his earlier effort.It boasts a big name cast (including the much missed Philip Seymour Hoffman) and with Sorkin penning the script it should be a good film, right? Wrong! This film is Sorkin very much in his comfort zone. The world of politics. Lots of people walking around, being important, spouting write-me-down one liners.But all this hides the fact that the characters aren't that likable, the story isn't the great and lacks all of the fizz and sparkle that makes Sorkin's other (more successful work!) like 'The West Wing' accessible for people who don't care about politics.I find Sorkin to be hit and miss. Guess which column this gets filed in?

hatlad Hanks does wonderful with Wilson's TX accent and playboy personality, sarcastic wit and character development. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is just totally hilarious. I loved when Hanks/Wilson asking him "Do you drink?" and he said, "Oh God, yeah!"SPOILER ALERTAs for accuracy, I don't understand the criticism of another reviewer that the film doesn't address "that the funding of the Afghan rebels led directly to the formation of Al-Qaeda and all that followed." Uhhhh, not exactly. 1. It was the sudden withdrawal of US support once Russia exited Afghanistan that left the power vacuum that was filled by al-Qaeda. 2. The film did allude to that in 2 ways; development in the plot that the funding suddenly reduced once the Commies were gone and the end on screen text that said "We f-d up the endplay."