Comments on: Film Review: Charlie Wilson’s War

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:25:05 +0000

Patrick, in the end, it didn’t really work out for the Afgani’s…the USA is always ready to start a war and have lots of war machines and poke their noses in, but the aftermath is of no interest to them.

Having said that, I loved the movie and learned alot.

By: patrick

patrick — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:52:17 +0000

Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are a classic combination… Charlie Wilson’s War made me feel a little better about U.S. foreign intervention, it seemed to work out that time

By: Reel Suave

Reel Suave — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:00:57 +0000

Charlie Wilson’s War…

Charlie Wilson’s War is a satirical take on politics and with some good performances is surely a must watch.
……

By: donewaiting.com » Blog Archive » Donewaiting.com Staff Favorites of 2007: Film

Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:19:05 +0000

[...] Seymour Hoffman had another hell of a year, turning in excellent performances in The Savages and Charlie Wilson’s War, but the best film to contain his presence was this neo-noir crime film by Sidney Lumet, in which [...]

By: kathy

kathy — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:22:27 +0000

Who was Herring in bed with at the end of the movie.

By: katiej

katiej — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:55:31 +0000

Charlie Wilson was a terrible congressional representative to his constituents, as I was one of them. He manipulated the voting lines so that he could keep getting elected. This story is not accurate when it says he was a bachelor; in fact, he was very much married and cheating on his wife most of his elected life and she divorced his sorry backside. After old Charlie, Texas went Republican and that’s about the only thing he single-handedly accomplished. He is an embarrassment to Texas and especially to those constituents who were unlucky enough to not be able to kick his sorry backside out of office soon enough. If you will look at the online newspapers of those towns he represented, you will find their polls say 56 percent WILL NOT see this movie. He was owned lock, stock, and barrell by the Temple-Inland Company of Dibol, Texas and he did what they told him to do. He was elected by them to work for them as they were, at the time, one of the largest timber companies in Texas. He was their “boy”.
Tom Hanks did not choose his role carefully.He should be embarrassed to play this role. This movie is not representative of who Charles Wilson was–he was much worse. My husband was a Vietnam Veteran with PTSD and I was writing his office asking for help. It was during the time he was “playing war”. I will not spend one dime on this movie. It is an outrage and an embarrassment to me for this movie to be made. The Republicans took office and straightened out the voting lines that Wilson had malaligned. I now have a very fine representative and have never had another Charles Wilson, thank God.

By: JudyHeath-Bettendorf, Iowa

JudyHeath-Bettendorf, Iowa — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:24:28 +0000

OK-wait a minute! I saw this because it looked good, I love Tom Hanks and can now say this is the first ever bad movie he made.
We are watching a film that has him raising money to help the poor afghanis`-(hmm-guess Bin Ladin doesn’t care about them?) and then we send them a Billion dollars to knock the Russians out of the sky and send them home—OK, are these the same missiles that they are effectively using on us? The ones that we gave them? And you made a movie about this with 3,000+ dead of our kids plus God knows how many more maimed and injured and not getting any congressional support now why????
Poor taste-poor judgement and I will never again go to a movie without reviewing it first-I’m especially ashamed of Tom Hanks who is so much better than this travesty.