Charlie Wilson's War

It's interesting how a person can know that something happened without knowing exactly how it happened. Such is the case with my knowledge of the Soviet-Afghan War. I knew of the fact that America helped train and arm Afghans to fight off the invading Soviets in the late 80's, and I knew that this incident played a major part in the fall of the USSR. Yet I never knew how the ball got rolling on our involvement. Charlie Wilson's War is the story of that ball, and, to steal the film's own metaphor, how it has been bouncing along ever since. That may sound like the potential for a long, stuffy, dull film - but you'd be wrong. Actors Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and especially Philip Seymour Hoffman turn this brisk film into a rousing crowd pleaser. It's not one of the year's best, and its Oscar possibilities aren't as strong as might have been expected, but it's the kind of movie that a lot of people will enjoy over the holiday season. I certainly had a fun time.

Charlie Wilson is a boozing, fun-loving congressman, played by Hanks. He gets wind of the troubles in Afghanistan and decides to get involved. He has no idea what exactly getting involved entails, however, until he travels to the wartorn nation and sees firsthand the atrocities that have been happening. From that point there is no looking back, as he begins to work on the largest covert operation in American history. The role fits Hanks like an old glove, and he is charming and fun as Wilson. Yet anyone expecting anything groundbreaking or layered will be slightly disappointed. Hanks never really digs into the role like he has in past roles, occasionally appearing to be on autopilot. I think the same argument people have against Jack Nicholson playing Jack repeatedly can apply here to Hanks. It's fun to watch, but not a revelation.

Speaking of Nicholson, it seems like Philip Seymour Hoffman is channeling a young Jack in his role. I don't think I've ever seen Hoffman light up the screen with charisma before, but here he is really chewing on the scenery, delivering the single best performance in the film. He's a hotheaded, sarcastic, very funny CIA operative named Gust Avrakotos who joins Wilson in the Afghan plight. When Hoffman isn't on screen, this is a good movie; when he is on screen, it's a great one. If this film does turn out to have any awards cache, expect him to be the first to benefit from it. The audience was howling at many of his scenes, yet he never sacrificed the character's fierce intelligence to get a laugh. Hands down, the best scene in the film is the introduction of Wilson to Gust. Spoiling it would be criminal, but it is both hilarious and a great insight into Gust's character.

Switching gears a bit, of this film's weak points, none are more glaring than the miscast Julia Roberts. Even if you feel Hanks isn't doing a whole lot with his role, you at least feel as though he is doing his job effortlessly. Roberts, on the other hand, never sinks into her character, and it brings you out of nearly every scene she is in. And the problem goes far deeper than simply her poor imitation of a Texan accent. Roberts hasn't been on screen since Ocean's Twelve back in 2004, and one gets the feeling that she has forgotten how to dig into a role. Her performance in Charlie feels a lot like that of an actress trying to refamiliarize herself with the craft. Her confidence just isn't there, and it's a shame. Her role was clearly meant to be a fun one, and she never appears to be having any.

The runtime, about 100 minutes, also feels short. That may sound good, and in some ways it is, but I never quite shook the fact that it felt like something was missing. Rumor has it the film has been heavily edited down, and I think that may have been a mistake. A two hour movie is not a chore to sit through if it's as entertaining as this one is, and I suspect another twenty minutes might have made it all flow better. For example, we never understand why Wilson wants to get involved with the Afghan plight. As far as we can tell, his first introduction to the conflict is when he briefly catches a new report on TV during a party. Surely a congressman has enough on his mind that a snippet of new footage isn't enough to so drastically change his life (even a congressman as fun-loving as Charlie is). Also, there is a whole subplot dealing with Wilson being investigated for his partying ways that feels like it never fully develops. We never get the sense that it has any real bearing on the rest of the film or Charlie's work in Afghanistan. Things like these could easily have benefited from a bit more development.

So many political and war related films of late have failed miserably with both critics and audiences, and it's for the same reason in every case: they just seem too dreary and depressing considering what is going on in the world right now. That's not to say a depressing film about recent history can't work (United 93), just that it takes a skilled filmmaker to walk that line between depressing and insightful. Charlie Wilson's War deftly avoids this problem altogether by trying to be a fun film first and foremost, and I suspect audiences will flock to it more than other recent political films. It hits us every once in awhile with a powerful moment (Charlie's trip to a ravaged Afghan town, where he meets two children left disfigured after playing with a mine hits you in the gut, and one really hopes that those kids' appearance was digitally altered and not reality), but those moments are rarely the focus. Charlie, Gust, and to a lesser extent, Roberts' Joanne are all fun people you want to spend time with. They aren't there to lecture you, and as a result you can let the facts of the story sink in without feeling lectured to. It may surprise some, however, to find the film ends on a slightly melancholy and ambiguous note. Yes, Charlie got the ball rolling in Afghanistan, but he has no control over how that ball will bounce after the war is over. The final line of the film, delivered in text, is both decidedly amusing and strikingly sobering.

Catching Up: Mini Reviews

As Oscar season quickly approaches, my movie intake is increasing. I simply don't have the time to give all the movies the reviews they deserve, but I still felt I should sum up my feelings towards each.

Gone Baby Gone



Following in the footsteps of Clint Eastwood with Mystic River, actor Ben Affleck has crafted a masterpiece of moral ambiguity. Based on a Denis Lehane novel, Baby follows two private detectives (Casey Affleck and Michelle Monaghan) in search of a missing four year old girl. The plot unfolds in a surprising way, and it's a testament to Ben Affleck's directing abilities that he is able to keep it from feeling exploitative or familiar. At one point I honestly had no idea where the film was going to go next, a quality I wish more films had. All the performances are excellent, with Casey Affleck once again proving he is ready for the big time. Ed Harris as a morally ambiguous cop and relative newcomer Amy Ryan as the mother of the missing child give the best performances, however, and it would be truly surprising to not see at least one of them (probably Ryan) get an Oscar nomination. It all builds to one of the most thought provoking finales of the year, with a final shot that is a bit devastating. If this is the career Ben Affleck has in his future, I welcome it with open arms.




Bee Movie


There really is only one reason to see Bee Movie: Jerry Seinfeld. It's been almost a decade since his hit sitcom went off the air, and he has finally made the leap to the big screen (Comedian notwithstanding). If you were to remove Seinfeld's humor, though, this would be just another Dreamworks animated comedy, which is to say, not a very good movie. Yet Jerry brings enough wit and charm to raise this above the Shreks and Shark Tales and deliver an occasionally very funny film. The supporting cast is unfortunately largely wasted, especially Chris Rock, whose presence here amounts to maybe three scenes. Seinfeld definitely still knows how to make you laugh, though, and that's really all I expected from this to begin with.




American Gangster


With American Gangster Ridley Scott appears to have watched every major gangster film of the past 40 years, and then proceeded to copy them all. The result is one of the least original films of the fall season. Which isn't to say it's a bad movie. You've seen literally everything in this film before, but it's done with such precision here that it barely receives a pass. Denzel Washington is up to his usual tricks as Frank Lucas, a gangster on the rise, while Russel Crowe is satisfying as the cop out to catch Lucas. The best scene in the film is when these two men finally sit down to talk with each other (shades of Heat), which unfortunately doesn't come until over two hours into this epic. Don't go into this expecting anything new and you will be satisfied. Those who prefer to see a new take on an old genre best look elsewhere.




No Country for Old Men


I wanted to try and write a full review of this film, but I just don't feel like I've been able to digest it the way I should have. Clearly this is a very ambitious film, and the Coen brothers have rarely stumbled in their long career. Yet for some reason I felt distanced from this film throughout. What frustrates me is that I can't pinpoint what it is I found so alienating about this film. Tommy Lee Jones as a weary cop is stoic and melancholy, a man who has seen the horrors of the world and walked away dumbfounded. Javier Bardem as the psychopath Chigurh is chilling, one of the best villainous performances in recent years. And capping off his comeback year, Josh Brolin centers the film with his portrayal of a conflicted man on the run. It's interesting that no character here is meant to really be liked or sympathized with, perhaps aiding my conflicted feelings towards this film. Everything is shot with bravado, the sound is beautiful, the lack of any real score adds tension. In fact, the only thing that I can immediately point out as being a misstep is a jumpcut towards the end of the film that essentially skips one of the most important parts of the story. We spend so much time with Brolin's character that it feels like an outright cheat to not see how he gets to where he is at the ending, even if we can piece it together on our own. I wanted to love this movie, and I see no reason why I didn't, which makes this such a maddening experience. This isn't your typical quirky, offbeat Coen brothers movie, instead feeling cold and calculated - and perhaps that is what threw me off. In a way it surprisingly feels more like a Stanley Kubrick film than a Coen brothers film. Kubrick is a man who rarely made a movie I outright loved upon initial viewing, and yet I now consider most of his films to be among the best cinema has every produced. No Country for Old Men is not a film that I can fully dissect right now, but given time it might become a classic - or its coldness might just put me off to it for good. It's simply too soon to tell.

Southland Tales

A few incarnations ago, way back in the early days of 2005, I started a movie review site. My first post was a preview of the movies I was looking forward to in the upcoming year, and number one by far was Southland Tales, from writer/director Richard Kelly. His first film, Donnie Darko, was one of my favorite movies at that time, and I couldn't wait to see how he would follow it up. The year came and went, but no Southland. 2006 started, and again this was my most anticipated movie, as I was now certain it would be released by year's end. Sure enough, it was submitted to Cannes in May, seemingly guaranteeing its impending release. But the reception at Cannes was a disaster, and suddenly no one knew what would become of Kelly's second film. Another year passed with no release in sight. Even the most steadfast Kelly fan would be dubious at this point, and I was certainly getting frustrated. Good or bad, I didn't want to wait any longer to see this film. But finally, after nearly four years of patiently waiting, I was able to see Richard Kelly's Southland Tales. No movie has provided me with such a rollercoaster of anticipation and dread, and reviewing it in light of all that has happened over the years proves no easy feat.

Southland is essentially about a group of people in Los Angeles all interacting in the final three days before the end of the world. At the center of it all there is amnesiac actor Boxer Santaros (Dwayne Johnson), porn star turned media mogul Krysta Now (Sarah Michelle Gellar), and mysterious twin brothers Roland and Ronald Taverner (Seann William Scott). Going any further than that would be both difficult and useless: so much happens to so many people that describing it would both spoil it and color it with my own interpretations. Suffice it to say, it is something along the lines of Brazil mixed with Donnie Darko and Starship Troopers.

So I guess the big question is "Is it a disaster like we've been told?" In short: no. It is a very, very flawed movie, but not one without its charms. It's a case of Richard Kelly's ambition getting too far out of control, resulting in a project he was not able to fully have a handle on. I suspect the biggest problem most will have is that it is nigh impossible to fully get it without reading the companion graphic novel, which sets up the first half of the story. Unlike Star Wars, which can start on Episode IV and make sense, this one is fully dependent on the viewer's knowledge of how everything got to where it is at the film's start. The quick introduction at the beginning is simply not enough. Thankfully I was familiar with the prequel story, so I was able to fully grasp what was going on. But most people won't ever read the prequels, and thus, will not appreciate much of what happens.

Kelly has said he wanted to cast people in roles you wouldn't associate them with, and that tactic surprisingly works for the most part. Dwayne Johnson (no longer "The Rock") is good as the befuddled, loopy action star. I always have found him to be a charming actor, and I hope this film proves to be a leap in a new direction for him. Sarah Michelle Gellar brings a quirky ferocity to her porn star character, and I would argue she gives the best performance of the film. It could have been just a ditsy idiot, yet it never is. There is depth to Krysta that is always shining through. Seann William Scott was extremely subdued and contemplative as the Taverner twins, and not once did I think of him as a comedic actor. In fact, for a film that is meant to be a satire, he is possibly the only character that isn't meant to be funny at all. The supporting cast is all very eclectic, with Jon Lovitz shining as a truly scary racist cop and Wallace Shawn enjoying himself as the bizarre creator of a new source of energy known as Fluid Karma. Some might not like the fact that everyone is playing against type, but for the most part they all succeed (Mandy Moore, however, plays her spoiled senator's daughter character way too over the top, and is the weakest part of the cast).

Unlike Darko, where every element seemed to fuse together into one great product, here things don't flow so naturally. For example, Kelly's seemingly preternatural ability to use sound and music in his last film is wasted here. The often beautiful score from musician Moby seems like an afterthought, always used in unnatural scenes. And with the exception of a scene featuring a Pixies song, none of the song choices stand out either. Kelly's interspersal of cutaways, news footage, maps, and other visual elements to tell his story are often relied on too heavily in place of simple storytelling. While they help to create the sense of a real, lived-in world, they become too much of a crutch for his overly ambitious story. And perhaps most disappointing is his lack of strong characters. In Darko there was a sense that each character has something important to add to the story, yet here so many characters are expository or superfluous. You get the sense that Kelly had a film so big in his mind, that no single element of the film got the full attention it deserved, resulting in a film full of deficiencies.

The tone of the film is something that I had some serious contentions with: this thing has mood swings worse than a newborn child. It's a satire, yet it wants us to take it seriously, especially at the end. It's OK to have some funny, lighthearted moments (even end of the world movies need some humor), but entire characters are meant to be over the top and goofy. So when the end hits, and we are supposed to take some sort of special meaning from the final scene, it falls flat. Either make an end of the world satire like Dr. Strangelove, or make a serious-minded look at how me might bring about our own downfall; you can't have it both ways.

Yet in spite of all these flaws, I liked it. I think. I appreciate Kelly's ambition, his steadfast determination to create something different. I wasn't bored, and there were some truly shining moments (Justin Timberlake's musical number set to a Killers song was a lot of fun). I wish it could have all worked out, and I am very curious to see the half hour of footage left out of this final version. It probably won't make the film better, but it sure would be interesting to see if Kelly was able to reign in his film in the final months. I don't think it's the disaster many have claimed it to be, but it's not especially great, either. I am pretty sure I've never anticipated a movie as much as I have with this one - which wasn't helped by years of delays - so it is hard to gauge my true feelings for it. It could soar in my mind over the coming months, like Darko did after I first saw it. Or it could completely collapse as I get more and more removed from the insane buildup in my mind. But right now, at this moment, I see Southland Tales as a gloriously flawed cornucopia of ideas, and one that I am glad to have finally put behind me after all these years of waiting.