I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

As Good As It Gets

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Political films are some of the hardest in Hollywood to pull off smoothly. Either the subject matter is too controversial, it paints someone in too positive/negative of a light, or it flat out messes with history to fit a dramatic tone. "Charlie Wilson's War" suffered from none of these problems, yet still managed to underwhelm due to a completely unexpected source: it couldn't decided whether it wanted to be gripping, or a farce.Basically, this movie tells the story of U.S. Senator Charles Wilson, who (during the Soviet- Afghanistan conflict) was so inspired by the courage of the Afghan troops in fending off the Russians that he launched a covert "campaign" of sorts to get the Afghans the funding/weapons they needed to defeat the spread of Communism from the Soviets. As history bears out, Wilson succeeds in this task and is regarded as a hero...at least for the time being.This entire film could have taken (and would have been much better off, in my opinion) a more serious tact to the political issues being dealt with, like the lack of funding to an Afghanistan "military" that was essentially fighting the Soviets for the United States, or the fact that Afghanistan went on to produce the terrorists that perpetuated 9/11 and we are now fighting. This approach could have been a great sort of dramatic "treatise" on those issues and could have made people really think about them.Unfortunately, the film does not take that sort of tone, and instead focuses on the character of Charlie Wilson. While obviously at the center of all the goings-on, this prolonged focus on Wilson's personality and private life only served to drag the film down. Plus, all the characters (but essentially Tom Hanks' Wilson and his lady-friend played by Julia Roberts) seem way too over the top in their interactions with each other and the plot at hand. I realize the intent of the filmmakers, which was to show what a maverick Charles Wilson really was, but to me that wasn't the most interesting part of the story.Thus, "Charlie Wilson's War" is a respectable film dealing with an interesting political event, yet views those happenings through a prism (the crazy Wilson) that isn't altogether engaging. While the focus on the Afghan-Soviet conflict is refreshing (not just World War 2 or terrorism), it isn't played for the type of drama that could have occurred. Involved political minds will find it interesting, while lesser scribes may drift off as the message gets lost in Hanks' over-the-top portrayal of Wilson.

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."

The story opens up with its ending and then build its main character in an eccentric way. The tale is great that it reveals all the reluctance and tolerance found amidst the allying parties in driving the USSR away from Afghanistan. some may see this as an espionage movie, but for me, the main focus here is the lobbyist activities, especially lobbying for budget increase. Tom Hanks as always can present the right set of gestures to convey the character's complexity. Julia Roberts went nicely with the accent and the makeup. AMy Adams sure stand out in giving an alluring performance here. Philip Seymour Hofman was almost unrecognizable if it wasn't for his distinctive voice.

This movie presents extremely one-sided view on the Afghan war. I don't know if this is normal for the North American take on the situation, but for me it looks incredibly ignorant. Russians are rapists, ruthless invaders who's taking their joy in killing children and destroying peaceful villages. I struggled to find irony there but failed.I hope no one takes this movie as an accurate depiction of this conflict. I hope you'll make your research, you'll look at the pictures of dead youngsters who were thrown into this political mess without proper training or equipment (hello, mandatory draft). A lot of Russian families lost their sons and fathers to this war and they even had no reason to justify the loss.The movie itself is okay. Acting is mostly good (Philip Seymour Hoffman kills it like he always does), story is engaging, dialogues are witty and robust. The finale made the overall ignorance somehow less offensive. The ball keeps bouncing, doesn't it?But the way the movie portraits the motives of Russians is disgusting. I'm pretty sure some people who watched this thought it was accurate and I find this disastrous.