MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Tuesday, November 27th, 2007 - 21 Comments »

Charlie Wilson's War

Charlie Wilson

21 Comments »

21 Responses to “Charlie Wilson's War”

  1. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:
    November 27, 2007 at 6:24 am

    And pretty much everyone will reply to this with a big ol’ yawn.
    That running time is almost as weird as Lions For Lambs being minus 90minutes.

  2. IOIOIOI says:
    November 27, 2007 at 6:31 am

    Heat dropped this in this review; “But here was the covert funding of the war in Afghanistan that happened during the Reagan Administration, leading to The Taliban, who we are still chasing. But it was right at the time

  3. waterbucket says:
    November 27, 2007 at 6:38 am

    Wow, that movie sounds boring. Pass.

  4. movieman says:
    November 27, 2007 at 6:47 am

    What is the running time??

  5. Hopscotch says:
    November 27, 2007 at 7:28 am

    97 minutes.
    I can’t wait to see it.

  6. Jimmy the Gent says:
    November 27, 2007 at 7:42 am

    It is a shame Julia roberts has refused to embrace her sexuality along with her star power. Who knows how many great performances we’ve lost because she refuses to be sexual. I had thought she ws toying with the idea after Closer, She was the only fully realized character in the entire movie. Only in Brokavich has she dared to stur her stuff.
    Better actresses who know how to combine sexuality with dramatic force include Frances MacDormmand, Joan Allen, Patricia Clarkson, Julianne Moore, and Ellen Barkin. Melanie Griffith is great when properly directed. Kim Basinger could’ve been great. Why not Mirren? Wouldn’t this have been the right moment to get Debra Winger back onscreen?
    Unlike Lumet, Nichols seems to be more comfortable when working in the medium of TV.

  7. GayAsXmas says:
    November 27, 2007 at 7:44 am

    Why is 97 minutes a weird running time? After some serious bloat last summer, I would have thought people would welcome a bit more economy in the storytelling

  8. movieman says:
    November 27, 2007 at 8:47 am

    97 minutes? Frigging sweet! I was nervous that it might be another epic-length year-end movies.
    Not that there’s anything wrong with epic-length movies (I personally can’t wait to see “There Will Be Blood” next week), but short and sweet can sometimes be the pause that refreshes.

  9. Nicol D says:
    November 27, 2007 at 8:47 am

    I love that people are mentioning the 97 minute thing!
    I have nothing against long movies but I am getting tired of big, bloated Oscar wannabe films being epic length on principle alone. That 97 minutes shows some sort of courage.
    I finally saw American Gangster last week. I liked it but after commercials and trailers the damn thing was nearly a three hour sit and the film did not earn that run time. A good film, but it could have easily been a stronger film if it hovered at the 2 hour mark. I think that the bloated run time of American Gangster is a large part of why the film does not achieve greatness although Washington is great in it.
    Again, I loved Knocked Up, but 2 and a 1/4 hours it did not have to be.

  10. Jonj says:
    November 27, 2007 at 10:01 am

    Poland writes: “Julia Roberts is game and doesn’t cheat with the Big Julia Smile, but she is really miscast here.”
    You could tell she was miscast from the uneven trailer. Jimmy is right in that she should take more chances like “Closer.” Some will work, some won’t.

  11. Chucky in Jersey says:
    November 27, 2007 at 10:15 am

    It was the Jimmy Carter gov’t that goaded the USSR into invading Afghanistan. The invasion occurred on Xmas Eve 1979.
    As Hop said, I can’t wait to see it.
    Xmas Day 2007 in USA/Canada, wide release. All Universal has to do now is not stick “Academy Award Winner/Nominee” before the stars’ names.

  12. Me says:
    November 27, 2007 at 11:06 am

    I know that’s why a lot of people come here, but I really don’t care about the oscar chances of this movie, or whether it plays honestly with politics. As a Sorkin fan, all I’m after is a fun, fast-paced dialog, relatively intelligent movie. If it succeeds at that, I’ll happily fork over my $10.

  13. jeffmcm says:
    November 27, 2007 at 11:34 am

    “All Universal has to do now is not stick “Academy Award Winner/Nominee” before the stars’ names.”
    So until that happens it’ll be a good movie, and after that happens it’ll be a bad one?
    I pester Chucky about this all the time because it never makes any sense.

  14. gr81lives says:
    November 27, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    This movie will flop. It will have an ok opening and just fade away.
    Just like Lions For Lambs big stars movie bombed.
    Universal has done a horrible job markteing this movie.

  15. Chucky in Jersey says:
    November 27, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    jeffmcm: Oscar-whoring is a crutch for the motion-picture industry. It’s being used too often and the results are plain to see.
    gr81lives: Go to any theater any day from Xmas Day through New Year’s Day — every day will be just like a Saturday.

  16. gr81lives says:
    November 27, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Chuck that’s what they said about The Good Shepard last year….which is a very good movie

  17. LexG says:
    November 27, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Countdown to Jeff getting flustered about Chucky soon to follow, I’m sure, but this Chucky name-checking shtick HAS to be a “joke,” right? I mean, it’s amusing and all ONLY in how riled up it gets Jeff and others, but it’s gotta be just some low-wattage form of “trolling,” right?
    Either that, or just the Aspbergeriest internet persona in the history of time.

  18. jeffmcm says:
    November 27, 2007 at 3:20 pm

    If it’s a joke, the joke is on me. I mean, I really should just give up on trying to make him make sense, but I’m stubborn.
    Lex, you must not have come across Daniel Zelter.
    Chucky, a movie’s marketing department trolling for awards has nothing to do with the quality of the movie itself (The Good Shepherd is a good example.)

  19. Cadavra says:
    November 27, 2007 at 10:11 pm

    Nichols, Nichols, Nichols, but not a single mention of Sorkin, who, given a resume stuffed with politics (THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, STUDIO 60), is probably far more the auteur of this film than the director.

  20. movieman says:
    November 30, 2007 at 9:00 am

    I don’t know about that, Cadavra.
    Nichols has been THE auteur of all his films since “Virginia Woolf?”
    He just hasn’t gotten as much credit for it as more obvious auteur directors like Spielberg, Scorsese and DePalma.
    I think he’s one of the all-time greats, and every movie he directs gets my full and undivided attention.
    Hell, I even paid to see “Day of the Dolphin” and “The Fortune” twice back in the 70s!

  21. Cadavra says:
    December 1, 2007 at 10:33 pm

    I wasn’t knocking Nichols as a director, but I don’t find him to be an “auteur” in the least. He most often puts me in mind of studio vets like Clarence Brown who did “classy adaptations.” Look over his resume: almost every film makes you first think of the original author and/or the screenwriter instead of the director: VIRGINIA WOOLF, GRADUATE, CATCH-22, CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, BILOXI BLUES, HEARTBURN, POSTCARDS, BIRDCAGE, ANGELS IN AMERICA, CLOSER, even PRIMARY COLORS. And even a total wipe-out like WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? will make you think Shandling before Nichols. The guy’s great, but he leaves no footprints.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Comments Most Recent Archives

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I don’t really think, Sean, that you need to know about my various sexual liaisons. Or that anyone else needs to. I did write about them. I filled a hundred pages of Moleskine notebooks with my one-night stands, my affairs. But I decided they didn’t belong in a professional memoir. First of all, these are real people we’re talking about. Many of them were enjoyable. Some were abject failures. My wife said to me when she read the pages, ‘Of what purpose is this in a memoir? Of what purpose is this other than to titillate?’ The point is, I never see them. It’s because I have nothing in common with them, frankly. And probably didn’t at the time. I could not provide a sensible reason why I married these women. The thing is, in the case of my marriages, it takes two people to fuck up a marriage. It wasn’t simply the fault of these women that I lost interest in them and realised they were insignificant relationships. Which is how I look at them right now–as being insignificant. I see them as blips.”
~ William Friedkin On Cutting Interviewers Off At The Sass

“I have to imagine from Mr. Spielberg’s point of view, the paradigm shift in the 1970s was just the new “normal,” a “halcyon era” from which we are straying in the 21st century–because theatrical exhibition is tenuous (as it has been since the 1940s), the home video market has dried up and people are watching pirated movies on their phone. Spielberg’s coming-of-age era was for him the halcyon period that the 21st century “implosion” will cause to go “crashing into the ground.” But he is wrong. The market for movies is actually diverse and highly segmented–although from the top-down movie industry vantage point and media punditry you would not think this to be true.  Would we really mourn for Mr. Spielberg or ourselves if Lincoln would have been made for cable or had played on public television?  Is it bad for humanity that cable television is creating wonderful, resonant stories in long-form series that people want to watch at home on TV (or streamed onto their computer)? I don’t think so, but it is a paradigm shift and it might affect people’s theatrical moviegoing habits. Televisions in people’s homes have had that effect for seven decades–it is not a new phenomenon. As Art House cinema impresarios we need to focus on what WE can do at our theaters and in our communities. It is not productive for us to fret over what pundits say or about what well-meaning filmmakers like the Stevens–Spielberg and Soderbergh–say. We should fret about what we can do in our communities. What we can do to support filmmakers.”
~ From A Response By Russ Collins, CEO, Michigan Theater–Ann Arbor And Director, Art House Convergence, To Mr. Spielberg