Oscars appraisal: Finally, we see 'Charlie Wilson's War'
Tonight in New York City was the first media screening of "Charlie Wilson's War." At the end, there was respectful applause. A journo pal who accompanied me as guest pretty much summed up what I thought, too: he liked it, but wasn't wowed, as he had hoped, given the pedigree of its creators.
That is "Charlie's" biggest problem. Expectations are stratosphere-high considering who's involved — past Oscar champs Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman enacting a script by Aaron Sorkin (author of Emmy winner "The West Wing" and Oscar best-pic nominee "A Few Good Men") that's directed by Mike Nichols (Oscar champ for helming "The Graduate").
Now that we've seen it: Will it be nominated for best picture? Well . . . hmmm . . . perhaps . . . but it's certainly not going to win. The lead film critic of one of New York's top three newspapers doesn't think it'll get a best-pic bid. Told me he even expects it to flop at the box office — I wouldn't predict that outrght, but I could see that happening. Not that it's a bad film. It's quite good. Solid. Well made and well played. But it's yet another Iraq/Afghan war film in a year crowded with many and it doesn't do what "The Kite Runner" does: doesn't take the wind out of you, like great movies are supposed to do. That's why "Kite" probably has the best shot for a best-pic bid from among all of these war pix.
"Charlie Wilson's War" is everything you expect when you learn the premise from advance promos: Tom Hanks does a solid acting job as boozy playboy congressman who teams up with a hawkish Texas tycoon (Roberts) and an obnoxious slob from the C.I.A. (Hoffman) to help rebels oust the Russians from Afghanistan. There's much high-minded talk about freedom and fine scotch and there's much boozing and smoking and sex and eating throughout this pic. But at no point was I gripped and breathless, wondering what would happen next. And at no point did I look back at the last scene and think, "Marvelous!"
However, Aaron Sorkin's script snaps and crackles with enough bon mots that he might get nommed. Hoffman is a strong contender for supporting actor. He has the best shot among potential performance nominees, I think. It's not impossible for costars Julia Robert or Tom Hanks to nab a nom, but neither one of them will win.
Bottom line: "Charlie Wilson's War" is good, but it isn't the great movie people expect. How forgiving will Hollywood be?










Congratulations Tom! And it came to pass (affect a Cate Blanchett accent here as Galadriel) CWW is your Dreamgirls for this year! Let the great meltdown for this movie commence!
Posted by: David | November 27, 2007 at 04:32 AM
Mark, step away from the crack pipe. A shame to hear about CHARLIE WILSON, it's still my most anticipated Christmas release ( my mom actually knew the guy), but it's going on almost 8 years since Hanks had his last nomination, and they overlooked some of his best work (THE GREEN MILE, ROAD TO PERDITION, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN). What's he going to have to do?
Posted by: Marshall | November 26, 2007 at 11:07 PM
I expected a lukewarm reception from the critics, considering it had been heavily hyped all year long. For some reason, reading this entry and KT's over at Variety reminds me of Elizabethtown, where prognosticators figured ET would be in the running for Best Picture and other awards, but fell hard after the lukewarm reception at Toronto.
Posted by: ZacharyTF | November 26, 2007 at 09:59 PM
I don't understand why everyone was going gaga over a movie they never even saw -- even declaring it the oscar front runner -- when the critics and the public showered Hairspray over the summer. Nikki Blonsky, John Travolta, mIchelle pfeiffer all should be oscar front runners for their phenomenal performances and Adam Shcnkman should be the best director of the year for pulling out the impossible and choreographing the movie as well.
Posted by: Mark | November 26, 2007 at 07:42 PM