I give this film three stars, not because it wasn't a good film, but only because it didn't live up to the hype critics had given it. I was entertained, and even intrigued from time to time, but never emotionally engaged, nor intellectually blown away. That said, director Mike Nichols (The Graduate) and writer Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men) do a fair job at showing the political acrobats Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) must do in order to fight his personal war.

The character of Charlie Wilson is complicated. He's dashing, suave, slimy, manipulative, womanizing, and caring at his core. He's everything we suspect our Senators exactly are, but are afraid to really know. He does coke, parties with strippers, drinks too much, sleeps with wealthy women, all while actually trying to bring some good to the Afghan refugees in Pakistan. And surprise, surprise, he's from Texas. Go figure.

The story goes: Charlie Wilson is a relatively low-level Senator from Texas who just happens to be on the defense appropriations committee (or something like that -- his committee funds CIA covert operations). Anyway, a wealthy Texas woman, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), has a cause to fight: ending communism. And it just so happens that the current front of the Cold War (this is set in the late 80's) is in Afghanistan. The Soviets have been pounding on the helpless Afghans with their monstrous war helicopters, thus forcing the Afghans to flee into neighboring Pakistan. So, Joanne wants to kick the Soviet's butts, and the Pakistan President needs to deal with the refugees. Joanne recruits Charlie who has the power to fund a covert arms deal via the CIA in order to fund the Afghan rebels, thus fighting the Soviet's directly without having to get the US directly involved. Following me so far? Ok. The story goes on show how Charlie Wilson almost single-handedly gets his committee to fund the Afghan rebels thus driving the Soviets back, while simultaneously draining their resources (the Afghans eventually destroy hundreds of Soviet tanks and helicopters).

The concept is fascinating: that a small-time Senator could actually conduct a covert war without major US authorization. Sure, other Senators and CIA agents were involved, but it was largely guided by Charlie Wilson. Now, I've heard some rumors that some of these facts are not entirely true, but the core concept is interesting to follow nonetheless. Regardless, the filmmakers try to make Charlie Wilson into a person who truly cares for the suffering of the Afghan people -- a sort of American "Schindler's List" of sorts -- but the war is ultimately a political gain and a Cold War win. Everybody involved has their own agenda for the war, but Charlie's is ultimately to help the little guy. Whether this was the real Charlie Wilson's intent is hard to say without further research, but the film is clear in its intent: Charlie Wilson saved the Afghans, but unleashed a beast that would later become the Taliban.

One notable mention must be made to Philip Seymour Hoffman who plays the most unlikely CIA agent in movie history. He's nothing like James Bond, but is the real backbone to the global "spy game." He's stumpy, brash, well educated, and cunning, but utterly unassuming. No one would ever suspect this guy of espionage. I don't know how he does it, but Hoffman is able to take an annoying, angry, man and make him almost loveable. I almost wish the movie was all about this CIA character (Agent Gust Avrakotos -- whom nobody ever gets his name right). In the beginning, you think you're not going to be able to stand this guy, but by the end, Hoffman's character is so rich and diverse that you can't help but want to see more.

While some of the political maneuverings seem way too easy, and the power which Charlie Wilson is able to wrangle stretches the imagination sometimes, it's just enough to make me believe this kind of covert war could actually happen. With the enormity of our current political upheavals, reveals, and hubris, Charlie Wilson's War doesn't seem so far-fetched after all.