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.

Blair Witch meets Godzilla. That pretty much sums up Cloverfield -- but in a good way. The filmmakers took the "What if a giant (insert monster here) attacks New York and we shoot it like The Blair Witch Project with a single hand-held camera" approach. You know, that old gag. In the context of this film, this technique actually works quite well. We only see the story from the view point of a single camera as experienced by some good-looking 20 somethings.

The story goes like this: A 50+ story tall monster hits Manhattan on the eve of Rob Hawkins' (played by Michael Stahl-David) departure to a job in Japan. All his friends are gathered for a final farewell party. We get a set-up of a minor love story that supposed to be the driving motivation for the film, but never really works. But that's ok, because in just a few minutes BOOM! All hell breaks loose as some unseen monster starts ripping the city to shreds. We don't know why. We don't know how. All we know is, they have to get out of Manhattan -- fast. Alas, Rob Hawkins gets a call from his true love Beth McIntyre (played by Odette Yustman) who's injured and trapped in her apartment on the other side of town -- directly in the path of the monster no doubt. So, for no other reason than pure love, he and his friends (one of whom happened to be taping at the party) decide to go along with him. There's no real reason for them to go along, but they do anyway (plus, we need some girls to save from the monster, and we need the funny guy to make jokes along the way). The characters' motivations are all flimsy, but they're just barely believable enough for us to accept their journey. So, off they go to save the girl.

What I really liked about this film was the impending sense of dread we feel through the lens of designated goof-ball, Hud Platt (T.J. Miller). He's documenting all of this for the sake of posterity…because "somebody will want to know what happened here" as he says. We see shots that unfortunately, are all too familiar of NY buildings collapsing and the streets filling with smoke and ash. As the monster gets closer, its destruction is unstoppable making the puny humans trying to escape no more resilient than ants. There's plenty of tantalizing destruction and monster mayhem kept just out of view of the camera, but eventually (thankfully), we get plenty of footage of the monster (who's really cool in my opinion).

Since the camera is supposed to be amateur and hand-held, the shots can be hard to watch from all the shaky, running, movement, but that actually adds to the tension of the chaos. And I really love that it just feels like "some guy" with a camera, and not a professional camera man just trying to look like an amateur. And although there are many scenes where any sane person in such a horrific experience would simply drop the camera and run, we need to see what's going on, obviously. And I can sort of buy the argument as to why Hud holds onto his camera for dear life: in a world where video has become the medium of fact, Hud realizes how valuable a video record will be when this is all over. Plus, he's a bit of a doofus, so his attachment to anything that makes him the center of attention is believable. And besides that, Hud actually has lots of comic relief lines in the film. And they're actually funny.

So, even though Hud is hardly on camera (since he's behind it) he's the real driving force in this film. Although Rob's sometimes unbelievable obsession to save the girl he loves (which was never properly established in my opinion) is supposed to be the focus (or co-focus to the monster), it's really the goof-ball Hud who makes his documentary footage an honest experience of a monster knocking everything to hell. In that sense, the film isn't so much about plot as it is about experience. Better than any reality show, the film is simply an experience of fear and desperation regular people might feel in the same circumstance.

All-in-all, I really liked this film. It's not very meaty, but it's plenty entertaining. There are lots of jaw-dropping moments, and truly scary shots. There are no social or political messages. No spiritual awakenings. Just a big-ass monster tearing the crap out of Manhattan. And that's enough for me.

Too big to be called an indie film, too experimental to be labeled a studio pic, and not surreal enough to be considered an art-house piece, P.T. Anderson's latest foray into the descent of man packs a 1-2 punch with a few uppercuts and a kick to the groin. While being neither of these pigeon-holes, it's all of the above or somewhere in the middle. It's strange, quiet, loud, violent, irreverent, and gritty. This is definitely NOT Boogie Nights, nor Magnolia, nor Punch-Drunk Love, nor even Hard Eight (you should see this if you haven't – highly recommended). It's a film unto its own and a new direction for Anderson. The film is not a masterpiece, but the flaws are easily overlooked. There are rough junctions of both character and time. There are subtle characters and larger than life figures. There is love and yes, there is blood.

The film is not the usual plot-driven film where the character has a goal of which we follow and root for him to achieve. Instead, it's a relatively simple story about a man's greed and his refusal to let anything (ANYTHING) get in his way. A character study, if you will. The opening sequence sets the stage for Daniel Day-Lewis' character, Daniel Plainview. He's literally digging himself out of a hole and sacrificing even his own safety for a tiny nugget of gold. The lengths Daniel goes through to get this small nugget sets the stage for the rest of his journey through life.

Daniel Day-Lewis' take on the turn-of-the-century oil man is bizarre at first, but ultimately perfect. Hearing him speak after a long silence, I was worried his strange cadence and accent was going to be a disaster. Nonetheless, it's so deliberate, smooth and calm, that you're quickly seduced into his world as are the pawns he uses. As a friend of mine said, "It's exactly the way Satan would speak." But, alas, he's a business man, and business always comes first. He "adopts" a son when one of his workers dies in a mining accident. Not out of charity, but because the boy has a nice face that helps Daniel sell his con to the unsuspecting plain-folk of the oil-rich wastelands. In the days when a man could still strike-it rich with only a few men and a few dollars, Daniel Plainview quickly launches a mini oil empire unto himself. What makes this evil character so enticing to watch, is you truly never know what will come next. One minute he's saving a young girl from her father's abuse, the next minute he's slapping around a preacher. He's a man driven by greed, but has some kind of morality, even though it's his own, self-defined morality. The point is, Daniel's code of ethics works for him – all others be damned.

Aside from Daniel Day-Lewis' unique, yet perfect performance, the music score is the next fixture of this film that leaps out at me. Layered on top of these stark landscapes and gritty characters is a very experimental score. From the opening shot, we hear these horrible, yet haunting drone of strings that will become all too familiar at the peak of the film. Then we hear modern drums. Then a classical piece, then more droning strings. Each piece is unique and seemingly from entirely different films, but together, they resonate harmoniously as a third character of the film with the sole purpose of helping to define the inner workings of a living devil. Hats off to P.T. Anderson and Jonny Greenwood (original music) for taking a huge leap away from the typical period-piece sound score.

Some will love this movie. Some will hate it. But all should still be thinking about it long after the final credits. What did it mean? Is there really a mystery as to what (if anything) this film is about, or is this just an elegant character study? Are there deeper meanings? Does it even need to be analyzed? You'll probably have questions floating in your mind, but hopefully, you just have a belly full of fantastic film food.

More like, The "OK" Debaters. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty that's "great" about this movie, but not enough for me to get too excited about it. The cinematography is great, the performances are mostly solid, the period design is believable, and the direction is pretty good. The main beef I have with this film is the script and Denzel Washington's performance.

The script is a bit schizophrenic for my taste. The story is basically a sport-movie format set in the Jim Crow South about brains instead of brawn. That's all fine and dandy, but the script wanders from character to character faster than a Tarantino script. Just when we're getting to know and like a character, the story shifts to someone else. Then by the end of the film, few of the character's dilemma's are really solved. I suppose this is to be accepted in what I can only call an "ensemble" piece. However, the film is never really sure which character is the glue that holds them all together. And is there really any glue to begin with? Enough about glue. My point is, there's never a single character that is given to us to latch on to. We sympathize and resonate with various aspects of each character, but it's never enough to really involve us emotionally...with the exception of James Farmer, Jr. (played by Denzel Whitaker) who is the character son of Dr. James Farmer, Sr. (played by the real-life Father of Denzel Whitaker -- Forest Whitaker).

This father and son performance and story-line were the most interesting of the film. They could have (and maybe should have) made this story completely from the perspective of Jr. and created a bitter-sweet coming-of-age story about the Jim Crow South. To the filmmakers' credit, this seems like what they were trying to do, but ultimately couldn't stay on track. James Farmer, Jr. is a smart, chubby, nerdy kid with a strict minister father. We start to see and feel for him as he dreams about his beautiful new debate partner Samantha Booke (played perfectly by the lovely Jurnee Smollett). But sure enough the story cuts away only to return with an uncertain feeling that the story "has" to come back to James Farmer, Jr., but it's never sure why. But on that note, the actor who would've stole the show if they'd given him a real story line would be that of Forest Whitaker. Somehow in the last several years, he's lost that "Forest Whitaker Thing" he does in most movies and has emerged a -- dare I say -- brilliant actor. His performance is subtle, controlled, and believable set against the often overdramatic performances of Denzel Washington.

I've come to accept Denzel's performances as well...the "Denzel Way." Which isn't to say he over acts, but he's definitely the type of actor you need to be in the mood for. In my book, his peak performances were in Malcolm X and Training Day. His naturally powerful screen presence was perfectly suited for each of those equally powerful roles. But what Denzel Washington often forgets is that not every scene needs to be a powerhouse of verse and reaction. Take a cue from your good friend Forest Whitaker who nailed his role by being subtle and sensitive to each word coming in or going out. Each line of Denzel is tainted with some inner need of his to dominate each syllable. Like I said, in many of his roles, this is precisely what's required, but here, it just felt like Denzel cast himself in his own film because he could -- despite the fact that he wasn't necessarily the best choice.

Which brings me to the strange and misguided sub-plot of the film. Not only is Denzel a fine debate coach, but it seems he's also a leftist union organizer. Ok, so on paper this doesn't sound so strange, but in the context of this brainy sports-film, this odd departure is detracting from the Jim Crow picture this film set out to paint. It then becomes about lefty politics (white or black) and the introduction of unions. On one hand I appreciate the depth this gives the character and the story, but it's a depth that is completely misplaced in the story. Only by the end of the film are we told that the events and characters were based on real life. So, maybe their real-life stories weren't as clean-cut as a Hollywood film should be, but that still doesn't change my movie-going experience.

To be fair, there were a few emotional high-points that really pulled me into the film. The film's portrait of the 1935 South was what I can only assume was spot-on. It's hard to image such a backwards time and place not long ago and not far away. The blatant hypocrisy and ignorance of Southern white culture is bizarre, surreal, and shocking to say the least. The scenes where the characters confronted these horrors were the most emotionally engaging scenes of the whole film. You felt just as scared and horrified as the characters (and real-life people) must have felt. That being said, the remaining "emotional impacts" were left flat and shy of their potential. Each victory by the team, or life-lesson realization seemed to just miss the mark somehow. That being said, the one final debate scene is the one saving grace of the film. It's perfectly set, delivered, directed, and written. Was it Steven Spielberg who said something like: as long as you wow the audience in the end, you can do whatever you want before that. The final debate really hit home (and even made the woman behind me cry), but I can't say it salvaged an otherwise schizophrenic film.

Hats off to Forest Whitaker and his son. Hats off to Jurnee Smollett for a camera-loving performance. And hats off to an attempted coming-of-age story. I give it 3 stars only because of the final debate. Otherwise, this can only be called The "OK" Debaters.

There is a rich and somewhat cultish following of the I Am Legend book from which this movie was made. Written in 1954 by Richard Matheson, it's largely considered one of the major influences of the zombie and vampire genres to come. Before this Will Smith version, the book was made into a film two other times: once as The Last Man on Earth in 1964, and then as The Omega Man in 1971. If you're like me (and probably most of America) you've never heard of any of these other versions. So, this review is coming from someone who only has the Will Smith version to go on, having never read or seen any previous incarnations.

The set up: Will Smith is an Army virologist in the near future. Someone creates a cure for cancer, and sure enough, that mutates uncontrollably into a devastating virus. The virus mutates humans into vampire/zombie creatures that can only come out to play at night. Will Smith stays behind during the outbreak of the epidemic believing he can reverse the effects of the destructive virus. New York City is ground zero for the plague and Will Smith and his trusty dog are the only survivors -- except for the zombies of course.

Most of the film is very simple: how can the last man on Earth (at least the last man in NYC) stay alive long enough to save mankind from itself?

What I love about this film is the filmmakers' ability to focus on the what it must really be like living all alone in a big city with no other humans around. Smith gets to drive cool cars, hunt for deer, and pick out any DVD at the video store he likes. Pretty sweet deal! Oh wait, then there are the flesh-eating, blood-sucking zombie/vampire things that come out at night forcing Smith and his dog to bolt themselves inside the house until dawn each day. That's kind-of a bummer.

Which brings me to the zombies themselves. We've all become accustomed to computer generated (CG) monsters of every shape and size -- perhaps too accustomed. While CG is often necessary to achieve incredible results never before possible, I wish the filmmakers would have stuck with real people for the zombies instead of CG in this case. The rest of the film does such a great job of portraying a realistic, abandoned NYC, that it's almost painful to see these sub-human mutants come to life only in CG. Yes, I'm aware that most of the set pieces were CG, but they're so flawless you really believe 5th Ave has deer grazing on grass poking up through the asphalt. It's actually quite eerie and beautiful at the same time: like walking through the ruins of Rome just a few months after the fall.

Despite this flawed choice to use CG monsters instead of old-fashioned people in make-up, the monsters are still scary and threatening. They're strong, fast, and mean -- just what we came here to see, right?

Although some people didn't like the slow pacing of the film, that's exactly what I did like about it. It takes its time to build up the sense of loneliness and fear that Smith has to deal with all by himself. The film could've been just another fast-paced, fast-shudder, night-time horror flick, but the filmmakers took a fresh approach by following Smith around mostly in the daytime. His slow sink into loneliness and lack of hope is the real meat of the story. Whether he can save humanity is not as important as whether or not he can save his own mind.