On the cusp of the Reagan Revolution in 1980, Texas Representative Charlie Wilson, a bit bored with his "Good Time Charlie" reputation as a man and affable but ineffectual accomplishments in the U.S. Congress, saw a Dan Rather report on TV on Afghanistan.  Moved and enlightened to the freedom fighters resisting the Soviet invasion of their country, Wilson got up out of his Las Vegas fantasy suite hot tub, said farewell to a television series scammer and a pair of local strippers, and headed home to Washington D.C. to help end the Cold War and change history in the Middle East. Such is director Mike Nichols' and writer Aaron Sorkin's introduction to this maverick cowboy Congressman in CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, an "outrageous true story" of Wilson's personal mission to single-handedly raise millions, then billions to covertly aid the Mujahedin rebels defeating the Russian encroachment of Afghanistan. Backed by three strong star performances from Tom Hanks as Wilson, Julia Roberts as his rich Texas socialite ally, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as their irascible CIA operative conduit, all enacting Sorkin's typically witty and rapid-fire script, Nichols has certainly delivered the "feel good War in Afghanistan film of the year." While enjoyable to watch, the film's geopolitical ambitions are in the end blunted by the ensuing twenty years of history which were, in part, born by America's involvement then abandonment of the Afghans after Russia's collapse ended the Cold War.  Charlie Wilson's true story has been surpassed by events far more outrageous since in our world.

Once again, actor Tom Hanks demonstrates his uncanny ability to skip and hop over — not blur — the line between a character's nobility and frivolity, his higher aspirations and common denominators, and Hanks' work as Texas Representative Charlie Wilson is no exception.  Hanks successfully masters Wilson's charming drawl if not the man's uber-confident swagger, which seems not in Hanks' own everyman essence.  Yet as Wilson, the actor effectively swings from casually debauched booze-hound to fervent but tempered anti-Communist, as never fails to impel this wild yet plausible story forward.

As Joanne Herring, Wilson's southern socialite political partner and sometimes lover, Julia Roberts plays a more mature and restrained character than is her usual fare.  Every bit Democratic Wilson's equally opposing Republican ultra-rightwinger hardwired into a network of walking bankrolls, Herring applies her personal passion for the Afghani cause by exerting her adamantine will across her own sphere of influence.  As a flirtatious team of firebrands, Wilson and Herring steamroll their way through Congressional committees with formidable success.  Viewers get a sense that both characters would be less without each other to incite and inspire their best and worst qualities, with Hanks and Roberts working off each other's energy seamlessly.

The man who puts their combined passion into on-the-ground military action is Gust Avrakotos, played to cranky, crusty perfection by Philip Seymour Hoffman.  Gust's introductory scene is an actor's gem, gifted to Hoffman by Sorkin's searing war of words — a bear cage match between Avrakotos and his CIA superior Henry Cravely (played by the always bankable John Slattery).  Consigned to "the weeds" of the intelligence community, Gust is asked to help a small group "kill Russians" and actually accomplish ends for his agency and country. 

Ever glum and jaded by the hyperbole and horrors of the world, magnified by an intel's eyes, Gust never allows idealists Wilson and Herring to stray off course in their backing of the Afghan fighters.  His grumbling voice and slouching stance run in sharp counterpoint to Wilson's cowboy demeanor, yet he is the unyielding backbone of determination in their joint mission.  In the role, Hoffman's delightful disgruntle proves a sheer delight to watch: the scene at Wilson's office as he and Gust hammer out their initial plan to fund the Afghanis is sublime.  You may buy or rent this film for the Hanks, but you'll stay for the Hoffman! 

Wilson's own inexperience in foreign policy and covert ops also cause Gust to confess how America itself has no coherent strategy to either halt the Russian invasion of Afghanistan or aid the Mujahedin in fighting on the front lines of the Cold War.  As fate would have it, Afghanistan holding no interest in the U.S. government or its foreign policy makes Wilson's war not only possible but practical to win. 

In the end, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR is an entertaining, perhaps inspiring study of how political ambition and vision can actually change the world for the better, on the rare occasions that both passions fuel a higher ideal outside of self-interest.  Aaron Sorkin's script is charged with all the expected spark and sizzle from fade in to final credits, unfurling seemingly effortless wit and charm from the lead actors through the bevy of lovely and brainy Charlie's Angels staff of aides, plus an unlikely humorous cabal of Middle Eastern arms distributors.  Viewers may find this enjoyable ride through a highly unpopular destination irresistible, if only since watching this 'outrageously true' story is likely the last time any American had reason to feel good about our policy in Afghanistan.

Herein may lie the greatest weakness of the film: Mike Nichols' telling of Sorkin's script feel-good tale blissfully ignores the very dark moments of world and domestic history spawned from later unrest in Afghanistan since Wilson's war ended.  To be fair, Gust grimly warns that Wilson's idealism can breed disaster through inattention after the prize is won, and the film ends with a coda quote by Wilson himself declaring that such a failure ensued because our government botched the end game.  The Mujahedin and Afghanistan later fell under Taliban power, abandoned freedom fighters left unfunded and forgotten turned to bitter extremists like Osama bin Laden, and the rest is a bitter, painful history lesson.

But the bookend opening and finale of Wilson being awarded by the covert ops community carries no dark irony in its standing ovation, not even with Herring and Avrakotos attending.  The mood of the film is so successfully uplifting and buoyant — courtesy of efforts by Hanks, Roberts and Hoffman — that such subtle hints of the tragic missteps to come seem disconnected from the reality of Wilson's adventure.  Nichols' lighter tone and touch here lacks the satirical, sardonic bite of his prior political tale, PRIMARY COLORS, and so CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR ultimately seems more like the battle which was won while the larger war to come was tragically, disastrously lost.  Had this film been made and released ten years ago, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR might have seemed like a true triumph, but alas we now live in a world in which this victory is obscured by greater, grander failures which resonate with much more imperative that wit and charm simply cannot overcome.