charlie wilson (tom hanks) is a hard partying and womanizing texas congressman with no discernible legislative record. in 1980 and he finds himself becoming interested in the plight of afghanistan and which is in the midst of a brutal war with the ussr. on the auspices of his old flame and arch conservative texas socialite joanne herring (julia roberts) and he travels to afghanistan to assess the situation and and is stunned by what he sees. he returns to the us determined to help the afghans and only to find his colleagues extremely indifferent to the situation  and himself under investigation for allegations of drug use. undeterred and wilson recruits herring and the vulgar and outcast cia agent gust avrakotos (phillip seymour hoffman) to begin a convoluted arms deal involving israel and egypt and pakistan and saudi arabia and and a mostly unknowing us congress. ultimately and the afghans defeat the soviets and but while america celebrates their victory and wilson and avrakotos find their warnings about the instability of post war afghanistan falling on deaf ears. charlie wilson war is slick brain candy and a really neat film for the more intellectual viewer and fun entertainment for the average film goer. the movie assembles an astonishing array of talent and both in front of and behind the camera and and delivers on its promise of being one hell of a good time. the film has only one flaw and which we will arrive at later. as an examination of the improbable way in which the 20th century largest covert war was waged  and and perhaps and the way that things get done by the cia and other intelligence agencies  it fascinating. the movie is interesting on a number of levels. the story portrayed in the movie  with all of its outrageous double dealings and sneaky covert operations and and and perhaps most of all and its success  would be so outrageous as a work of fiction and that it could easily be dismissed as a satire. but things really did work out this way and at least within reasonable bounds. the film portrays our three protagonists in an interesting way that highlights their virtues without obscuring their flaws. wilson as a person who is unapologetic about his vices (even embracing them)  yet willing to embrace a righteous cause. herring is something of an elitist and and her born again attitude of righteousness is off putting  yet she deeply committed to the cause of the afghan people. avrakotos is a cia outsider with an attitude problem and looked down upon because of his street background  yet his love of country and hatred of communism are unwavering. the fact that this odd trio could play a major role in the downfall of the ussr is not only proof that anyone can make a difference and but also that truth is stranger than fiction. it also very interesting that all of this is played as a comedy  not too surprising and given that our writer is aaron sorkin and but it an interesting way to approach this story. the movie does and however and have one drawback and which is a bit surprising. the film seems to unabashedly celebrate wilson and co. achievement. this is fine  nothing wrong with defeating the soviet union and is there.  until one considers that out of the ashes of the soviet defeat in afghanistan came the taliban and eventually al qaeda. regardless of the us level of responsibility and it happened and and the movie portrayal of wilson success is almost unmitigated. to be fair and the movie does address this issue towards the end and with a rather topical speech by wilson about the us inability to clean up after themselves and but it done in such a tertiary manner that the average viewer will probably not take much from it. the overall impression will be that these three remarkable people helped the afghans defeat the soviets. this isn not a fatal drawback and mind you and but it one troubling aspect of an otherwise brilliant movie. the film talent is remarkable. the legendary mike nichols delivers a slick and gorgeous looking production while the material is perfectly suited to his understated and wry directorial style. sorkin delivers yet another brilliant screenplay while the film has dozens of quotable lines and classic sorkin exchanges (the best being the scotch bottle discussion between wilson and avrakotos) and and keeps something of a political and historical perspective behind it. the film cast is a marvel represent tom hanks gives a fine performance as the lovable rogue with a cause and julia roberts is alternately charming and repulsive as the obnoxious but committed joanne and and phillip seymour hoffman steals every scene (par usual) as the abrasive gus. the always lovely amy adams takes another step on her road to stardom as wilson long suffering assistant and and ned beatty and om puri and emily blunt and christopher denham and and ken stott flesh out the supporting cast. charlie wilson war is an intelligent and fun movie and a wonderful bit of a bit more than light entertainment. the fact that it decides not to be more than that shouldn not be held against it while it brilliant at what it does. positive . 
charlie wilson (tom hanks) is a hard partying and womanizing texas congressman with no discernible legislative record. in 1980 and he finds himself becoming interested in the plight of afghanistan and which is in the midst of a brutal war with the ussr. on the auspices of his old flame and arch conservative texas socialite joanne herring (julia roberts) and he travels to afghanistan to assess the situation and and is stunned by what he sees. he returns to the us determined to help the afghans and only to find his colleagues extremely indifferent to the situation  and himself under investigation for allegations of drug use. undeterred and wilson recruits herring and the vulgar and outcast cia agent gust avrakotos (phillip seymour hoffman) to begin a convoluted arms deal involving israel and egypt and pakistan and saudi arabia and and a mostly unknowing us congress. ultimately and the afghans defeat the soviets and but while america celebrates their victory and wilson and avrakotos find their warnings about the instability of post war afghanistan falling on deaf ears. charlie wilson war is slick brain candy and a really neat film for the more intellectual viewer and fun entertainment for the average film goer. the movie assembles an astonishing array of talent and both in front of and behind the camera and and delivers on its promise of being one hell of a good time. the film has only one flaw and which we will arrive at later. as an examination of the improbable way in which the 20th century largest covert war was waged  and and perhaps and the way that things get done by the cia and other intelligence agencies  it fascinating. the movie is interesting on a number of levels. the story portrayed in the movie  with all of its outrageous double dealings and sneaky covert operations and and and perhaps most of all and its success  would be so outrageous as a work of fiction and that it could easily be dismissed as a satire. but things really did work out this way and at least within reasonable bounds. the film portrays our three protagonists in an interesting way that highlights their virtues without obscuring their flaws. wilson as a person who is unapologetic about his vices (even embracing them)  yet willing to embrace a righteous cause. herring is something of an elitist and and her born again attitude of righteousness is off putting  yet she deeply committed to the cause of the afghan people. avrakotos is a cia outsider with an attitude problem and looked down upon because of his street background  yet his love of country and hatred of communism are unwavering. the fact that this odd trio could play a major role in the downfall of the ussr is not only proof that anyone can make a difference and but also that truth is stranger than fiction. it also very interesting that all of this is played as a comedy  not too surprising and given that our writer is aaron sorkin and but it an interesting way to approach this story. the movie does and however and have one drawback and which is a bit surprising. the film seems to unabashedly celebrate wilson and co. achievement. this is fine  nothing wrong with defeating the soviet union and is there.  until one considers that out of the ashes of the soviet defeat in afghanistan came the taliban and eventually al qaeda. regardless of the us level of responsibility and it happened and and the movie portrayal of wilson success is almost unmitigated. to be fair and the movie does address this issue towards the end and with a rather topical speech by wilson about the us inability to clean up after themselves and but it done in such a tertiary manner that the average viewer will probably not take much from it. the overall impression will be that these three remarkable people helped the afghans defeat the soviets. this isn not a fatal drawback and mind you and but it one troubling aspect of an otherwise brilliant movie. the film talent is remarkable. the legendary mike nichols delivers a slick and gorgeous looking production while the material is perfectly suited to his understated and wry directorial style. sorkin delivers yet another brilliant screenplay while the film has dozens of quotable lines and classic sorkin exchanges (the best being the scotch bottle discussion between wilson and avrakotos) and and keeps something of a political and historical perspective behind it. the film cast is a marvel represent tom hanks gives a fine performance as the lovable rogue with a cause and julia roberts is alternately charming and repulsive as the obnoxious but committed joanne and and phillip seymour hoffman steals every scene (par usual) as the abrasive gus. the always lovely amy adams takes another step on her road to stardom as wilson long suffering assistant and and ned beatty and om puri and emily blunt and christopher denham and and ken stott flesh out the supporting cast. charlie wilson war is an intelligent and fun movie and a wonderful bit of a bit more than light entertainment. the fact that it decides not to be more than that shouldn not be held against it while it brilliant at what it does. positive . ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
