comment #1

scooterzz says ...

hmmmm....so says the 'elite media'.....

comment #2

Aguirre says ...

seems like we're just about on the same page on this one, jeff, but i hope when you return to the topic on the morrow that you dig into the meaty thematic content beyond the"let's hear it for corruption and jowly guys and booze on the rocks" sentiment raised above. i think your comment about nichols no longer aspiring to Renoir-ian heights to be fair, but his film doesn't have to reach for the stratosphere to be positively loaded with fascinating observations on the successes / failures of american government and the unfortunately human dynamic between the two. on another note(s), PSH is predictably phenomenal here, Julia Roberts predictably irksome, Nichols rarely displays a master's touch, but he certainly does so with his integration of archival / staged footage... and the tonal change in the reactions to the book-ending speech absolutely indelible.

comment #3

BurmaShave says ...

What does this help most, JUNO, NO COUNTRY, or SWEENEY TODD?

comment #4

Silverscreenvideos says ...

So how many dual nominations will we have this year?

Hoffman... Tommy Lee Jones ... Josh Brolin???

As always, far more good male performances than nomination slots.

comment #5

Walter Sobchak says ...

This is all well and good, but what about Cate Blanchette? I heard she plays Bob Dylan in the new Todd Haynes movie "I'm Not There".

And where does this leave "Zodiac"?

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

"Charlie Wilson's War is a very smart, agreeable, complex-but-digestible, sure-to-be-popular adult political drama supplanted with babes, boobs and belly dancers."

But how does it compare to Ishtar?

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

You know, I've said some fucked-up things in the past, but this time I went too far. I apologize for that analogy.

comment #8

YND says ...

Wow, I don't know. "Good-but-not-great"... well-pedigreed writer and director... important subject matter... three Oscar-winning actors in the leads... not likely to inspire a lot of passionate supporters but also not going to find many detractors...

This sounds like EXACTLY the kind of movie they nominate for Best Picture, doesn't it?

comment #9

Terry McCarty says ...

I like the French one-sheet so much better than the American one.

comment #10

BurmaShave says ...

D.Z, did you just... I'm speechless.

comment #11

Heleno says ...

It will go over gangbusters with West Wing fans anyway - the script's too Sorkin for that constituency not to go nuts for it. Best single moment for me was Julia Roberts' beautifully delivered "Sluts" in passing.

comment #12

GKLondon says ...

Philip Seymour Hoffman can do no wrong indeed. I caught a scrap of "Twister"(the whole movie is scraps actually) and even in that he manages to engage above everyone else. His lock onto Mark Whalberg's Dirk Diggler in "Boogie Nights" and his over eager ramblings when he first meets him get me every time. And the look of abject dejection when he is later unable to fit into the same outift as Whalberg and Reilly is priceless.

comment #13

Chicago48 says ...

Sorry I won't be in line to see it because of Mike Nichols, who IMO is the most overrated director of all time. I haven't liked not one thing he has directed and I won't waste money to see this.

comment #14

btwnproductions says ...

The 76-year-old Nichols has been on a roll this decade, in film (Closer), cable TV (Angels in America, Wit), and Broadway (Spamalot). And there's nothing overrated about his best work in those mediums.

comment #15

p.Vice says ...

DZ - Elaine May is never going to forgive you.

Thank god it's only 97 minutes -- I swore I'd never see another Bitch film but Philly sounds too good to pass up.

comment #16

actionman says ...

"Sorry I won't be in line to see it because of Mike Nichols, who IMO is the most overrated director of all time. I haven't liked not one thing he has directed and I won't waste money to see this."

So says the guy who "didn't get" NCFOM.

comment #17

AJW says ...

"I don't see what the big deal is about being the first to respond, although there's always one or two eager beavers who drive right home and put something up by 11 pm or 12 midnight."

comment #18

Jay T. says ...

It'll find a big audience... simple equation: Julia Roberts + Tom Hanks + lighthearted = box office.

comment #19

Balthazar says ...

PSH is even great in "My Boyfriend's Back," a corny 1993 comedy in which he gets eaten by a zombie. His reading of the "Chuck Bronski" part is a hoot.

comment #20

Balthazar says ...

Actually, in the French one-sheet, PSH looks like he's channeling a bit of his buddy, John C. Reilly.

comment #21

T. Holly says ...

Tom and Julia aren't visions of Jack Nicholson and Ann-Margret, and I guess 97 minutes fits in really well as a respite from mall feet. And think of the possibilites for a longer DVD version. Does the movie say, at the end, "for my wife Diane" by any chance? Anyway, this is good counter post to all the ones about writers' lonlieness, leave-us-aloners, animation rules, sex and crying, Woody Harelson's broken heart and Harvey Fierstein not winning in Boston, but why the 90 minute difference between posting and commenting time?

comment #22

Jesse Perry says ...

"I haven't liked not one thing he has directed and I won't waste money to see this."

It's amazing how a person can erase their credibility with one sentence.

comment #23

btwnproductions says ...

Nah, I think he and wife Rita Wilson are still "an item," as they say.

comment #24

Sean says ...

Chicago - the more opinions you express, the more difficult it is to believe that you are not an idiot (at least when it comes to movies). And I mean that with all due respect.

Can I just ask: What movies *do* you like?

comment #25

christian says ...

DZ, you did it. My God. I'm...flabbergasted.

comment #26

christian says ...

Oh, and bigfan0808, I'M COMING FOR YOU!

comment #27

PerfectTommy says ...

You bigfan0808 haters are just jealous because he (she?) only informs us about the male movie moguls that are newly available at his (her?) fabulous website. How about letting us know about the wealthy women that are newly available? Julia? Reese? Britney? The would-be-gigolos here need to know.

comment #28

Craig Kennedy says ...

Would you people stop trying to get me to read a DZ post? I've already reached my quota this month. I'll come back in December.

The strange thing about Jeff's review is that he only says good things about the movie, yet the overall tone is full of qualification and near disappointment. "It's good but..."

Is this another example of a movie that's going to get dinged because it doesn't fit the Important Oscar Movie tag that had been bestowed upon it long before anyone ever saw it? Sort of like Stranger than Fiction last year?

comment #29

christian says ...

I'm there because Nichols is still one of the few filmmaker satirists left, no matter how soft.

And chicago, are you 16?

comment #30

jeffmcm says ...

CJ, this one is worth checking out, although it raises more questions than it answers. Like why, of all the bizarre things he's said, does this one cross a line for him. Huh?

comment #31

gr81lives says ...

Opening weekend the movie will have some legs after that it will fade and if we are lucky so will Julia Roberts.

She gives that fake smile and acts fake when she is on Oprah, etc but away from it all when dealing with the press she is horrible. Not to say that the press is fun to deal with.

Same now goes for Tom Hanks.

If Lions for Lambs can bomb with a cast like Streep, Redford and Cruise so can Charlie Wilson's War

comment #32

BurmaShave says ...

The Georgian Gorgon

comment #33

Hopscotch says ...

Lions for Lambs bombed because it was a self-serious movie with an ad campaign says "This movie is important. We have a message!".

Charlie Wilson's completely different. It's ad campaign suggests something light-hearted starring two very likeable (to mainstream audiences that is) stars. Only those very familiar with the backstory know of the stories modern consequences.

You aren't seeing Tom Hanks in TV spots saying something like "This IS the QUESTION of OUR Times!"

comment #34

Craig Kennedy says ...

Jeffmcm. Frankly I'm shocked at the hint of self awareness. It's the first clue he might not be a robot as I've suspected all along.

comment #35

gr81lives says ...

Hopscotch I am not seeing Tom Hanks anywhere for this movie.

The marketing is horrible for this movie, Universal didn't even know what to expect until the screened the movie last night for both coasts and still don't know what to do.

Just like they a few years ago with Munich. Just because it was a Spielberg they thought the had a sure box office hit. At the last second they did a little more press.

comment #36

Rich S. says ...

Y'know, that "signs of the Apocalypse" thing is way over-used, but then along comes that latest D.Z. post, and, well, wow....

comment #37

Dirty Harry says ...

It's good know that no matter how bitterly many of us may disgaree over politics there's always our mutual loathing of Julia Roberts to return to common ground on.

I think CHARLIE will do very well. It's kind of a no-brainer. These Iraq and sand movies have kept people away because of their obvious self-seriousness, not their subject matter. You could smell the self-inflated egos in every ad campaign. Robert Redford: WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR? -- And then after 88 excruciating minutes the idiot doesn't even answer his own pompus question. Did I digress? I think I did...

Julia, Hanks, X-mas, a decidedly un-self-serious film? It can't lose. People aren't avoiding hurry-up-before-we-win films. They're avoiding intellectual midget, Hollywood Hills' millionaires, telling them what to think about, you know, the real world. *eye roll*

However, every CHARLIE review I've read is at best a backhanded compliment. The word of the day is "mess." So, the water-carriers may be out in full force helping CHARLIE to open big but that doesn't mean it won't die slowly afterwards.

comment #38

frankbooth says ...

D.Z.'s retraction is obviously a gag, so we can all relax. Armageddon is not at hand.

comment #39

jeffmcm says ...

Dirty Harry, hopefully without arguing, I'd say that the point of Redford's 'what do you stand for' was the question, not an answer .I think it's pretty obvious what he stands for from watching the movie anyway, in the implicit positions it takes.

Frank: the mere fact of DZ making a joke is bizarre in and of itself.

comment #40

christian says ...

"They're avoiding intellectual midget, Hollywood Hills' millionaires, telling them what to think about, you know, the real world. *eye roll*"

Except for those people who love to fetishize the TV creation of an intellectual midget Hollywood millionaire like one Joel Surnow...who jets to faraway lands with Rush Limbaugh to have hot Viagra sex in a Dominican prostitute playland -- just like us regular folk! Eh, guv'nr? Say no more, say no more! *eye wink*

comment #41

Dirty Harry says ...

Jeff: Not being argumentative here, just curious: What did you think Lambs stood for? All I heard was a lot of criticism, a lot of against this and that, but nothing pro-active nor "Here's what I would do... Or, do different."

I know what Redford stands against, but have no idea what he stands for.

comment #42

jeffmcm says ...

The primary point of the movie as represented by the slacker kid storyline is 'stand up and do something instead of being apathetic and cynical'. Furthermore, I would argue that the movie is arguing in favor of internationalism and the U.S. having an active, engaged, intelligent foreign policy to respond to threats and protect our interests. The movie gives Tom Cruise a big speech teling us what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq (loss of American credibility, Iraq as a failed state) without any counter-argument to say that he's full of crap - because, in that speech, he's right and the movie is endorsing his statement.

comment #43

Dirty Harry says ...

I would argue everyone's for those safe and fuzzy platitudes. Not exactly worthy of all that WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR!? stuff and far from answers to the specific problems facing us today. Terrorists and lunatic despots are rarely swayed by the UN and diplomacy. Way to take a stand, Bob. Reminds of those Mean People Suck bumber stickers.

Streep's reporter did challenge Cruise, but agree Cruise won the pull-out-of-Iraq argument, just thought I felt that way because I agreed with him, not because the movie did.

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

Dirty Harry: "lunatic despots are rarely swayed by the UN and diplomacy."

Yeah, look at Bush.

comment #45

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, fuck off. There's actually a productive discussion happening here and you're not contributing to it. Like certain people that you hate, you too are impervious to criticism or other peoples' perspectives.

Harry, I wasn't expecting Redford to offer detailed policy proposals in his movie and I don't think you were either, so I don't see why you bring up 'specific problems facing us today'. The movie isn't saying anything about diplomacy, it's saying that people need to get over their cynicism if they want to effect change in their worlds. I also believe that the movie is not pro-withdrawal or pro-isolationism. Streep, and the movie through her, are critical of the specific idea of smaller units fighting in Afghanistan, but not critical of the idea of staying there to get rid of the Taliban, the idea that Iran is benefitting most from our problems, the idea that American withdrawal would be bad for our standing in the world, etc.

It's a liberal movie in the Wilsonian sense, meaning that Redford is in favor of actively working to promote our foreign policy interests. It's no In the Valley of Elah, which is Kucinich-esque in its politics (frightened, weak, pro-immediate withdrawal) and therefore not something I'm in favor of.

comment #46

Dirty Harry says ...

Jeff: I do see where you're coming from, but I just see Redford as stating the safe and obvious as opposed to taking a stand. A stand can be argued with and who can argue with what he's saying other than what he seems to agree with Bush on? I agree with Redford and I'm a neocon.

The stand comes, in my opinion, after the hoping for the best (diplomacy) no longer works. What then? What kind of "work" to promote our foreign policy interests? That's where the stand begins -- when what we can all agree on fails -- when the platitudes no longer apply.

Streep was a second-guesser -- a backseat driver. I would also like to have known what she (Redford) would've done different. In the face of hearing from every Western intelligence agency and the UN that Saddam had WMD... What then? It's easy to criticize with hindsight, and he sure does through the Streep character, but what would he have done given those exact circumstances without the benefit of hindsight? What was the smarter plan?

Maybe you and I can agree that our definition of a "stand" is different? For me the stand begins after the obvious no longer applies.

For example, the next question of our time will be, I fear, a simple but awful one: Would you rather Iran have nukes or would you go to war to stop them? The "yes" or "no" is the stand -- not the "we'll try diplomacy."

comment #47

christian says ...

"Kucinich-esque in its politics (frightened, weak, pro-immediate withdrawal) and therefore not something I'm in favor of."

Jeff, Kucinich is the only Dem who's not frightened and I'm surprised to see you using such a rightie talking point. I've yet to see any other Dem go toe to toe with Rumsfeld or Gonzo or even Bush and Cheney. He's advocating impeachment while Pelosi and the DNC cower. He's absolutely fearless compared to the rest. That doesn't mean you have to agree with his Iraq policy, but weak and frightened he is not. For that you have to go to the MSM sanctioned "top tier candidates."

comment #48

taragossip says ...

Thanks for posting such an article. I just moved this news to http://www.Richromances.com where many hollywood celebs and moviegoers are busy with talking about this.

comment #49

D.Z. says ...

christian: jeff's what you call a "sensible" liberal. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0733,tomorrow,77477,9.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0725,tomorrow,76960,9.html
http://action.credomobile.com/comics/2007/10/the_quest_for_common_ground.html

comment #50

jeffmcm says ...

I'm sorry, Christian. I'm a liberal, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with Kucinich on every major policy point. I'll agree that he's not 'frightened' if you'll do the same (for the record, my favorite candidate is Edwards).

Harry: Not sure exactly what you mean. The movie isn't about 'taking a stand' but rather about urging people to take their own stands. Maybe you think that's a safe position to take but I found it heartening, especially given the slew of tedious Haggis-esque movies which aren't about moving forward but are merely about staying mired in dismay.

As far as Streep's character goes, her arc is that she realizes that she needs to actually do her job - to not just give a blank check to the politicians. And if you want to talk about 'hindsight'...it was obvious to me that the intelligence was trumped up and phony in 2003, no hindsight needed.

comment #51

Dirty Harry says ...

Jeff: No I found it safe and full of platitudes. Full of fuzzy liberal get engaged rhetoric. Gutless, easy, heard it a million times before...

The Streep arc truly threw me for how absurd that choice was. Her choice was reporting what Cruise wanted or nothing at all? Why couldn't she just report it as news? No advocacy, but rather The Senator said this and the Senator said that? The way she's supposed to? The whole thing rang very false.

Moving on... You say the intel was trumped up and phony. You're no doubt aware the intel from the UN, France, Russia, and Germany also said Saddam had WMD. How do you reconicle that with your charge of it being trumped up? Or, do you think they were in cahoots. Please don't read any sarcasm in my question. I'm seriously interested.

Being opposed to the invasion of Iraq is a reasonable position. I disagree, but understand the reluctance. But the charge Bush trumped up phony intel has never made any sense in the face of the other countries intel.

comment #52

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you are not adding to the conversation. You are a childish troll who thinks he knows everything.

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

Harry: "Moving on... You say the intel was trumped up and phony. You're no doubt aware the intel from the UN, France, Russia, and Germany also said Saddam had WMD."

Despite the Bush Administration's assertions, allies of the United States did not fully agree with the Administration's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Prior to the war in Iraq, some foreign countries questioned U.S. assertions on WMD presence in Iraq.

More @ http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html

comment #54

jeffmcm says ...

Harry, obviously those other countries' intel wasn't sufficient to convince them all to intervene militarily, and everyone also agreed that Saddam was contained. Maybe it wasn't a conspiracy to invent intel, but it was at the very least used selectively in the interests of a predetermined policy. It was clear as day to me that the adminstration had already decided to invade Iraq as soon as Afghanistan was tidy enough, in order to get soldiers out of Saudi Arabia and to set up friendly client states on either side of Iran. Good strategy, but they couldn't sell the war in realpolitik terms and they had a schedule to fit (military operations needed to be over by summer) so they took the intel that looked solid enough and ran with it. Their ultimate failure was the execution - there wouldn't be a lot of complaining now if Iraq had been invaded but quickly stabilized.

Anyway, we disagree, but I found LFL to be a relatively brave film. Like I said, Elah and its ilk are the gutless, easy ones.

PS: DZ, I would have a conversation with you if I felt you had earned the right to not be treated like an autistic 5-year-old who parrots everything he hears but doesn't have a single original thought in his head.

comment #55

Dirty Harry says ...

"Their ultimate failure was the execution - there wouldn't be a lot of complaining now if Iraq had been invaded but quickly stabilized."

Too true.

"if I felt you had earned the right to not be treated like an autistic 5-year-old who parrots everything he hears but doesn't have a single original thought in his head."

And somehow even truer.

So, on this note of agreement...

comment #56

jeffmcm says ...

DZ brings people together.

comment #57

D.Z. says ...

I didn't do shit. Apologists of a feather deny together.

comment #58

jeffmcm says ...

I would love to have a conversation with you but you have never proved that you are capable of having a serious discussion. You're an asshole and will remain one to the end of your days. I don't agree with Dirty Harry about probably 75% of things, but he proved that he could have a grown-up conversation. I probably agree with you, Daniel, about 75% of politics but you have never, ever, shown any sign of being willing to listen to another person's opinion. Everytime I have ever tried to tell you something, your response is basically 'fuck you, here's why you're wrong'. Every single goddamn time. I only persist because I'm stubborn and because your ignorance is a blot I'm compelled to try and wipe off the face of the Earth.

What is your fucking problem?

comment #59

jeffmcm says ...

PS: It would be great if you would tell us all if you are, in fact, emotionally retarded in some way. Your completely emotionless facade is your most off-putting feature and if there was some way to understand it I could peacefully ignore you much more easily.