Before Afghanistan was known as the home of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, they were fighting a bloody war against the Russians. And they were losing. Bad.

So, how did a major motion picture get made about an obscure congressman named Charlie Wilson who's so unknown he has to google himself to know who he is? When you watch this film you see that it was something that needed to be made--not to make the world aware of Charlie Wilson necessarily, but to make the world aware of a decade in which Afghanistan was being mercilessly obliterated by Russia and how the tables turned.

Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) was a hedonistic congressman representing a small part of Texas. In the grand scale of things he was barely a blip on the radar, but he was on the subcommittee for covert defense spending, and that made him a bit of a somebody. When he arbitrarily doubled the CIA's covert budget from $5 million to $10 million he became just a little more important. It was then that he was made aware of the Soviet Union's actions in Afghanistan by a wealthy, ultra-right wing, religious woman named Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts). She had the kind of money, clout, and sexual prowess to gently nudge Charlie Wilson toward supporting a cause she passionately believed in.

"Charlie Wilson's War" started out kind of sleazy and despicable. After twenty minutes I was beginning to ask myself why should I be watching a womanizing lush congressman; even if he is played by Tom Hanks. The gears caught and the movie gained traction once Wilson met with the president of Pakistan, President Zia (Om Puri). The movie became a speeding locomotive when Wilson met with CIA operative Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Hanks and Hoffman on screen together was fantastic. Even when their banter morphed into political and military jargon I didn't completely follow I still was entranced.

Like any movie about politics and/or war, your pleasure or displeasure with the movie will have a lot to do with your own politics. I happen to believe that America's covert intervention to arm helpless Afghans against a genocidal bully was a commendable move and seeing a movie about such a move is nice. Of course, it helps if the movie is done well, which this was.

Yes, I walked out. I don't suffer stupidity very well. I made it one hour and ten minutes into this picture before the death-blow forced me from the theater: Charlie celebrating the end of the cocaine investigation.

"It's over!" he shouts, his nymphette secretaries swarming him in joy. "Technically I did cocaine in the Cayman Islands but that's out of American jurisdiction." Yes, it's the slimy lecherous alcoholic politician who just saved his hide on a loophole. Our hero, ladies & gentleman... And what's worse is how director Mike Nichols hid Charlie's crime from the audience in much the same way real politicians hide their crimes from their constituents: delicately-worded dialogue and deceptive maneuvering. It's similar to the way we're asked to find Charlie's whoring adorable because we never see his wife. Out of sight, out of mind... right?

Sorry. I find the character loathsome, mainly because we're asked to consider him a hero. We've come a long way from Mr. Smith's trip to Washington if an adulterous coke-snorting lush is the new Lincoln.

What's even worse about this movie is its political naiveté: There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in war... it's all a matter of where you're standing. And what's worse, this "war" is nothing more than a product of the United States' profitable wargames pastime: arming and funding a country or cause to fight our wars for us only to turn around and consider said country or cause a threat, at which we point we bomb them to oblivion and rebuild their country using our contractors. Sound familiar? It's just the life-cycle of the military/industrial complex. Hardly heroic...

I didn't have to stay to the end to see where the picture was heading: Hanks becomes a hero by "getting involved" and "saving his soul" and the entire Cold War is brought to an end by a Congressman, a CIA agent and a wealthy Texas socialite.

I usually love science-fiction.

GRADE: D

I quit watching "The West Wing" after Aaron Sorkin quit writing and producing. It just wasn't the same. Imagine my thrill at seeing a film that he wrote again. It has been a long time - The American President, A Few Good Men. His script was a beautiful blend of humor and tragedy. He made a compelling story believable, and made me weep at the same time.

Tom Hanks was incredible as a small-time Texas Congressman whose constituents only wanted lower taxes and to keep their guns. Not a hard job, so he had plenty of time to fool around - and that he did. His office staff looked as if he were at the Playboy Mansion. Like he reportedly said, "You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits." Despite his sexist attitude, which fits right in with a Texas Congressman, they were fiercely loyal, especially his aide, Amy Adams (Junebug & former Hooters girl).

Now, add a rich Texas socialite who wants something done in Afghanistan, played perfectly by Julia Roberts; and a pain-in-his-boss's-ass CIA agent, superbly done by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and you have a movie well worth watching.

Outstanding writing, and superlative acting, and a story that needed to be told. What more do you want at the movies?