However, Charlie Wilson's War is my first exception to this rule. I just
watched it, where Tom Hanks' accent is terrible, and was clearly attempted
without the assistance of a professional voice coach. The film was
excellent nonetheless, being both energetic and fascinating, with
excellently crafted characters. There were occasional moments of laugh out
loud humor, and lots of cute girls for eye candy. I especially liked the
way Wilson's four, hot Congressional aides were called "Charlie's Angels,"
in the closing credits.

You missed my point. I'm not saying that the bad accent causes the
problems, but that if there are bad accents, the movies is such a
disaster that evereything else is messed up, too.

It's Aaron Sorkin's well known machine gun writing style. War stories
are fascinating, and it's equally interesting to see how a war is fought
at the highest levels, when people do nothing but walk around, talk and
plan and spend money. Good time Charlie was (and still is, I guess)
quite a character.

On Apr 29, 6:02 pm, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com> wrote:

However, Charlie Wilson's War is my first exception to this rule. I
just watched it, where Tom Hanks' accent is terrible, and was clearly
attempted without the assistance of a professional voice coach. The
film was excellent nonetheless, being both energetic and fascinating,
with excellently crafted characters. There were occasional moments
of laugh out loud humor, and lots of cute girls for eye candy. I
especially liked the way Wilson's four, hot Congressional aides were
called "Charlie's Angels," in the closing credits.

Screw the accents. Tom's diacritics would be the last thing I'd look
for faults.

Playing the role of a shark and one-man army will be
interesting, though. Good to hear it's fascinating, which was my
reception when getting caught in viewing it for an excellent 2-hr.
documentary (the film came out within a couple of weeks of the docu --
History channel, perhaps).

However, Charlie Wilson's War is my first exception to this rule.  I just
watched it, where Tom Hanks' accent is terrible, and was clearly attempted
without the assistance of a professional voice coach.  

On Apr 30, 8:46 am, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com> wrote:

You missed my point. I'm not saying that the bad accent causes the
problems, but that if there are bad accents, the movies is such a
disaster that evereything else is messed up, too.

It's Aaron Sorkin's well known machine gun writing style. War
stories are fascinating, and it's equally interesting to see how a
war is fought at the highest levels, when people do nothing but walk
around, talk and plan and spend money. Good time Charlie was (and
still is, I guess) quite a character.

No, don't believe I did. You enjoyed it, which confirms my bias --
coming from anybody but Tom, actor-challenged accentuation may well
play for a lesser role in a second-rate production. Tom, nah. He's
pretty good for the most, (apart from FG*).

Been some time since I
watched the documentary, but -seems- singled cocaine charges, whether
or not adjudicated, for intent effectively would have clipped his
wings from further political integrity and a popular command he
carried among voters. He's too hot of a potato head at this stage,
I'd suspect.

*Forrest Grump School of Fine Acting:

Drop the g's.
Use contractions and phrases, gonna, nu-uh, wanna, and over yonder,
only speak them slower.


Much.


Tell stories, critter tales, and include the weather.
Keep a happy face when dispelling dumb stereotypes with emotion.

I'd say that Hanks is a lot better than "prtty good for the most part."
The guy has a nose for an excellent role, and since FG, he's just has
one hit after another. A lot of people are considered living legends by
the time they get into their seventies, but Hanks is more than twenty
years ahead of the schedule.

Finally, there are many positions of extreme power *within* the House,
other than just an obscure member of a committee that nobody knows
about. He could have eventually gotten one of those jobs, but
apparently, somewhere along the way, he simply wasn't re-elected, and
his political career just quietly came to an end.

On Apr 30, 2:37 pm, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com> wrote:

I'd say that Hanks is a lot better than "prtty good for the most
part." The guy has a nose for an excellent role, and since FG, he's
just has one hit after another. A lot of people are considered
living legends by the time they get into their seventies, but Hanks
is more than twenty years ahead of the schedule.

I just never got into the swing with Forrest Gramp.


Finally, there are many positions of extreme power *within* the
House, other than just an obscure member of a committee that nobody
knows about. He could have eventually gotten one of those jobs, but
apparently, somewhere along the way, he simply wasn't re-elected, and
his political career just quietly came to an end.


Cocaine was inasmuch given and likely incidental to his favoring of
women, booze, and overall good-time style Charley partying.

There's
politics, similarly, apart advancing a political career as a public
image. Much about him in the documentary, that which impressed me
most, was in keeping with the very same power and overriding interest
he had in the Middle East. What I drew from the ending of the
documentary, not as much quietly, was a fairly sordid and frantic
attempt on the part of Charlie at unsuccessfully pulling what strings
remained, when the proverbial shit hit the fan.

Guiliani or other
posh seating jobs, of sorts, would be beyond that presentment, and a
seemingly thorough job Charlie pulled off in besmirching his
competence in front of one too many witnesses.

I took it for his
credibility as being beyond redemption at that juncture.