But if, as is pointed out in Charlie Wilson's War, "He who has the gold makes the rules," then the United States had the power to control distribution. The CIA simply refused to exercise that power, and Wilson faithfully accepted their word. Other members of Congress, such as Sens. Gordon Humphrey, Daniel P. Moynihan and Gary Hart, tried and tried to convince the CIA to take control of distribution.

So, why was so much support funneled to this scumbag, Gulbaddin Hekmatyar? This question leads to the anti-Afghan propaganda part of the movie.

In the same scene in the movie as the misinformation about Massoud is a propagandistic joke deeply offensive to Afghans. This joke (coupled with the Massoud "inaccuracy") is the reason that the Afghan Embassy is boycotting Charlie Wilson's War.

The joke is: "When a Tajik man wants to make love to a woman, his first choice is a Pashtun man."

Why is this propagandistic? Because it supports the idea that Afghans are just too tribal to get along. They've always fought each other. As Wilson once said to me, "You put two Afghans in a room, you end up with seven factions." The trouble with this idea is that Afghanistan has been a cohesive nation for several hundred years.

So who wants the world to believe that Afghans can't get along? Pakistan. The reason for this is the Durrand Line. The Durrand Line is the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and it is not very stable. There are Pashtun tribal regions on both sides of the border, and at some point since the establishment of Pakistan (about 60 years ago), it was suggested that the Pashtuns on both sides of the border should unite to create Pashtunistan. This idea makes the government of Pakistan very nervous. In response, they threw their support to Gulbaddin Hekmatyar in the 1980s, because he agreed not to dispute the border, but also because he was deeply feared and disliked by Afghans, and would thus continue to be reliant on Pakistan as his source of power. Pakistan then convinced the CIA, to the cumulative tune of about $1.5 billion, that Gulbaddin was the guy best suited to whoop-ass against the Soviet Union. Later, during the mid 1990s, when he failed to control Afghanistan on their behalf, Pakistan nurtured the Taliban into power.

So why were these two offenses included in this movie?

1. The Massoud "inaccuracy" was included because Tom Hanks "just can't deal with this 9/11 thing"; and because Wilson and Joanne Herring (played by Julia Roberts in the movie) threatened legal action after reading an earlier, more honest, draft of the screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. Herring was Pakistan's honorary consul to the United States in the 1980s, and as such, enlisted Wilson into supporting the cause of the Afghans. Neither Wilson nor Herring wants history to remember them for their contribution to the events that culminated in 9/11.

2. The really bad joke was included because, when Wilson retired from the House of Representatives, he was so copasetic to Pakistani views that he went to work for Pakistan as their lobbyist -- at the rate of $360,000 per year. Not bad for an old skirt-chasin' boozer.

...I almost always thoroughly disagree with her reviews. She's got a maudlin, 'merican-lovin', streak. I'm picturing her tearing up while watching The Lion King.

But her reviews are instructive. I will not be taking in the intellectually and morally dubious Charlie Wilson's War, and I am waiting with baited breath to see this Sondheim adaptation. Knowing that one's tastes are diametrically opposed to a reviewer can be very useful. Plus, as I said, Zacherek can really write, which is always a pleasure.

Musical movies that I love (in no particular order):

Robert Altman's Popeye

Buffy the Musical

Cannibal the Musical

Pirates of Penzance with Kevin Kline as pirate king

The Nightmare before Christmas

Jesus Christ Superstar

Topsy-Turvey (kinda qualifies)

Annie

Mary Poppins

Magnolias

And there's nothing wrong with that.

I almost always disagree vehemently with Zacharek's reviews, but I still read them, because they are well written, and, as another reviewer noted, detailed enough that I can often get a sense of whether I will like the film. I'll see this film in a heartbeat, but then, I've planned to see it since I first read about it. Same for Sweeney Todd, which I went to see, partly because of Zacharek's negative review. It was the best film I've seen in ages, (and proof-positive that Johnny Depp is not overrated!).

I may not think much of her taste in films, but I will still tune in to read Zacharek's reviews, because they are enjoyable reads all on their own, and isn't that the real reason to read reviews - entertainment, that is?

Interesting choices - I've only seen a small handful, but they were very good, so I shall try to get my hands on the others. Happy new year!

I found it excruciatingly trite and boring. It was every dead child haunted house cliche you can think of except not played for scares but rather to maudlin effect. So. dull.

If this sort of think is your bag, rent The Changeling with George C. Scott. Scott's grief-stricken father, a composer is completely believable, and the film is just way, way scarier. Several scenes in this film actually seemed to be grafted from The Changeling with slight adjustments.