Readers of my previous review of Charlie Wilson’s War will not be surprised to hear me reiterate that I reckon any film featuring Philip Seymour Hoffman is worth seeing at the moment. On balance, I think The Savages is a better film than the aforementioned, and not least for the fact that Hoffman has a slightly larger canvas on which to paint his character, as one of the leads. The subject matter for this movie is also somewhat more serious, and focuses on a question that most of us have to come to terms with at some stage in our lives. What happens when our parents – the people who have invested time and money in caring for and nurturing us during our formative years – can no longer look after themselves? Should we feel guilty if, for whatever reason, we don’t feel up to the challenge of returning the favour in their old age? Is paying someone else to take care of the problem for us an ethical (or at least, morally tolerable) out?

The film begins when it becomes apparent that the estranged father (Lenny Savage, played by Philip Bosco) of Hoffman (Jon Savage, a philosopher and author) and Laura Linney (Wendy Savage, a troubled, wannabe scriptwriter) has become mentally disturbed and can no longer be cared for properly at home. When Lenny’s live-in partner passes away, and he is evicted from her property by her family, Hoffman and Linney’s characters are suddenly confronted with a moral dilemma. Jon takes a fairly clinical approach and does not canvass any other option besides installing their father in a nursing home. Wendy is more sceptical, and evidently feels a higher degree of obligation to ensure that her father is looked after, even if he didn’t do a particularly good job of looking after them as kids.

The ensuing saga of accepting the inevitable and locating a nursing home takes place against a backdrop of depression and social issues in both Jon and Wendy’s lives. Hoffman’s Jon is almost the stereotypical college lecturer – scruffy, kind, but somewhat maladjusted to the practicalities of life “outside”. His young Polish girlfriend is moving back home after they found that they were unable to commit themselves to getting married. Linney’s Wendy is suffering from a mid-life crisis, sleeping with a somewhat slimy married neighbour, doing temporary office work, and submitting theatre treatments to grant committees in her spare time. All in all, the scene is set for enough drama to really allow the talents of both Hoffman and Linney to shine; and that they certainly do. Linney has been nominated for an Oscar for best actress for her performance, and Hoffman was probably unlucky.

This film is hardly what you would describe as a “Hollywood blockbuster” – but it just the sort of emotionally cerebral film that it would be nice to see a lot more of in cinemas. I don’t really have any reservation in recommending that you go and see The Savages. It will remind you that films don’t have to have explosions, fast cars or violence in them to be quite spectacular indeed on the big screen.

Over the course of late 2006 and early 2007 I discovered The West Wing in a big way, and promptly watched my way through all seven seasons of the groundbreaking political drama series. Aaron Sorkin is therefore a name in television production, in my book, that deserves considerable respect. As a result, the prospect of seeing Charlie Wilson’s War (Sorkin wrote the screenplay) for the princely sum of £3.50 at the Coronet cinema in Notting Hill yesterday evening was something I didn’t have to think about too much.

The film is based on real events, although obviously with a bit of literary license at work. Tom Hanks plays Charlie Wilson, the Texas congressman who played a major role in committing the United States government to a covert war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Julia Roberts is Joanne Herring, a wealthy and religious Wilson donor who has her own evangelical reasons for pushing Wilson towards doing something about Afghanistan. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays the somewhat challengingly named Gust Avrokotos, a CIA agent assigned to the Afghanistan desk who becomes increasingly intertwined with the story as Wilson begins pushing to double (and double again, and again) funding for the US backed weapons provision to the mujahideen.The movie has been billed as satirical, although to be honest, the satire button is not as firmly pressed as I would have liked. The film is more of a political drama that occasionally threatens to become satirical, but never quite makes the leap. The actors are all solid, although that said, it is not at all surprising that Hoffman was the only actor of the “big three” in this movie who has been nominated for an Oscar – his performance in this film is superb. He is the best “big name” actor in Hollywood by a country mile at the present time. It is good to see Hanks in a role somewhat removed from his usual “average joe” good guy characters, but having said that, he probably plays it all a bit too nice and convivial. As for Roberts – she unfortunately is fairly unconvincing in her role. I am not sure whether her own completely opposite political sympathies contributed to it, but I just don’t buy her as a wealthy Republican religious nut from Texas.

With his screenplay, Sorkin has obviously been very tempted to make a hard political point about the repercussions of Wilson’s actions in Afghanistan, but has steered away from that path. The criticism of the path the US government took ( e.g. training and giving weapons to the mujahideen) is fairly muted, and the movie itself probably is more celebratory of Wilson’s role in the episode than critical. Having said that, if you are interested in politics, liked the West Wing, or are an admirer of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s work, you have a reason to go see this film. Intelligent political drama does not come cheap or frequently these days, and this one is certainly bright, even if I am not sure it really makes the firm points it could have about what happened in Afghanistan.

One wonders where in the Australian film industry we can unearth an Australian Aaron Sorkin. Or are Australians to jaded with their political scene to produce such a figure?