People are voting emotionally.

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Blistering performances.

At first I was excited: Ed Harris in a Wm. Walker biopic! A deserving more-than-a-footnote of American history, and blessings to the producers who greenlit it!Well, I read up on it, and had a foreboding: The film would ravage its own intent, no?Started watching... mixed feelings. Starting to warm up. Would the director pull it off?: A gonzo treatment of the subject?In the end... I liked it. Glad I saw it. It makes a bold pronouncement on the filibustering mentality: A visionary presiding over a band of glory-seeking psychopaths, bankrolled by a money-glutted sociopath.And, of course, the film is a fantastic showcase for the power of a gifted actor: When the film seems about to teeter over the brink, Harris's presence casts rays of dramatic power that bind the disparate bits into something like a plausibly coherent whole.In other words, the director hoped to create art from a wild mess of scenario work by dint of sheer exuberant moxie. And I daresay he succeeds.Dug the anachronisms: They effectively invite us to connect this filibustering mentality to our times.Reality knocks my final score down a few notches. It _is_ a mess. While the wild, frenetic battle scenes evade an ordinary action/war- flick treatment, they do sometimes tend to hover in a kind of disconnected narrative void. Ca, c'est la charme, indeed. But it's still sometimes a bit much.Check it out!

This is probably one of the most underestimated art-house film on IMDb. It left me a great impression when I watched first time in the theater, at the time of its release. Then I watched it again on rental DVD about 10 years ago,and again today. My personal rating of "Walker" became higher every time I saw it.The anachronism of this film as a artistic decision is not new(such an "estrangement" device was used 20 years before,in Glauber Rocha's "Antonio das Mortes").In addition,late 1980s were the time of "postmodernism" in film art(enough to remember the works of Peter Greenaway and Alexander Sokurov). Political satire is keen and actual. Alex cox'x insight is deep. Here Willam Walker is represented not only a historical figure, rather a symbolic character embodying American-style imperialism in the name of "democracy"and "freedom" of people. The process and outcome of this imperialism are always similar; after the civil war in the name of democracy and liberation of people, comes the enslaving of the nation and people by American dollar and troops, sometimes accompanied with atrocity, hypocritical preaching of Christian ethics by invaders, and at last,poverty struck, politically unstable society. With all of them, the country will gradually be integrated into "global economy", where English is "official"language and "Newsweek" or other media telling us "facts". All characters in this film is well arranged to make clear the whole mechanism of the above mentioned American imperialism, the basic frame and process of which have been surprisingly consistent over these 150 years. The satire by Alex cox has its own analytic consistency and logic to explore the above mentioned mechanism of imperialism,.So when on the screen appear helicopter to save only American citizens from the battlefield, television images showing Ronald Reagan, contemporary American soldiers and dead bodies of Nicaraguan people, they seems not at all ridiculous, but look totally "natural"conclusion of the film's artistic system.

Truth be told, "Walker" is almost enjoyable for a long period of its running time. Too bad it doesn't live up to the expectation of viewers who wanted to see a more accurate project on the life of American mercenary William Walker and his small triumph of being President of Nicaragua during the 1800's. I know director Alex Cox ("Sid and Nancy") was drawing parallels with the Reagan administration and its politics on Central America with the invasion of Granada, supporting conflicts in El Savador, Panama and other countries but the film fails on a epic stance simply because it wasn't serious enough to be that. If it is a satire where was the object for such? If this was a mockery on America's politicians and their excessive control on everything where's the funny parts? There's plenty of ridiculous scenes and characters that one doesn't walk out of this amused or fascinated but completely unmoved.For one moment this was quite intelligent in giving us an artistic involvement from the part of Mr. Cox and his comparison of both 1855 and let's say 1987 presenting a Nicaragua where you can read Time and Newsweek magazines, see automobiles and helicopters in the 1800's. When Walker (played by a quite decent Ed Harris) makes his final speech on why Nicaragua needs the U.S. intervention and that this will never end we're not seeing Walker no more, we're seeing Reagan years ahead and even wondering of another possible intervention in maybe 50 years from now. Cox's invention works a little but such innovative artistic license works better in "Caravaggio" and "Marie Antoinette". So, who is Walker anyway? From this movie we get that he's a soldier of fortune (oddly enough, Harris played another one on the same decade as this, in "Under Fire" also about American intervention on a Central America nation) with plenty yet quite unclear self interests in there who takes over the nation bringing a mindless and ruthless dictatorship that goes to punish and oppress, even condemning their own comrade in arms, and bringing slavery to the country. Definitely, not a likable character, the tyrannic Walker goes to insane action from another. A more natural and realistic approach would benefit the movie since Harris really prepared for the role. It's a good performance but unworthy of such film.The director wants to shock us in the closing credits with controversial archive footage of what the Reagan administration made in Central America but almost pointless if all the way through the movie we didn't felt the same reaction when Walker was blowing cities for his pleasure, people were being killed again and again. Those scenes are brilliantly filmed, followed by the nice music of Joe Strummer, but most of the time the actors are only making ridiculous faces instead of feeling pain from the bullets, and there's countless moments when we know the director is trying to make us laugh with some situations. But they never come. I felt sorry for Rene Auberjonois and his loud and wounded performance. Such a great character actor reduced to painful moments through this mess. Worst than all of this is that this is a terrible noisy picture, really hard to hear with so many noises in the background.Having this film being something historical it could have been a great film. Instead is heavily problematic, flawed, erroneous in so many ways that it killed Alex Cox career in Hollywood, with his future projects almost invisible to audiences. I don't see any difficulties in people liking "Walker", it's an easy thing to watch but I do think people are missing the difference between art and wanna be art. As Woody Allen said one time: "There's only two things that can be controlled: art and masturbation." Frankly, "Walker" is neither since it doesn't offer the pleasures of both and is completely out of control. 5/10

This movie is one of those rare films I can't help but admire for its temerity. Hiding its eccentricities under the guise of a biographical epic, this film breaks all conventions, storytelling and otherwise to create a jarring yet memorable experience.The film concerns itself with American 18th century soldier of fortune William Walker (Ed Helms) who from 1855 to 1857 was de facto ruler of Nicaragua. After the unexpected death of his wife (Marlee Matlin), Walker leaves for Nicaragua with the support of Cornelius Vanderbilt (Peter Boyle) who hopes to capitalize on the country's position between the Atlantic and Pacific. He is also aided by a group of mercenaries some of which worked with him in an unsuccessful campaign in Mexico. They would become known as Walker's Immortals."Walker" is like "Aguirre" mixed with "Wild Bunch" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." The film starts out in a hail of gunfire and blood before setting up breezy yet much needed exposition. From then on its a no holds barred acid trip with a modern satirical twist. While Arthur Miller's The Crucible was a veiled criticism of McCarthyism, Walker is a downright admonishment of U.S. involvement in Nicaragua during the 80's complete with cars, modern rifles and Time magazine. I could imagine the producers watching the final cut of "Walker" huddled into the screening room thinking "we're so screwed!" Director Alex Cox slowly unveils his demented scheme with such relish that its hard not to enjoy his F-U to the Hollywood studio system. In satirizing modern politics he also satirizes conventions of biographical film-making. Despite long hours of research most "true story" films are speculative anyway so why not show a helicopter in the 1850's? "Walker" is an ugly film about an ugly man told with energy and gumption. Ed Harris does a great job chewing the scenery creating a glory seeking reptilian monster who at one point seems not to know the means to his ends. Alex Cox has never since had a widely distributed film released in the United States which is a shame but on the bright side he follows an age old tradition. Welles had "Citizen Kane," Coppola had "Apocalypse Now" and Cox has "Walker."http://theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com/