Walker

Walker was both a box office and critical failure upon its initial release, and even though it's not hard to see why (viewers expecting a historic drama played straight, by Cox of all directors, will be sorely disappointed), it certainly deserves to be rediscovered by a whole new audience. OK maybe Cox tries to be "cult" a little too hard for his own good, but that aside he pulls it off surprisingly well. Ed Harris is OK in the leading role but I would have LOVED to see Gary Oldman portray the semi-insane William Walker. If any role called for scenery consumption, it's this one. Watch it for the great Peckinpah-esquire shooting in slow motion, the amusing anachronisms (choppers, computers, Newsweek magazines, Coca-Cola bottles, Marlboros), the general air of absurdity and psychotronic charm, the comedic touches, the political commentary and the great cinematography. Walker is good exactly because it refuses to take itself overly serious.

I'm totally baffled by the way Alex Cox's 'Walker' has been ignored, vilified, criticised, ridiculed and slandered over the years. Maybe it's political message cuts too close to the bone, or maybe the mainstream movie critics are even more conservative and short sighted than you think. Maltin gives it a BOMB rating, and even the usually perceptive Ebert totally dismisses it. Forget them! Watch 'Walker' and make your own mind up.

'Walker' is certainly no masterpiece, it has many flaws and problems. It isn't subtle political satire (polemic?), it's often crude and ill advised. Some of the actors, especially Marlee Matlin and Gerrit Graham are under-used. However, it is FAR from a "bomb"! Cox is a passionate man, and any failings here are due to that passion. The movie is a cry for help for Nicaragua and its people, and draws parallels between America's involvement in the 19th century and the 1980s.

This movie is clever, stupid, rough, accomplished, funny and tragic all at the same time. Ed Harris is marvellous in the title role, and many cult actors turn up in supporting roles. Cox is a Peckinpah devotee and some of that great director's influence can be seen on screen. But Cox is no carbon copy he's a true original. 'Repo Man' shows that, and anyone who enjoyed that or 'Sid And Nancy' should take a look at this, one of the most unjustly ignored movies of the 80s.

In the 1850's an American soldier-of-fortune known as William Walker marches his army into Nicaragua to take control of the country for a wealthy and powerful capitalist, Cornelius Vanderbilt. Through time, Walker sets himself up as the ruler of the worn-torn country, but the power gets to his head when he bites off more than he can chew to keep it that way and hold onto those principles he believes in.

Cult director Alex Cox churns out one very peculiar, social minded and disjointed experience from his effort on "Walker (1987)". While, the film does contain bad aspects and goes about things rather forcefully. There's still entertainment within this spirited feature and Ed Harris kept me captivated with a truly intense and radiant performance as the black dressed William Walker. After a somewhat serious opening on the factual story, it eventually succumbs to surreal imagery and anachronistic details to get its loud and intrusive message across. Like many have mentioned in their comments it does have real visionary punch to it that resembles Sam Peckinpah's work. Just look at the brutal action and glamorous slow-mo interwoven into many scenes. Alex Cox's direction is quite staged and can get heavy-handed, but the many stylistic touches and eccentric moods do rub off. I loved the way he decided to shoot the flick. Rudy Wurlitzer's over-dramatic, but stirring screenplay is laced with pot shots and parallels on the political interference of the USA from 1850's to the most recent. There seems to be too much going on in the script and it felt like it was pushed along too quickly, which meant the diverse narration became choppy with some unclear details. It was actually hard during certain moments to take it seriously because of some odd and absurd comedic developments.

Joe Strummer provides the ever-changing carefree mixture in the music score with perfect results in capturing the tenor. The strong supporting cast with the likes of Richard Masur, Xander Berkeley, Rene Auberjonois, Sy Richardson, Marlee Matlin and so on… work very well and fed of Harris' egotistical character marvellously. The way Walkers' progressive power got to his head personally and finally backfires on him (and his followers) with many disillusions having a lasting affect on his judgement is portrayed beautifully and concisely.

It probably thinks it's more grandeur than it actually is, but this is one fascinating foray nonetheless.

This movie is better than I had rated it when I saw it upon it's release . I read the comments prior to viewing it again to get a handle on it and having viewed this movie before I was surprised at the amount of comments calling it a masterpiece. I was not impressed the first go round. I liked the film more upon second viewing. Ed Harris is riveting and despite a somewhat fractured screenplay and accompanying dialogue he hits scarcely a bad note. The same cannot be said of some of the supporting cast. However, the job the supporting actors did in establishing personalities for their characters was astounding, a real rogues gallery, probably very similar to the scoundrels who were in Nicaragua in 1855. It is easy to see that Cox was influenced by Apocalypse Now just as it is easy to see the influence of this movie upon the film Richard III. This movie is a satire about hypocrisy and capitalism and Cox does a pretty good job of it.

Visionary movie-making. I will not write any spoiler, so I can't describe the brilliant way Cox expresses his story with some mind-bending visual and verbal devices. Some might dismiss it as trickery, but I think of it as magical realism.

William Walker was a real person and his "liberation" of Nicaragua did take place, roughly as shown in this movie. Cox and Wurlitzer took some major liberties with historic details- perhaps for narrative pace, budget reasons, or whatever. I read quite a lot about Walker and Nicaragua after seeing this movie and there's no distortion for ideological reasons.

If you value originality, subtlety, honesty and an occasional slap in the face, see this movie. I envy first-time viewers.