Walker (1987)

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/

Yikes, here we go with yet another blatant anti-man of God message. It was no surprise that actor Ed Harris was instrumental in the bias.This movie was supposedly one of these true-life stories, this one of an American named William Walker who was assigned by Cornelius Vanderbilt to go down to Nicaragua and run it. Apparently he does and proclaims himself President! Along the way, he is portrayed as a "man of God" who quotes Scripture and - of course - is shown to be some nutcase.That, and excessive B-movie-type violence and profanity, turned me off. The movie has a sleazy '70s feel to it. and, of course, the normal political bias. Just read the tagline on the front page here; "......before Oliver North."

This was one of the worst pieces of crap among thousands of others churned out by Hollywood over a century of film-making. If I recall correctly, when it was first released, Rex Reed or some other critic of stature (maybe Siskel or Ebert) called it "History gone haywire in the hands of hacks," to which I said "Amen!" It was also rated one of the 10 worst movies of 1987 and justifiably so.Like most Hollywood biopics, this one took considerable liberties with the facts, but Cox went even farther in his missteps by allowing himself to be used as a partisan dupe for the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Instead of a well-thought-out, balanced portrait of Walker and the turbulent times in which he lived, Cox & company, including scriptwriter Rudy Wurlitzer, fall into the trap of measuring Walker by contemporary standards. This is a common error that Hollywood has been making since the dawn of film-making, but WALKER takes it to a new low by attempting to weave 1850s adventurism into the complex fabric of 1980s inter-American, Cold War politics. Despite some vague similarities, the comparison of the two eras simply doesn't work. In the context of the jingoistic, expansionist, "Manifest Destiny," pre-Civil War 1850s,William Walker was very much in step with the times in which he lived. It's apples and oranges to attempt to judge him and his motives by late 20th century standards.And what was the point of implanting 20th century devices (cigarette lighters, army tanks and helicopters) into action that took place in the 1850s? Cox and his collaborators may have thought this cutesy and avant-Gard but it struck thoughtful people as amateurish and childish.I read nearly every book, newspaper and magazine article and scrap of information available on William Walker (including Walker's own book THE WAR IN NICARAGUA)in preparation for what I hoped would be a balanced, objective mini-series on this complex but relatively obscure historical figure. I spent hundreds of hours on research and the actual writing, completely unaware that a film was being made on Walker at the same time I was doing this. Cox's banal and ham-handed effort on his film, which came out shortly after I'd completed my 600-page script, has forever turned the film community against anything being done visually on William Walker again.This is not "sour grapes" on my part, in case anyone is wondering. I've seen other films made on subjects I'd written about or thought about writing about that were very well done. Had this been the case here, I would gladly have said so. Instead I say, twenty years later, "Thank you very much, gentlemen, for poisoning the well!"Dean M. ShapiroNew Orleans, LA

Alex Cox has created a visionary work. This film is a masterpiece. It's a one and a half hour joke with an incredible punchline that indelibly changed how I view the world. Ed Harris is a dead ringer for the "grey eyed man of destiny". I couldn't see anyone else in this role. He's a perfect fit. This is an incredibly original work of historical fiction that tells a truly timeless story (pardon the pun) in a way that one could never forget.By all means, find this movie!