Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

shusei 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.

chaos-rampant 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.

tbng The stellar cast drew me to watch this film. What a waste of my valuable time and an insult to my intelligence. Laughably labeled "a true story" at the opening, it barely skims the truth of William Walker, the 19th century's best-known filibuster. Then, midway through the movie, it stuns its audience by introducing a string of anachronisms that scream, Hey, world! This ain't real! I'm really making a contemporary (for the mid-80s) political statement! Gotchya! The sound is mono and dialogue frequently unintelligible. It matters little. The movie is stilted and chaotic, caricaturizing rather than characterizing, and presents impossible situations as factual – at least until it goes off the deep end and you realize it doesn't matter. This is a bad and dishonest film in spite of the excellent cast. If you like loony politics, Oliver Stone does it better and at least comes a bit closer to historical accuracy. If you truly liked Walker, get yourself into rehab.

Laurel Jenkins-Crowe Good? No. Accurate? Nah. Entertaining? Oh, yeah.I've misplaced my copy of Travels in Hyperreality, but I seem to remember that Umberto Eco described cult movies as those which, rather than presenting a seamless whole, can be dismantled; a viewer selects his or her own aspect or fragment to treasure and thus becomes a fan.Walker, in this sense, is the perfect cult movie. If you don't like the fractured story (and I mean that in a good way), you'll love the humor, or find a line of dialog to treasure, or dig the Joe Strummer soundtrack (or the casting, or the visual anachronisms that pop up too occasionally and too late to be anything but bizarre, or the twisted FUBARing of history, or the Peckinpah-esquire violence, or the amazing cinematography, or...).What this movie fails to do is bore. I've only seen it once, and I'm pretty sure a single viewing fails to plumb its depths. I mean that in a good way too.