UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Walker

Walker (1987)

December. 04,1987
|
6.6
|
R
| Drama History Western

William Walker and his mercenary corps enter Nicaragua in the middle of the 19th century in order to install a new government by a coup d'etat.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

ThiefHott
1987/12/04

Too much of everything

More
Unlimitedia
1987/12/05

Sick Product of a Sick System

More
Konterr
1987/12/06

Brilliant and touching

More
Sexyloutak
1987/12/07

Absolutely the worst movie.

More
Cosmography
1987/12/08

On the surface, Alex Cox's Walker is nothing more than a modern adaptation of American filibuster William Walker's incursion into Nicaragua in mid 19th century.Walker bombed at the box office because people were expecting a biopic, something like Sid and Nancy, Cox's previous film. The film is not a biopic, as a matter of fact, it was was never meant to be taken seriously. Not even the characters in the film take themselves seriously. How do you judge the acting if it is intentionally bad? Yes, Ed Harris' acting is laughable and over the top, but there is a reason for it. The film would not have worked without it.The beauty of the film lies in that Cox intends to expose history as narrative and uses anachronisms (such as Coca-Cola bottles in the 1850s) and auto-referentiality (for example Walker is pictured on the cover of Newsweek Magazine) in order to remind us that what we are watching is fiction, but at the same time, this fiction is the unbelievable reality of the Nicaraguan people.The film is a great example of Post-Modernism in film. At the end of Walker, we see a helicopter fly into the Nicaraguan city of Granada. This anachronism breaches the barriers of past and present, and invites us to reevaluate the presence of the United States in Latin America. In order to send Walker's message effectively, Cox required both the use of Magical Realism (or the fantastical elements) and Post-Modern hyper-reality. As a whole, their unity is what modern art is all about: the pursuit of the hybrid as a source of beauty, and the understanding that this condition of hybridism in film is nothing more than a reflection of reality.The only drawback is that this movie is trying to be too many things at once: a two hour long critique of the Iran-Contra affair, a historical drama, a comedy, a satire, the list goes on. At times, the movie does get very messy and seems to drag on, pick up suddenly, and move forward without any real direction. At least the score (done by the ever so great Joe Strummer) successfully establishes unity throughout the film.Bottomline, Walker's strength lies in the message that it is trying to send. This movie is a must see for anyone interested in Postmodernism, Magical Realism, Latin American history and Cultural studies.

More
groovy_dead
1987/12/09

This is one of the greatest films i have ever seen. The only issue I have with it is that it is out of print. I'd do almost anything to find a copy. While not the most accurate account of LITERAL history, it still provides decent reference as long as it is taken in its intended symbolic context. It is a truly profound portrayal, a historical as well as a relevant political statement filled with striking imagery and an outstanding score. Possibly too abstract for some, but in all actuality a most outstanding movie. If anyone knows where i might be able to find a copy of this I would be most obliged. I recommend it to anyone interested in...well I recommend it to anyone really.

More
tbng
1987/12/10

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.

More
ksenn_14
1987/12/11

It's not very often you get to watch a truly awful historical movie that is at the same time monumentally entertaining as a guilty pleasure...but here it is! I challenge any soul on this earth to even so much as make it through the first scene between Ed Harris and Peter Boyle where when Walker (Harris) asks Cornelius Vanderbilt (Boyle) if he's entitled to wear a naval uniform Boyle cranks, "..I'm entitled to do anything I want!!!" and then rips a sound-edited and enhanced fart so loud and obnoxious it wouldn't have made it into an "Airplane" movie. You'll rewind it ten times at least just to hear it!!! The rest of the movie is equally disastrous, but I'll write no more spoilers. Truly a gem. Ed Harris needn't carry himself so conceitedly in Hollywood given this skeleton in his closet.

More