Walker

English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

123movies search icon

muted

Walker - 123Movies

Walker

6.6

/10

4718 rating

1987•1 h 34 m•Mexico

An unconventional retelling of the life of William Walker, a 19th century American mercenary leader who became the president of Nicaragua.

Biography

Drama

History

Rekomendasi

Ulasan

oluwaseunayo❤️

29/05/2023 12:54

source: Walker

DAVE ON THE TRACK

23/05/2023 05:39

This is the story of William Walker's take over of Nicaragua in the late 19th century been done in a very very deliberate style which forcibly draws comparisons between Walker's actions and the madness of the Reagan administrations similar adventures. We see modern cars, Time Magazine and references to modern people and events. The style is very arch and very knowing that walks the fine line between intentionally funny (good) and unintentionally funny (bad), falling over the line repeatedly often with in the space of the same minute. Its also a film that is truly unique in film history. Looking at this film for the first time in fifteen or so years I'm struck by how silly it is. I'm not sure if director Alex Cox succeeded in making any sort of real film, rather I think he's made a very political minstrel show that tries a little bit too much to be rib tickling and relevant and instead comes across loud and annoying. You've never seen anything like this before or since. Don't get me wrong, I like the film in that odd road accident sort of way many films that almost work sometime have (Little Nicky anyone?). This film is a road accident, but you have to watch not sure if its good or if its bad. Clearly had the film been played straight it would have been an okay film that quickly dated, became forgotten and was never heard from again. But Cox, by allowing the intrusion of 1987 America, and several odd touches has fashioned a film to ponder and be amazed about. What was he thinking when he allowed Ed Harris to give one of the most bizarre and wrongheaded performances ever committed to celluloid? Even over actors like the great Tod Slaughter knew you had have some sort of restraint, Harris shows none and in scenes like the one where he arrives home to find his wife dead, he emotes with a passion that I can only describe as deranged. You will not believe your eyes. Still the film does make some valid points about the nature of American foreign policy, and it does have some truly wild moments that are enjoyable simply because you can't believe anyone would really think to put them on a screen for other people to see (okay, not some moments, the whole film) Recommended for those who want their films as wild and off the beaten track as they come. Bad film lovers are also a target group.

Brenda Loice

23/05/2023 05:39

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.

raiapsara31

23/05/2023 05:39

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 *." Frankly, "Walker" is neither since it doesn't offer the pleasures of both and is completely out of control. 5/10

King Bobollas

23/05/2023 05:39

Alex Cox and Rudy Wurlitzer have one of the more perplexing and rather cool works of late 80s subversive film-making with Walker, a film about a real man and his mad overthrow of the government of Nicaragua in the mid 1850s. It was a fiasco, but it almost wasn't at one point. There was a moment where the line was distinctly crossed with the execution of a certain character, and it's also at this point in the film that Cox lets things go even further off the wall from the period setting. For a while it's so not trying to be any kind of absurdist take on things that it seems like a (good) serious take on a man like Walker (Ed Harris) in a strange land that he thinks he can make well under "democratic" terms. As he soon goes against everything stood for, the film too goes into bizarro world, mixing in cars, computers, Time and Newsweek, and even a real army helicopter and soldiers (the copter, I might add, was a real chopper used in the Nicaraguan battles of 1987). In the sense of marking out ground that is all of a director's own in this form and context, it's not quite Aguirre, but for Alex Cox, a director who's had his ups and downs, it's a significant achievement. It seems like it should be all nonsense, and that the film might be taking itself too seriously. But in reality the nonsense is what the film is sort of about, not really how it comes off. Cox goes between overtly homage-like slow-motion action shots of battle and blood splattering with guns going off like Peckinpah with a heap-load to let go. What is it, anyway, to try and bring democracy to a land like Nicaragua, and under the circumstances (i.e. under Vanderbilt, played by Peter Boyle with his own crazy-big mutton chops) that should be already considered troublesome? Walker wasn't even any kind of politician before this, though as also a doctor and lawyer he tried (unsuccessfully) to bring some battle over Mexico. Is it a microcosm? Does it say where we're headed, or rather where we are now? Probably to both. It's a trip that shouldn't be taken too lightly, and it definitely isn't for everyone, but what's thrilling about Cox's vision is that he has no fear of what the audience will think anyway. Like Repo Man's mix of teen punk comedy and sci-fi action pic, Cox is mixing and experimenting forms, a Dr. Strangelove take on Manifest Destiny with a style that veers between obscure spaghetti western and featuring one of the great, groovy soundtracks of the 80s from Joe Strummer. It might not be anything that will end up on 'best-of-ever' lists, but as a work unto itself this and Withnail & I are the superb cult films of 1987, with this begging for some re-examination twenty-something years later. At the least, it's one of Ed Harris's unsung masterful and subtle performances.

Amenan Esther

23/05/2023 05:39

William Walker was one of the more interesting characters of the 19th century--though he's pretty much forgotten today. And, with films like "Burn!" and "Walker", he'll probably pretty much remain forgotten! Let me explain. I saw Marlon Brando's film "Burn!" and noticed that almost NONE of the film bore any similarity to the like of the title character, William Walker. It had a very broad similarity and it used his name--but that is all. So, wanting to learn more about the real guy, I did some research. He was a very interesting and screwy guy--an adventurer that lived to start self-serving revolutions in Central America. And, amazingly, with a tiny rag-tag army he became the leader, briefly, of Nicaragua just before the US Civil War. He also was a staunch supporter of returning slavery to these nations which had outlawed slavery in the preceding decades. And, because he was such a fascinating man, I was excited to learn about the film "Walker"--a film that purports to be a true story of the man. Unfortunately, it isn't. Although the film is much closer to the man than in "Burn!", it is completely inaccurate and portrays Walker as a man so bizarre and idiotic you question whether he had the ability to dress himself--let alone lead a successful revolution! Imagine taking a historical biopic, "Blazing Saddles" and a Fellini or Buñuel and combining them! The film is rather pointless and annoying. Through most of the film, Ed Harris seems to be almost sleepwalking through the title role. I don't necessarily blame him--that is the sort of performance the director wanted. But it just made no sense. And, as the film progressed, it made less and less and less sense. And, at times, the film inserted things SOMEONE must have thought were funny--but weren't. For example, at the one hour mark, two Nicaraguans are shown reading PEOPLE and NEWSWEEK magazines....in 1857! And, in another case, he and walks casually through a botched battle--showing no emotion whatsoever and not fighting as his men are being slaughtered around him. So what does he FINALLY do? He sits down to play the piano as men are dying all around him!! The problem is that if it was meant as satire, it didn't stray far enough or get weird enough. If it was meant as a biopic, well, it was a total failure--with too many surreal moments and little attention to historical accuracy. The resulting film is simply a stupid mess--and one I really cannot recommend even for bad movie buffs. By the way, if you care, Ed Harris really is doing sign language in the early part of the film. It's not great but he did a good job here.

Nadir

23/05/2023 05:39

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.

صلاح عزاقة

23/05/2023 05:39

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!

🦋Eddyessien🦋

23/05/2023 05:39

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.

Nomvelo Makhanya

23/05/2023 05:39

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.