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.

TheExpatriate700 Made during the mid-1980s struggles in Latin America, Walker is a scathing satire of American attempts to impose "democracy" on third world countries, while serving their own purposes in the process. Although it was made to critique Reagan era policy toward Nicaragua, it is all too relevant to our current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.The film focuses on the real life exploits of William Walker, an American in the nineteenth century who led an army of filibusters to conquer Nicaragua on behalf of American financial interests. Driven by a vision of Manifest Destiny, Walker ultimately established himself as a dictator in Nicaragua. This historical background makes for an interesting commentary on later American imperial adventures, suggesting that history repeats all too readily.The film boasts an incredibly good cast for such an obscure piece. Aside from Ed Harris in the title role, we have Peter Boyle, Xander Berkeley, and, in a hilarious turn as a foul mouthed mute woman, Marlee Matlin. The film's one weakness is that its satire is overly broad, with the introduction of obvious anachronisms to make concrete the parallels with contemporary events. Although these made the film's commentary more explicit, they come across as over bearing, and weaken the film's overall impact. Nevertheless, this is a provocative film that is far more interesting than director Alex Cox's more well known Sid and Nancy.

ccthemovieman-1 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."

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.