In 1836 General Santa Anna and the Mexican army is sweeping across Texas. To be able to stop him, General Sam Houston needs time to get his main force into shape. To buy that time he orders... See full summary »
Set during the grand, sweeping Napoleonic age, an officer in the French army insults another officer and sets off a life-long enmity. The two officers, D'Hubert and Feraud, cross swords ... See full summary »
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. All is being financed by an American multimillionaire who has his own interest in this country. Written by
Alex Cox says on the commentary of the Criterion Collection DVD that, out all the movies he's done and despite the fact that this film had hurt his career as a Hollywood director, he believes that 'Walker' is his best work. See more »
This film is littered with anachronisms (for example: modern cars, color printed magazines and coca cola bottles). However, these are clearly an artistic choice by the film-maker and cannot be considered true 'goofs'. See more »
Alex Cox effectively destroyed his career with this interesting film
"Walker" is an unique film, but its easy to see why it flopped commercially and critically when originally released. The film tells the tale of a 19th century mercenary soldier who invades Nicaragua to install democracy and winds up making a tyrannical government. The central character, Walker, is a completely insane man, which makes Alex Cox's over-the-top style of storytelling rather effective. The film, along with the equally berserk but not nearly as interesting "Straight to Hell", completely destroyed Cox's career after the promise of his first two films "Repo Man" and "Sid and Nancy". Its easy to see why. Not because this film is bad or anything, but its sledgehammer style really nails the point home and was probably uncomfortable for audience members.
That isn't to say its a masterpiece. Cox is a bit too sledgehammer in his style, meaning he often sacrifices character development or a compelling storyline in order to get the point across. Plus, the satire is often a bit too over-the-top and comes across as juvenile (espescially for the first twenty minutes or so). Still, Cox is clearly a passionate man and one has to admire him for making such an uncompromising picture. Its still unique and entertaining in how surreal it often is. (7/10)
5 of 6 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?