MovieChat Forums > Walker (1987) Discussion > Leonard Maltin and Roger Ebert

Leonard Maltin and Roger Ebert


Leonard Maltin gave this propaganda film a BOMB rating in his book.

"Juvenile, intentionally anachronistic comic history of William Walker. [....] A self-indulgent mess."

Roger Ebert gave the film ZERO stars in his original review.

"That leaves Harris virtually alone to negotiate a pointless and increasingly obnoxious exercise in satire by Alex Cox, the director, who doesn't seem to have a clue about what he wants to do or even what he has done. Although the ads for "Walker" don't even hint it, this movie is apparently intended as a comedy or a satire. I write "apparently" because, if it is a comedy, it has no laughs, and if a satire, no target.

As Harris stalks through the bloody streets of towns torn by revolution, bullets whiz past his ears without hitting him, and supporting characters read Time, Newsweek and People, and puff on Marlboros. Why? To show that it's all a joke, perhaps, or that today's headlines are the same as yesterday's, or that the press has always had it all wrong about Nicaragua, or that Alex Cox is a clever lad."


This film had the potential to be a fascinating story. Unfortunately, it exists for one reason and one reason only - for Cox to bash American foreign policy.

reply

If you're interested in the actual story of William Walker and don't care for this film, you might check out Burn!, which stars Marlon Brando in the role of William Walker and is directed by Gillo Pontecorvo and more an attempt at depicting things with an eye for historical accuracy. Sorry you apparently didn't enjoy Walker, which I thought was a lot of fun.

reply

For what it's worth, and it probably ain't worth much given that this is basically a dead thread, I don't think Cox is bashing American foreign policy but imperialistic foreign policy. The fact that it is American foreign policy is incidental.

If you're a fan of the type of foreign policy that the USA has been rocking for quite some time, i.e., we are the world's police/arbiters of [insert dogma here], then this is not the movie for you.

If you're not a fan of the above, well, this still might not be the movie for you.

This is a confrontational movie, a punk-rock movie, and Alex Cox is a punk-rock filmmaker for better or worse.

For myself, I'd have to be blind not to see that American foreign policy going way, way back has been less than great for many countries and societies throughout American history. The USA has done some great things in the world, but forcing "democracy" on sovereign nations has not worked out so well and is usually done for the benefit of self-serving greed-monsters above and beyond the benefit of those we "liberate" from tyranny.

Forever, this is just one man's opinion, so take it or leave it.

reply

I watched it for the first time last night, and really enjoyed it. Entertaining, funny, and totally over the top (the acting and the violence). Plus, like Repo Man and Sid & Nancy, it's great to look at.

I'm looking forward to listening to Cox's commentary. I already watched a special feature in which he quotes reviews (mostly bad) while in a cabin in the woods.

I love this guy. Next on my list is Straight to Hell, which I also avoided because of bad reviews. I should never listen to critics.

reply