Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

MartinHafer 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.

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."

keith80486 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!

Infofreak I'm totally baffled by the way Alex Cox's 'Walker' has been ignored, vilified, criticised, ridiculed and slandered over the years. Maybe it's political message cuts too close to the bone, or maybe the mainstream movie critics are even more conservative and short sighted than you think. Maltin gives it a BOMB rating, and even the usually perceptive Ebert totally dismisses it. Forget them! Watch 'Walker' and make your own mind up. 'Walker' is certainly no masterpiece, it has many flaws and problems. It isn't subtle political satire (polemic?), it's often crude and ill advised. Some of the actors, especially Marlee Matlin and Gerrit Graham are under-used. However, it is FAR from a "bomb"! Cox is a passionate man, and any failings here are due to that passion. The movie is a cry for help for Nicaragua and its people, and draws parallels between America's involvement in the 19th century and the 1980s. This movie is clever, stupid, rough, accomplished, funny and tragic all at the same time. Ed Harris is marvellous in the title role, and many cult actors turn up in supporting roles. Cox is a Peckinpah devotee and some of that great director's influence can be seen on screen. But Cox is no carbon copy he's a true original. 'Repo Man' shows that, and anyone who enjoyed that or 'Sid And Nancy' should take a look at this, one of the most unjustly ignored movies of the 80s.