Windtalkers

Just a brief review. I expected more of this film, and I fault Woo's direction for not giving us more. There is such a story to tell about the Windtalkers, and he hardly told anything. The action was convincing enough but I wondered about some of the characterizations. Actually this was just an ordinary action film under the guise of telling the story of the Windtalkers. I guess I was just expecting more of a story, and a little less of the noisy action.

When watching the trailer of Windtalkers, one gets the impression that this film is about the Navajo indians and how their native language was used to create a code that could not be broken by the Japanese. However, it turns out that this film is really about a white army seargeant (Nicolas Cage) and how he eventually befriends the codetalker (Adam Beach) that he is responsible for protecting.

Director John Woo doesn't disappoint with the action sequences. All of them are breathtaking and highly detailed. However, all of this action tends to take away the emphasis on the story. No matter, the scenes that show the developing friendship between the two seargeants (Cage and Christian Slater) and the codetalkers (Beach and Roger Willie) gives Windtalkers its heart. (7/10)

I just watched the director's cut on DVD after having seen the theatrical cut some time ago.

Plot summary: In WWII, a code based on the Navajo language was used to securely communicate between US troops in the Asian Pacific, without the Japanese eavesdropping. We follow two Navajo code talkers and their US Marine "bodyguards" as they go into combat on a Japanese island.

A lot has been written about this somewhat flawed John Woo movie. After having seen both versions, my main disappointment is still that the two code talkers seem like background characters. A movie with a lower budget, without big Hollywood stars put in the foreground would probably have been more satisfying. Maybe that movie should have been done by another director too, I don't know.

Enough good "general" war movies have been made. The code talker part of the story should have been made much more pivotal as was done here.

I'm a fan of Woo's Hong Kong and Hollywood work. The director's cut of Windtalkers doesn't turn a mediocre Woo film into a masterpiece, but it is certainly an improvement.

Main advantages of the DC are more fleshed out characters. You get more background on all main characters, including the two Navajo code talkers. I felt more involved. As a result, the code talker part of the story is served better, but still not enough to my taste. The DC also has more uncut battlefield scenes. Woo really shows his talent here, with raw yet beautifully shot war action. You get the sense that you are in the middle of the action.

I was particularly interested if a scene was put back in where a US soldier takes a golden tooth from a Japanese corpse. This scene was described in several documentaries about censorship by the US Army. Not completely surprisingly, this scene was also absent from the DC.

If you are a Woo fan or already appreciated the theatrical cut, it may be worth checking out the director's cut.

My ratings: 6/10 for the original cut. 8/10 for the director's cut.

A war movie done John Woo-style sounded like such a good idea on paper. The slow-motion action sequences and other typical Woo-ism elements are often even more laughable than beautiful or realistic. Same goes for the deeper and sentimental meanings of the movie.

It's obvious John Woo wanted to make a "Saving Private Ryan" realistic like war movie but the movie gets stuck somewhere between Hollywood action/war entertainment and a serious war movie.

The battle sequences look too fabricated and planned out, which is of course a killer for the movie its realism. Sure the battle sequences all look fine and it obvious cost some serious money to make this movie.

Between all of the battles and action within the movie, there are lots of slow moments. Guess it tries to be deep or something, also about the Navajo-culture, in those moments but it instead feels pointless and often like a drag. Same goes for most of the sentiments within the movie. It's also the reason why the movie is quite long.

The movie is an underwritten one that for a genre movie is too formulaic. It's mostly a predictable movie that offers very few surprises or original moments. A shame, since the concept of the movie is definitely an original one. The movie also doesn't bother to tell where and why they are fighting. What are all these battles? Why are they being fought? And yes, of course the movie also finds room to put in a love-story. All of the character also remain pretty shallow one's, no matter how far they dig into their past.

Nicolas Cage just wasn't made for these sort of movies. The movie is filled with some other well known names in it and most of them do a good job. It's not like the acting is one of the weakest elements of the movie but that still doesn't mean that everyone was correctly cast.

It's definitely a watchable movie but its shortcomings just prevent this movie from being a great or really memorable one.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Woo's heightened maximalist style doesn't always translate smoothly to a rugged war movie and at no point is it more clear than with Windtalkers. I've definitely gained a better appreciation for it upon a second more expanded viewing as I'd seen this once before, but it was the rather lacking Theatrical Cut, so when gearing up for this mini US Wooathon I knew I wanted to give the Director's Cut the time of day it deserved. While it definitely lacks the raw emotional power that underlines Bullet in the Head, it feels more tonally consistent than Heroes Shed No Tears, but Windtalkers is replete with Cage's finest angsty acting, James Horner's gorgeous score, John Woo's exceptional attention to detail and requisite concerns of friendship and rivalry staring in the face of violence. This is not a story about heroes. It's a story about a man and his own demons, trying to redeem himself from war. Windtalkers is far from perfect, but heavily underrated for what it is, the kind of film where you think you can predict everything that's going to happen upon the first shot and you spend the rest of the film praying that you're wrong.