 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
| Windtalkers
Directed By: John
Woo Plot
Summary - Review 1 - Review
2 - CURRENT REVIEWS
|
|
| WWII. Joe Enders, a decorated Marine who is by-the-book to a fault, is just coming back on duty (by cheating on his medical tests). "Ox" Anderson, much greener, is also getting the same new task: Protect the Navajo codetalkers (Ben Yahzee and Charles Whitehorse, respectively). While Enders is initially frustrated with his assignment, his respect grows as the codetalkers prove their worth in the brutal battle to take Saipan. [TRAILER] "Windtalkers" is clearly not a tribute to the institution of war, but an immature and misdirected desire to make war look "cooler." No doubt there are young men who will find such a miserable pile of testosterone appealing. They'll be heard cheering from their seats when the bullets start flying. But if you, like me, think an action film disguised as a war tribute is disgusting to begin with, then you're in for a painful ride. One would not expect "Windtalkers" to be the disaster that it is. In fact, its premise is a historically dramatic one: Peaceful Navajo men who willingly volunteered their lives creating an unbreakable code that helped America win the war in the pacific. These "Indians," as an ignorant marine labels the film's two code talkers, are given the sole task of taking chaotic commands while under fire, translating it into their Navajo code, and then broadcasting secret commands to support forces. This untold story of World War II is fascinating, and I'm sure "Windtalker's" script looked damn good to its producers and its director, John Woo ("Mission:Impossible 2"). But even with lowered expectations, "Windtalkers" is not a good film. It is not a tribute to veterans or the struggles of these brave men, but a shallow production that uses their story only as a springboard for melodrama and violence. At times, more appropriate titles might have been "Soap Operas in the Saipan Jungle" or "Blood and Bombs and Limbs Oh My!" Most successful war films are one of two types: A very personal journey through the bullets and the blood, in which the audience witnesses the carnage through the eyes of a few select guides, or an impersonal journey in which war itself seems to overshadow any of its participants. "Windtalkers" attempts to be both types at once, and asks the audience to find an impossible balance between the two. It first appears to be an intimate account of two pairs of soldiers. Our hero, Sergeant Joe Enders (Nicolas Cage) is paired with a suave, intelligent code talker, Ben Yahzee (Adam Beach). Yahzee's friend, Charles Whitehorse (Roger Willie) is partnered with Enders' friend, Ox Henderson (Christian Slater). It is Enders and Henderson's job to protect these code talkers, but they are both warned to first protect the code at all costs. In other words, they must kill the precious Navajo if their capture appears imminent. It is these personalities that offer the only reprieve from the pain that is to come. The clashing cultures between the Navajo and the brute marines are sometimes humorous, and sometimes powerful. Whitehorse and Henderson slowly become friends as they play duets on their flute and harmonica together. These haunting melodies, when combined with the film's focus on nature, are brilliant artistic foils to the destruction these men encounter in their pacific hell. When the time comes for Enders and Henderson to "protect the code," they find themselves unable to blindly follow orders. But John Woo, mediocre action director, is the wrong person to helm this film. He is uninterested in these relationships and conflict, and spends little time in "Windtalkers" actually listening to people talk. No, his specialty is violence, and as Enders defends himself against the oncoming Japanese, we are treated to an up-close marathon of slow-motion explosions and dismemberments so grotesque and offensive that I cringed in pain. As the guns discharge, Woo swings the camera this way and that, spins around exploding bodies, smudges blood on the camera lens and slows the film as soldiers die. In some scenes, as Enders and Henderson morph into crazed, screaming gunmen, one can almost hear Woo yelling out "scream," "shoot," "more blood!" and "you're dead!" from the sidelines. It is an artificial style that removes the viewer from the experience and destroys any realism created by the dialogue. The result is a purely synthetic experience, where nothing retains the audience's attention. Dialogue is accompanied by a soundtrack so terrible that it actually seems to reach into the film and distract the audience from what characters are saying. Gratuitous scenes of violence fail not because they show death or injury, but because their obvious artificiality draws more attention to camera style than to who is actually dying. For some, "Windtalkers'" patriotism will be enough. I disagree. Its excesses actually trivialize the war and the Navajo heroes. It betrays their actions for the sake of the spectacle. If only there had been one speech without screaming, distracting background music, or swirling camera movements, things might have been different. Mr. Woo, what were you thinking?  Check out Reviews, Commentary, and More at Zertinet.com |
LINKS
TO REVIEWS |
|
What would
Windtalkers be without John Woo? Well, probably a war movie that's actually
good. However, that is not the case - I certainly hope the producers wish
they'd never hired John Woo. The story is a pretty potentially amazing one. We follow two Navajo Indians as they join in with a fresh platoon ready to go out and fight in the pacific. Two experienced marines are given the job of protecting two of these code talkers. However, their true mission is to protect not the soldiers whom the code was known, but the code itself. At this point in the war Japan had broken most of our codes, and without this code it was unlikely that the war effort would be as successful as it was. But however interesting the story may seem, Woo manages to ruin most of it. The battle sequences are treated no different than a purely action movie - where death is thrown about at will. James Horner creates a soundtrack that rivals porn music in it's ability to ruin a scene. There is only one saving grace, and that is that occasionally the movie manages to break away from the ruined remains of the battle sequences and focus a little on the characters. Here the sheer power of the situation brings some beautiful sequences in which the differences and mixing of culture is developed. However, even this plot line is not enough to snap your attention away from how bad the rest of the movie is. But these occasionally good sequences are set against the backdrop of action so removed from any emotion at all, that even they seem out of place. There is a particular sequence which illustrates how bad the action sequences where. During an action sequence and after some brief slow motion dismembering, Woo switches to grainy black and white footage of warships. This style is never repeated, and makes no sense at all. It only reminds us that we're watching a movie, and that we don't really care about the characters. We then fly back to more killing of characters. Characters die in such explosive action sequences that Woo seems to be expected us to be excited by the sequence of events. (Maybe if I was running a slightly higher level of testosterone that might be the case). After a while, I longed for someone to die normally. For their death not be an excuse for special effects, slow motion, and rotating shots. The acting was typical for an action movie. With the exception of the Navajo actors, the characters were stereotypical and shallow. The marines had the tough guy, guy with girlfriend, grumpy guy, Mexican guy, hardened by battle guy, and others. Everything word and step they made was simply done to advance the plot. Never did anything serve to offer us insight as to the struggle that the guardians had to make. There's so much in this simple story that was only basically touched on. First, something Woo brought up but never elaborated on, the differences and similarities in the religious affairs of the Navajo and whites. Even the decision to kill a Navajo to protect the code is such a moral paradox, that it could be an entire think movie without any of the war backdrop. After all equally powerful arguments can be made for both sides, and either decision you make is both noble and horrible at the same time. I couldn't stand Windtalkers. I felt the movie's only redeeming qualities simply emerged from the idea of the film and where not a reflection of any real skill in the direction. I simply hope somewhere down the line this movie is remade by a group of people with talent. Made with a director understands the importance of the decisions at hand, and with actors that understand the inner struggle of their characters instead of trying to be a cliché.  |
|
| Movies
@ Zertinet | Oscars @ Zertinet
| Main Site Best Viewed
at 800 X 600 or greater |
|
