User reviews

Visionary movie-making. I will not write any spoiler, so I can't describe the brilliant way Cox expresses his story with some mind-bending visual and verbal devices. Some might dismiss it as trickery, but I think of it as magical realism.

William Walker was a real person and his "liberation" of Nicaragua did take place, roughly as shown in this movie. Cox and Wurlitzer took some major liberties with historic details- perhaps for narrative pace, budget reasons, or whatever. I read quite a lot about Walker and Nicaragua after seeing this movie and there's no distortion for ideological reasons.

If you value originality, subtlety, honesty and an occasional slap in the face, see this movie. I envy first-time viewers.

In the 1850's an American soldier-of-fortune known as William Walker marches his army into Nicaragua to take control of the country for a wealthy and powerful capitalist, Cornelius Vanderbilt. Through time, Walker sets himself up as the ruler of the worn-torn country, but the power gets to his head when he bites off more than he can chew to keep it that way and hold onto those principles he believes in.

Cult director Alex Cox churns out one very peculiar, social minded and disjointed experience from his effort on "Walker (1987)". While, the film does contain bad aspects and goes about things rather forcefully. There's still entertainment within this spirited feature and Ed Harris kept me captivated with a truly intense and radiant performance as the black dressed William Walker. After a somewhat serious opening on the factual story, it eventually succumbs to surreal imagery and anachronistic details to get its loud and intrusive message across. Like many have mentioned in their comments it does have real visionary punch to it that resembles Sam Peckinpah's work. Just look at the brutal action and glamorous slow-mo interwoven into many scenes. Alex Cox's direction is quite staged and can get heavy-handed, but the many stylistic touches and eccentric moods do rub off. I loved the way he decided to shoot the flick. Rudy Wurlitzer's over-dramatic, but stirring screenplay is laced with pot shots and parallels on the political interference of the USA from 1850's to the most recent. There seems to be too much going on in the script and it felt like it was pushed along too quickly, which meant the diverse narration became choppy with some unclear details. It was actually hard during certain moments to take it seriously because of some odd and absurd comedic developments.

Joe Strummer provides the ever-changing carefree mixture in the music score with perfect results in capturing the tenor. The strong supporting cast with the likes of Richard Masur, Xander Berkeley, Rene Auberjonois, Sy Richardson, Marlee Matlin and so on… work very well and fed of Harris' egotistical character marvellously. The way Walkers' progressive power got to his head personally and finally backfires on him (and his followers) with many disillusions having a lasting affect on his judgement is portrayed beautifully and concisely.

It probably thinks it's more grandeur than it actually is, but this is one fascinating foray nonetheless.

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.

This movie is better than I had rated it when I saw it upon it's release . I read the comments prior to viewing it again to get a handle on it and having viewed this movie before I was surprised at the amount of comments calling it a masterpiece. I was not impressed the first go round. I liked the film more upon second viewing. Ed Harris is riveting and despite a somewhat fractured screenplay and accompanying dialogue he hits scarcely a bad note. The same cannot be said of some of the supporting cast. However, the job the supporting actors did in establishing personalities for their characters was astounding, a real rogues gallery, probably very similar to the scoundrels who were in Nicaragua in 1855. It is easy to see that Cox was influenced by Apocalypse Now just as it is easy to see the influence of this movie upon the film Richard III. This movie is a satire about hypocrisy and capitalism and Cox does a pretty good job of it.

Made during the mid-1980s struggles in Latin America, Walker is a scathing satire of American attempts to impose "democracy" on third world countries, while serving their own purposes in the process. Although it was made to critique Reagan era policy toward Nicaragua, it is all too relevant to our current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The film focuses on the real life exploits of William Walker, an American in the nineteenth century who led an army of filibusters to conquer Nicaragua on behalf of American financial interests. Driven by a vision of Manifest Destiny, Walker ultimately established himself as a dictator in Nicaragua. This historical background makes for an interesting commentary on later American imperial adventures, suggesting that history repeats all too readily.

The film boasts an incredibly good cast for such an obscure piece. Aside from Ed Harris in the title role, we have Peter Boyle, Xander Berkeley, and, in a hilarious turn as a foul mouthed mute woman, Marlee Matlin.

The film's one weakness is that its satire is overly broad, with the introduction of obvious anachronisms to make concrete the parallels with contemporary events. Although these made the film's commentary more explicit, they come across as over bearing, and weaken the film's overall impact. Nevertheless, this is a provocative film that is far more interesting than director Alex Cox's more well known Sid and Nancy.

This is one of the greatest films i have ever seen. The only issue I have with it is that it is out of print. I'd do almost anything to find a copy. While not the most accurate account of LITERAL history, it still provides decent reference as long as it is taken in its intended symbolic context. It is a truly profound portrayal, a historical as well as a relevant political statement filled with striking imagery and an outstanding score. Possibly too abstract for some, but in all actuality a most outstanding movie. If anyone knows where i might be able to find a copy of this I would be most obliged. I recommend it to anyone interested in...well I recommend it to anyone really.

Ed Harris deserved an Oscar nomination for his dark, twisted performance. This movie uses in-your-face allegory rather than anything resembling subtlety. Alex Cox breaks all the rules and still makes a compelling film.

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.

Alex Cox and Rudy Wurlitzer have one of the more perplexing and rather cool works of late 80s subversive film-making with Walker, a film about a real man and his mad overthrow of the government of Nicaragua in the mid 1850s. It was a fiasco, but it almost wasn't at one point. There was a moment where the line was distinctly crossed with the execution of a certain character, and it's also at this point in the film that Cox lets things go even further off the wall from the period setting. For a while it's so not trying to be any kind of absurdist take on things that it seems like a (good) serious take on a man like Walker (Ed Harris) in a strange land that he thinks he can make well under "democratic" terms. As he soon goes against everything stood for, the film too goes into bizarro world, mixing in cars, computers, Time and Newsweek, and even a real army helicopter and soldiers (the copter, I might add, was a real chopper used in the Nicaraguan battles of 1987).

In the sense of marking out ground that is all of a director's own in this form and context, it's not quite Aguirre, but for Alex Cox, a director who's had his ups and downs, it's a significant achievement. It seems like it should be all nonsense, and that the film might be taking itself too seriously. But in reality the nonsense is what the film is sort of about, not really how it comes off. Cox goes between overtly homage-like slow-motion action shots of battle and blood splattering with guns going off like Peckinpah with a heap-load to let go. What is it, anyway, to try and bring democracy to a land like Nicaragua, and under the circumstances (i.e. under Vanderbilt, played by Peter Boyle with his own crazy-big mutton chops) that should be already considered troublesome? Walker wasn't even any kind of politician before this, though as also a doctor and lawyer he tried (unsuccessfully) to bring some battle over Mexico.

Is it a microcosm? Does it say where we're headed, or rather where we are now? Probably to both. It's a trip that shouldn't be taken too lightly, and it definitely isn't for everyone, but what's thrilling about Cox's vision is that he has no fear of what the audience will think anyway. Like Repo Man's mix of teen punk comedy and sci-fi action pic, Cox is mixing and experimenting forms, a Dr. Strangelove take on Manifest Destiny with a style that veers between obscure spaghetti western and featuring one of the great, groovy soundtracks of the 80s from Joe Strummer. It might not be anything that will end up on 'best-of-ever' lists, but as a work unto itself this and Withnail & I are the superb cult films of 1987, with this begging for some re-examination twenty-something years later. At the least, it's one of Ed Harris's unsung masterful and subtle performances.

Hilariously bizarre, shockingly (mostly) true, you'll walk away from this movie thinking, "What did I just watch?" and "Should I watch it again?"

If you're a fan of the odd side of cinema, check this one out. It's worth tracking down.

Truth be told, "Walker" is almost enjoyable for a long period of its running time. Too bad it doesn't live up to the expectation of viewers who wanted to see a more accurate project on the life of American mercenary William Walker and his small triumph of being President of Nicaragua during the 1800's. I know director Alex Cox ("Sid and Nancy") was drawing parallels with the Reagan administration and its politics on Central America with the invasion of Granada, supporting conflicts in El Savador, Panama and other countries but the film fails on a epic stance simply because it wasn't serious enough to be that. If it is a satire where was the object for such? If this was a mockery on America's politicians and their excessive control on everything where's the funny parts? There's plenty of ridiculous scenes and characters that one doesn't walk out of this amused or fascinated but completely unmoved.

For one moment this was quite intelligent in giving us an artistic involvement from the part of Mr. Cox and his comparison of both 1855 and let's say 1987 presenting a Nicaragua where you can read Time and Newsweek magazines, see automobiles and helicopters in the 1800's. When Walker (played by a quite decent Ed Harris) makes his final speech on why Nicaragua needs the U.S. intervention and that this will never end we're not seeing Walker no more, we're seeing Reagan years ahead and even wondering of another possible intervention in maybe 50 years from now. Cox's invention works a little but such innovative artistic license works better in "Caravaggio" and "Marie Antoinette".

So, who is Walker anyway? From this movie we get that he's a soldier of fortune (oddly enough, Harris played another one on the same decade as this, in "Under Fire" also about American intervention on a Central America nation) with plenty yet quite unclear self interests in there who takes over the nation bringing a mindless and ruthless dictatorship that goes to punish and oppress, even condemning their own comrade in arms, and bringing slavery to the country. Definitely, not a likable character, the tyrannic Walker goes to insane action from another. A more natural and realistic approach would benefit the movie since Harris really prepared for the role. It's a good performance but unworthy of such film.

The director wants to shock us in the closing credits with controversial archive footage of what the Reagan administration made in Central America but almost pointless if all the way through the movie we didn't felt the same reaction when Walker was blowing cities for his pleasure, people were being killed again and again. Those scenes are brilliantly filmed, followed by the nice music of Joe Strummer, but most of the time the actors are only making ridiculous faces instead of feeling pain from the bullets, and there's countless moments when we know the director is trying to make us laugh with some situations. But they never come. I felt sorry for Rene Auberjonois and his loud and wounded performance. Such a great character actor reduced to painful moments through this mess. Worst than all of this is that this is a terrible noisy picture, really hard to hear with so many noises in the background.

Having this film being something historical it could have been a great film. Instead is heavily problematic, flawed, erroneous in so many ways that it killed Alex Cox career in Hollywood, with his future projects almost invisible to audiences. I don't see any difficulties in people liking "Walker", it's an easy thing to watch but I do think people are missing the difference between art and wanna be art. As Woody Allen said one time: "There's only two things that can be controlled: art and masturbation." Frankly, "Walker" is neither since it doesn't offer the pleasures of both and is completely out of control. 5/10

Walker was both a box office and critical failure upon its initial release, and even though it's not hard to see why (viewers expecting a historic drama played straight, by Cox of all directors, will be sorely disappointed), it certainly deserves to be rediscovered by a whole new audience. OK maybe Cox tries to be "cult" a little too hard for his own good, but that aside he pulls it off surprisingly well. Ed Harris is OK in the leading role but I would have LOVED to see Gary Oldman portray the semi-insane William Walker. If any role called for scenery consumption, it's this one. Watch it for the great Peckinpah-esquire shooting in slow motion, the amusing anachronisms (choppers, computers, Newsweek magazines, Coca-Cola bottles, Marlboros), the general air of absurdity and psychotronic charm, the comedic touches, the political commentary and the great cinematography. Walker is good exactly because it refuses to take itself overly serious.

Good? No. Accurate? Nah. Entertaining? Oh, yeah.

I've misplaced my copy of Travels in Hyperreality, but I seem to remember that Umberto Eco described cult movies as those which, rather than presenting a seamless whole, can be dismantled; a viewer selects his or her own aspect or fragment to treasure and thus becomes a fan.

Walker, in this sense, is the perfect cult movie. If you don't like the fractured story (and I mean that in a good way), you'll love the humor, or find a line of dialog to treasure, or dig the Joe Strummer soundtrack (or the casting, or the visual anachronisms that pop up too occasionally and too late to be anything but bizarre, or the twisted FUBARing of history, or the Peckinpah-esquire violence, or the amazing cinematography, or...).

What this movie fails to do is bore. I've only seen it once, and I'm pretty sure a single viewing fails to plumb its depths. I mean that in a good way too.

Walker's a strange flick, but I kind of liked how hard it was to pin down. It's overwhelming and weird in a way that's more engaging than frustrating, but I got a feeling of being stumped during more than a few scenes.

I guess it's a Western that's very loosely based on a true story (so the opening says- some of the truths feel general, rather than literal, as the message of the film becomes clearer), but it takes many liberties and then goes beyond just taking liberties. I'm sure it's the kind of thing where every bizarre choice can be explained or rationalised in some way. But after one viewing, much of it has me at a loss... I think things came clearer by the out-there ending, though. And then the end credits hit and it gets confirmed.

Yet I was never bored, it's certainly the kind of film that leaves you guessing from scene to scene (which proves oddly thrilling at times), and Ed Harris gives a great central performance. I could see myself watching it again one day. Parts are entertaining, parts of darkly funny/absurd, and then other parts are very confronting. It's a movie alright, and a unique one at that; no doubt about it.

This movie is one of those rare films I can't help but admire for its temerity. Hiding its eccentricities under the guise of a biographical epic, this film breaks all conventions, storytelling and otherwise to create a jarring yet memorable experience.

The film concerns itself with American 18th century soldier of fortune William Walker (Ed Helms) who from 1855 to 1857 was de facto ruler of Nicaragua. After the unexpected death of his wife (Marlee Matlin), Walker leaves for Nicaragua with the support of Cornelius Vanderbilt (Peter Boyle) who hopes to capitalize on the country's position between the Atlantic and Pacific. He is also aided by a group of mercenaries some of which worked with him in an unsuccessful campaign in Mexico. They would become known as Walker's Immortals.

"Walker" is like "Aguirre" mixed with "Wild Bunch" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." The film starts out in a hail of gunfire and blood before setting up breezy yet much needed exposition. From then on its a no holds barred acid trip with a modern satirical twist. While Arthur Miller's The Crucible was a veiled criticism of McCarthyism, Walker is a downright admonishment of U.S. involvement in Nicaragua during the 80's complete with cars, modern rifles and Time magazine. I could imagine the producers watching the final cut of "Walker" huddled into the screening room thinking "we're so screwed!" Director Alex Cox slowly unveils his demented scheme with such relish that its hard not to enjoy his F-U to the Hollywood studio system. In satirizing modern politics he also satirizes conventions of biographical film-making. Despite long hours of research most "true story" films are speculative anyway so why not show a helicopter in the 1850's? "Walker" is an ugly film about an ugly man told with energy and gumption. Ed Harris does a great job chewing the scenery creating a glory seeking reptilian monster who at one point seems not to know the means to his ends. Alex Cox has never since had a widely distributed film released in the United States which is a shame but on the bright side he follows an age old tradition. Welles had "Citizen Kane," Coppola had "Apocalypse Now" and Cox has "Walker."

http://theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com/

Ed Harris is incredibly intense as real-life American mercenary William Walker, who in the 19th century is installed as the leader - later dictator - of Nicaragua. This he does thanks to the assistance of power-mad and money-hungry industrialist Cornelius Vanderbilt (Peter Boyle).

Cult director Alex Cox unfortunately saw his career take a major tailspin after the critical excoriation and failure of this film. That said, it's still the film that he's the most proud of, and despite its obvious flaws, it still comes off as a rather interesting film. Scripted by Rudy Wurlitzer, it uses its obvious excesses to make blunt - some would say TOO blunt - points about the nature of jingoism and the idea of "manifest destiny". Cox deliberately injects as many anachronisms as possible, and the result *is* a film that on the surface looks like a mess. But it's an amusing mess, in any event, and is just too daring to dismiss outright, as so many critics had done back in the day.

Harris leads a strong cast full of familiar faces - Richard Masur, Rene Auberjonois, Miguel Sandoval, Gerrit Graham, William O'Leary, John Diehl, Keith Szarabajka, Alfonso Arau, Richard Edson, etc. But the cameo by Marlee Matlin, fresh off her Oscar win for "Children of a Lesser God", is much too brief and doesn't really showcase her that well.

Even with its drawbacks, "Walker" is a provocative piece of work that offers the viewer a fair bit to think about, particularly American involvement in foreign countries over the centuries.

Strikingly scored by Joe Strummer, this was filmed on location in Nicaragua, and it manages to be fairly compelling even while coming off as over-the-top at times.

Six out of 10.

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!

Alex Cox seems to strive to be a cult director a little too much in my opinion. Such is the case with Walker. This film starts out serious, and is kind of interesting, hammy acting and all, and then just goes completly sideways. It seems to me that Alex Cox just kind of threw out the idea of this being anything but a dark comedy, and threw in stuff like newsweek and time magazines, helicopters, and computers. Worth a view, but I think that after Repo Man and Sid and Nancy, Alex Cox took his label of cult director a little too far, and that is why you don't really see much of anything by him. I think that this is why Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was taken away from him and given to Terry Gilliam. Still, i don't think that you have heard the last from Cox, and I think that he will one day return to the limelight that he was once in. Lets just hope he doesn't fall out of it again.

Set during the mid-1800s, Walker satirically tells the life story of William Walker (Ed Harris), the American filibuster who invaded and made himself president of Nicaragua intentionally filled with anachronisms to draw parallels between Manifest Destiny and contemporary U. S. involvement in Central America to fight against Communism gaining a foothold.

The impetus for Walker came about when director Alex Cox visited Nicaragua in 1984 following the election of Daniel Ortega as president, to see if conditions were as bad as the American media had reported only to find they were not. Cox later discovered the story of William Walker in a Mother Jones article that framed Walker within the context of U. S. foreign policy in Central America and served as the basis for the film's anti-interventionist stance that attracted Ed Harris to the lead due to him also being anti-Contra and anti-interventionist. I should preface this review by saying I'm in agreement with the points the film makes about meddling in the affairs of foreign nations under empty rhetoric related to "democracy" and "freedom" as seen in the U. S.'s actions involving the Shah of Iran and Batista in Cuba that were unmitigated disasters. With that said however, I don't feel Walker is successful as a film as it doesn't give us any semblance of character or thematic weight to the people on screen, and instead spends its time repeating variations on the same point over and over again with its style and delivery more concerned with telling us the point rather than drawing us in and allowing us to discover it.

Walker isn't a poorly made film as it carries the same stylish flair seen in his previous films like Sid and Nancy or Repo Man, but while the style on display is well done it also works against the film with its intentionally anachronisms repeated jibes at empty and hypocritical Reagan era rhetoric losing it's punch very quickly. Walker is directed almost like a music video with its style and striking visuals taking center stage and not really serving any purpose storywise or characterwise as its mostly in service of variations on the same statement s made over and over again. The movie is afraid its audience won't understand the message so it bludgeons its audience with it to make sure there's no opportunity for misinterpretation. When making a satirical film like this it's understandable that it will be a challenge to say the very least. While Dr. Strangelove is the pinnacle of satirical filmmaking, cinematic history before and after is littered with misfires that attempted satirical takes on culture and politics only to fall flat and lay forgotten in the dust bins of history as minor historical curiosities to look back on. When looking back upon the situation in Central America during the mid-1980s it's understandable why Cox desired to make this film, and some of its themes do unfortunately ring relatively true as you can draw parallels not only between William Walker's escapades and Reagan's interventionism in Central America, but also in regards to contemporary Middle Eastern U. S. foreign policy which still utilizes this failed approach of "bringing Democracy" and "being welcomed as liberators", but again just because one makes a valid point doesn't make a movie "good". In a desperate act, the film's credits end with contemporary News footage in Nicaragua robbing what little subtlety there was to begin with.

Walker while well intentioned is a misfire of ill-fitting Peckinpah-esque violence, Kubrick satire, and Cox's own signature style that only serves to call attention to itself and suffocate the points it tries to make. There's no grounded narrative elements for the audience to latch onto as the characters are all deliberately off putting or blank slates used to prop up the film's satirical content and the story is only in service of repeated variations on the same point. The film bludgeons viewer with its point with no regard to investment on a story or character level and at the very end just lays out its point because Cox doesn't trust the viewer to connect the dots on their own.

At first I was excited: Ed Harris in a Wm. Walker biopic! A deserving more-than-a-footnote of American history, and blessings to the producers who greenlit it!

Well, I read up on it, and had a foreboding: The film would ravage its own intent, no?

Started watching... mixed feelings. Starting to warm up. Would the director pull it off?: A gonzo treatment of the subject?

In the end... I liked it. Glad I saw it. It makes a bold pronouncement on the filibustering mentality: A visionary presiding over a band of glory-seeking psychopaths, bankrolled by a money-glutted sociopath.

And, of course, the film is a fantastic showcase for the power of a gifted actor: When the film seems about to teeter over the brink, Harris's presence casts rays of dramatic power that bind the disparate bits into something like a plausibly coherent whole.

In other words, the director hoped to create art from a wild mess of scenario work by dint of sheer exuberant moxie. And I daresay he succeeds.

Dug the anachronisms: They effectively invite us to connect this filibustering mentality to our times.

Reality knocks my final score down a few notches. It _is_ a mess. While the wild, frenetic battle scenes evade an ordinary action/war- flick treatment, they do sometimes tend to hover in a kind of disconnected narrative void. Ca, c'est la charme, indeed. But it's still sometimes a bit much.

Check it out!

So as Alex Cox say himself, not many in America (or many other parts of the world) know the story of this man. Don't expect this to be totally historically accurate (actually it does break quite a few conventions and rules and timelines and ... well a lot of things, some may seem weird to say the least). But it goes a long way to show a man going ... crazy.

Redemption is hard, especially when you lose all sense of ... everything. Ed Harris is a phenomenal actor. You already know this or you will after watchng this. There's so much emotion and sadness and contempt he can display and not ever say one line of dialog. All the while being so charismatic that you still root for him ... a little bit at least. Maybe there comes a point of no return or maybe you are sticking with him all the way ... Quite the ride you are about to embark