5.7
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 41 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
15
Mixed:
19
Negative:
7
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
1
JereD.Nov 19, 2002
The only windtalking is in the title. A wonderful tale of WWII is given short shrift. Cage is wooden. The cliches are too numerous. The battle scenes bear little relationship to real war. Skip this and re-watch Pvt.Ryan.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
BlancoA.Jun 12, 2002
Mark Ruffalo is clearly the best actor in this film, but I don't think the movie as a whole has much to offer. Compared to other WWII fare such as "Thin Red Line" and "Band of Brothers," this one is truly a lightweight. The opening Mark Ruffalo is clearly the best actor in this film, but I don't think the movie as a whole has much to offer. Compared to other WWII fare such as "Thin Red Line" and "Band of Brothers," this one is truly a lightweight. The opening sequence was so melodramatic, I though Cage might wake up as if was all a bad dream. The music was pretty damned annoying as well. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
GiorgioZ.Jun 18, 2002
Rather than repeat what the others have said. In a nutshell, it is just a BAD movie not worthy of your time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
CrowleeJun 12, 2002
Great opening sequence that initially gives emotional gravity to the film but Woo loses sight of this in the second act. Of course there's great action (although, not exactly signature Woo) but the story lacked the historic resonance I Great opening sequence that initially gives emotional gravity to the film but Woo loses sight of this in the second act. Of course there's great action (although, not exactly signature Woo) but the story lacked the historic resonance I wanted to learn about from this film. The movie boils down to a buddy pic with performances ranging from good (Beach) to stereotyped bad (Emmerich). I enjoyed the bond that was forged with the company of men and went along for the ride. Hey, with Woo's movies it's about what he brings behind the camera, the story comes second and that's what you get. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChadS.Jun 28, 2002
If the Najavos aren't allowed to take center stage, why bother? A generous lead actor would've allowed more insight into the culture than what is shown here, which is extremely hokey. That's not a slam of Native-Americans, but If the Najavos aren't allowed to take center stage, why bother? A generous lead actor would've allowed more insight into the culture than what is shown here, which is extremely hokey. That's not a slam of Native-Americans, but rather the filmmakers who reduced the sacred into a cliche. Ironically, however, the weakness (making Cage the central protagonist in favor of Beech), is also the film's strength. It's probably his best performance since "Leaving Las Vegas". Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
[Anonymous]Jun 30, 2002
I thought the movie was good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MaartenB.Sep 10, 2002
One of the worst and unrealistic war movies of the past years.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PhilK.Jun 12, 2002
By no measure is this a bad film, and certainly not boring, but it is lacking enough not to become a landmark war film like Ryan etc. Kudos, however, for bringing to light a crucial element of WWII tactics that I, for one, knew nothing By no measure is this a bad film, and certainly not boring, but it is lacking enough not to become a landmark war film like Ryan etc. Kudos, however, for bringing to light a crucial element of WWII tactics that I, for one, knew nothing about. The natives of this land deserve this recognition. However, we don't learn a heck of a lot about Navajo culture, which seems like a huge lost opportunity given how rarely Hollywood explores this subject. Action-wise, however, you couldn't ask for more. EXCEPT for the battleship scenes which were STOCK wartime footage! How awful. The sound editing contributes considerably in creating truly jolting, hyper-violent battle scenes. They do get tiresome after a while, though, and my empathy for any of the characters who die along the way was rather limited, given the narrow development of their personas. Worthy of note:This time around, John Woo could not justify showing his hero being followed throughout the film by a halo of flittering doves. But we do get a full shot of one white seagull! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JoshB.Mar 24, 2003
Very well made special effects, good storyline also!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
YoonMinC.Sep 28, 2003
Woo's silly soap opera/blood ballet antics worked like a charm on a small scale in such cult classics as Better Tomorrow. Here in inflated, epic form it's like using a condom to fit a whale. There are some bruising moments on the Woo's silly soap opera/blood ballet antics worked like a charm on a small scale in such cult classics as Better Tomorrow. Here in inflated, epic form it's like using a condom to fit a whale. There are some bruising moments on the subject of racial prejudice, and the actors generally do nicely but the enemies here are crazy 'Japs' of WWII propaganda, and the special effects look fake; worse, they aren't even necessary. Woo claims to be a Christian but his idea of Jesus must be some dude wearing sunglasses and packing two semi-automatics. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JoviJun 11, 2002
Cool action sequences, and Woo's signature style of depicting the duality of man makes this an entertaining film. Somewhat cheasy dialogue and a bit long, the film all in all is fair and worth watching. Ironically, the movie is more Cool action sequences, and Woo's signature style of depicting the duality of man makes this an entertaining film. Somewhat cheasy dialogue and a bit long, the film all in all is fair and worth watching. Ironically, the movie is more about the bond of 2 different men than that of the role of the Navahoes and the development of the code. I would have enjoyed a little more story than action. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
NickS.Jun 11, 2002
I wanted to like this film so badly. John Woo and Nicolas Cage in a war film! What else do you need? Woo's Bullet in the Head was a great story of friendship in a time of war. Unfortunately, Windtalkers just didn't have a story. I wanted to like this film so badly. John Woo and Nicolas Cage in a war film! What else do you need? Woo's Bullet in the Head was a great story of friendship in a time of war. Unfortunately, Windtalkers just didn't have a story. There was no one to really root for. There were so many flaws throughout the film, and I found it ridiculuous that Woo didn't notice them. Everytime a character was introduced, I knew whether they were going to live or die. The whole film was so predictable. The Navajo were so important to the war but we didn't see them doing anything super important. The screenplay was horrible, and I can't believe Woo went ahead with it. Of course the action stuff was great and that made the film entertaining. But I wanted more than that. I wanted to feel something and all I felt was disappointment. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MichaelF.Jun 15, 2002
This is a bad movie. The good: I liked the panic or the battle scenes a little bit and the acting was fine. The bad: The cinematography was HORRIBLE and just flat-out dull! a completely laughable screenplay. There was none of that old This is a bad movie. The good: I liked the panic or the battle scenes a little bit and the acting was fine. The bad: The cinematography was HORRIBLE and just flat-out dull! a completely laughable screenplay. There was none of that old fashioned Woo anywhere in the movie. It was cheesy as hell and bad bad bad. The horrendous PEARL HARBOR was even better than this. The worst war film of probably the last 30 years. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
SteveM.Jun 19, 2002
The only reason to see this movie is because you lost a bet of such great magnitude your friend forces you to do something short hurting yourself. Bad on so many levels it is hard to know even where to start. Direction/Screenplay: John Woo The only reason to see this movie is because you lost a bet of such great magnitude your friend forces you to do something short hurting yourself. Bad on so many levels it is hard to know even where to start. Direction/Screenplay: John Woo should be relegated to small budget films until he proves himself worthy of handling great storylines and good actors. He mishandled both in this case. And why did he chose to edit in footage of battleships from my highschool government and history class? The only thing John Rice and Joe Batteer (the writers) didn't forget were the cliches. They included every single one I can think of. Haunted, leader with flashbacks from previous battles lost, the prejudicial soldier who taunts the Navajo soldiers (only to be saved by one of them), [insert others here]. You get the idea. The themes behind the movie are very interesting, one can easily see why a book and now a movie (albeit, awful)have been created, based on them. Save your sanity and 8 bucks by reading a book on the subject. You will be happy you did. Now, go out and make a wager you know you can win, with a friend who will forgive you. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PatC.Dec 19, 2003
It continues to amaze me how Hollywood can take good non fiction and turn it into bad fiction.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
KoRJul 19, 2005
I thought the special effects looked fine, a couple of the big shots with the planes flying over could have been from a computer game but they still look more realistic than some of the over-the-top effects seen in several big budget films. I thought the special effects looked fine, a couple of the big shots with the planes flying over could have been from a computer game but they still look more realistic than some of the over-the-top effects seen in several big budget films. I thought the action was also filmed very well and gave a different sort of view of the action than from many other war films. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PeterS.Sep 25, 2005
Strange that a film with so much bloody carnage could be so unexciting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful