Windtalkers (2002) User Reviews (492)

Memorable And Interesting Despite Its Flaws

[TheAnimalMother · 7/10 · 8 March 2022]

The film is actually quite good. One of the main drawbacks about this film however is its focus. The timing seems off regarding some aspects in my view, which is the fault of the director. John Woo is better at creating beautiful looking battle scenes than he is at letting characters capture their moments and develop. At times the war violence definitely also looks too impressive and choreographed, which in another way slightly takes away from the film. Are we watching a ballet, or a war film here? At the same time the story is mostly very good and Cage in my view was excellent. Even despite a director who's not overly great with developing characters and allowing us to feel them fully. Somehow, Cage still manages to create something special here. Despite what anyone may say about Cage, the guy, when given the right role can knock it out of the park. He pretty much does here. The film and his character in some ways are certainly a little Hollywood cartoonish one could say, but you also have to give some credence to the fact that some people really were and are brave war heroes. Extraordinary events like war can lead to extraordinary actions by human beings, sometimes both good and bad.

I have heard there is now a Director's cut of this film available, and to be honest I'm not sure what version I saw, since I just streamed it. Anyway, even so, there's little doubt in my mind that the best Cage/Woo film will probably always be, Face/Off. Nonetheless, this film is well worth checking out too. 7/10.

Ridiculous

[grahamsj3 · 6/10 · 26 October 2002]

I thought this was a film about Navajo code talkers. Well, it's not. While there are a couple of Navajos in the film, the story revolves around Nicolas Cage winning WWII all by himself. This guy's incredible and makes John Wayne look like a wimp. Every time the Marines are in trouble, up jumps good old Nicolas Cage with his Thompson and POOF! the battle is WON! I wonder how we won WWII without Nicolas Cage? The film has a LOT of combat footage and most of that is very well done. That alone is worth a watch but don't expect to learn much of anything about the Navajo code talkers. You should read about them, because theirs was an important part of history, but they're a minor part in this film. I gave it a 6, only because of the good combat footage.

Great action sequences but little emphasis on story

[rah25 · 7/10 · 24 November 2003]

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 was disappointed

[mrow · 23 July 2002]

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.

Giving a 6 out of respect for the story, the movie itself is Hollywood idiocy that rates more like a 4...

[sbierly · 6/10 · 4 December 2021]

I finally watched this movie, it long caught my interest but fell of my radar for years. I do recommend watching this movie--at least until some independent filmmakers (or streaming studio) makes a worthy version of this story. The story is incredible. As an high-tech engineer, I am blown away by the fact that the human brain and unusual language was able to solve a real-time encryption problem decades ahead of any possible other technology. Sure, machines like enigma could be used, but, that is a heavy and vulnerable asset to drag around on the front lines. Really heroic story, and even more moving given the lack of respect shown to native Americans since the European invasion of their homelands.

Incredible human drama. Great performances by the lead Navajo actors. Cage was his usual fantastic self, despite the flimsy lines he was given. The rest of the movie was---meh. Typical Hollywood narcissism. Spend most of the budget blowing things up and sending people careening in all directions in bits and pieces. Zero depth to any other characters, including the Japanese, who were little more than animated cardboard cutouts screaming and shooting. This movie should be a poster child for the imminent demise of the Hollywood glory days, following in the path of cable TV as they chase each other down in a great swirling flush. The best thing about the streaming media revolution is that it busted up the Hollywood empires, and with that I have hope in a retelling of this story by more intelligent, skilled hands.

Only the DC

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 6 April 2007]

Although the intentions are very noble (showing the world how Navajo Indians helped in the war ... through their native language as code), the movie is not that good ...

You would love to give it more kudos (at least I would), but even Nicolas Cages performance just doesn't really grip you ... you are left emotionless/cold. You don't really care for them or what will happen to them. And that is a death certificate (excuse the pun) for this movie. The fact that he had to cut down the movie, so that it would be cinema-friendlier, didn't help either ... so if you're going to watch this movie anyway, go watch the Director's Cut, because you will get more back story and emphasis on the characters.

Well, at least it has an interesting original concept.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 18 November 2007]

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/

A pleasingly old-fashioned war epic

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 4 December 2016]

John Woo's Second World War film is, it has to be said, no equal for his 1980s classic HEROES SHED NO TEARS, which pushed the boundaries of cinema whilst at the same time offering a decent war-time actioner. WINDTALKERS reunites two of Woo's previous heroes – Nicolas Cage and Christian Slater – into what is a generally effective war film, chronicling the lives of those courageous men who risked and more often than not sacrificed their lives in battle against the enemy. Woo charts the expected friendships, post traumatic stress, injuries, and racism with moderate success, and he's helped by a good quality cast – especially the unknown Beach as the sympathetic Native American hero. Cage is introspective and tormented, which is something a little different from his usual characters; I liked him, and I also liked Slater's work here immensely.

But things never change and, as usual, the cinematography and action sequences are what work best in this movie. Woo offers tons of bomb-laden action and doesn't shy away from the full horrors of warfare either – there are decapitations, throat-slittings, and limbs being blown off, all shown in unflinching detail. The film does become a little repetitive as it shows Cage machine-gunning dozens of the Japanese enemy but hey, COMMANDO was a repetitive movie and still stands as one of the action genre's best. The special effects are tremendous – especially the CGI bombers flying over the lush countryside – and war fans will be left happy with what is a pretty good genre effort, and pleasingly old-fashioned in this post-modern era.

The most realistic war movie ever made

[bmyers22 · 3/10 · 28 October 2006]

I learned a lot about World War II from this film. First of all, during this war it was a custom of both the Japanese and Americans to scream every time you shoot or get shot (even with about 30 bullets in your chest you can still scream apparently). Secondly, Japanese soldiers do not like cover. They like to stay out in the open, and will not fire their rifles unless they're within 15 feet of American soldiers. Thirdly, one man with a Thompson sub-machine gun can take out an entire regiment of Japanese soldiers in an afternoon.

This film was completely first rate, start to finish. From the soldiers who flail about wildly as entire belts of machine gun ammo are pumped into them (before they drop to the ground mind you), to the 12 soldiers that Nicholas Cage shoots with a handgun while laying on his back wounded in the space of about 15 seconds, this film just screamed realism and authenticity. Highly recommended to history buffs and people who can appreciate some of the best acting ever put on film.

Has Its Moments!

[g-bodyl · 7/10 · 30 April 2015]

Windtalkers is a war movie and one that some people may not have heard of. It's a mediocre war movie to say at best, but it does have its moments. There is a question of authenticity related to the movie. The story itself may be factual, but the movie's interpretation of the story is questionable. However, there are some redeemable qualities such as the fine acting, a good amount of action, and a solid score by composer James Horner.

John Woo's film is about two U.S Marines named Ben Yahzee and Peter Anderson who are assigned to protect several Navajo codebreakers from falling into the Japanese hands.

I did like the acting of the film. Nic Cage does a great job in the center role and he shows great chemistry with Adam Beach, the actor who played his Navajo Marine. Christian Slater does a good job as Anderson, and I also liked the performances of Mark Ruffalo and Noah Emmerich.

Overall, Windtalkers is a war movie that is driven on a clichéd story. Some people may like the film, while others may despise it. I am stuck in the middle. I liked many aspects of the film, but other aspects were just doomed to failure such as the story and authenticity. But I will give the movie points in part due to Nic Cage's powerful performance. A loud, bloody, war movie is a good way to describe the movie.

My Grade: C-

Hot Air 1/10

[Critical Eye UK · 1/10 · 21 April 2004]

Warning: SPOILERS

If you live in the UK, a good guide to the quality of any movie is the review it gets in the best-selling 'News of The World' Sunday paper. Because the NoW's critical faculties are arguably less than those of an ant, a good review equals lousy movie; bad review: probably worth seeing. On which basis, the endorsement `One of the best war movies of all time -- News of the World' that features on the cover of the UK DVD Collector's Edition says it all: here indeed is one of the worst war movies of all time.

Quite why it should've been so is mystifying, for in the subject of the Navajo code talkers there's a genuinely interesting story: how they were recruited, the dilemmas they faced in signing up to war, the problems of integration, the heroism they showed and the regrettable secrecy that for so long obscured the nature of their contribution. . . in the hands of half-way proficient moviemakers, the code talkers' tale would've made for first class cinema.

Instead we get 129 tedious minutes of pyrotechnic mayhem, and a plot so ludicrous it's astonishing it even survived first pitch: that a codetalker has to be 'protected' by a guardian angel lest he fall into the hands of the enemy. Oh really?

The premise might've had some passing credibility had director Woo understood that remaking 'War and Peace' was not, in this instance, A Good Idea. But no: Woo moves remorselessly from one major league set-piece to another, in every one of which bombs, bullets, bayonets and shells rain down upon the unfortunate Navajo from left, right, behind, in front and above (thus making Nicolas Cage's advice to `make sure you follow my ass if you want to stay alive' one of the transparently daftest script lines of recent memory).

Far from taking care of the windtalker / codetalker, the US Army ensures - in this movie at least - that he has a survivability prospect of thirty seconds. Still, he is assisted by Cage, whose uncanny ability to survive veritable hails of gunfire is in inverse proportion to his ability to act: you'd have thought 'Captain Correlli's Mandolin' would've been disaster enough but no, Cage goes for broke in this one, distraught, depressed, dysfunctional, and alarmingly indiscriminating when it comes to shooting people (his own, and the enemy).

The good news though is that he doesn't get to play a musical instrument.

Two sequences do, however, stand out in this turgid mess. In the first, Cage allows himself to be captured by the enemy whilst pretending to be a prisoner of his Navajo charge, this sleight of hand being accomplished thanks to the fact that Adam Beach (who plays the Navajo) looks, er, Japanese.

Woo seems not to have noted that Beach doesn't even look like a Navajo, let alone a Japanese, but then, nor does the enemy, which for reasons known only to writers John Rice and Joe Batteer decides in this screenplay to implement a policy of actually taking prisoners instead of shooting all Americans on sight.

But perhaps they guessed it was Nicolas Cage.

In the second sequence, Cage rolls drunkenly around a battlefield graveyard, weeping for the souls of all the men who were killed when he was single-handedly taking the Solomon Islands at the start of the movie. (Seeing as they were spared from the rest of 'Windtalkers', it's not at all clear why anyone should feel sorry for them). Anyway, Cage rolls around, and the non-Navajo non-Japanese lookalike Beach comes to his aid. . . and brushes against a cardboard cross which promptly falls over.

Yup. That's how they did it during the war. Buried each individual soldier under a highly photogenic if insubstantial cardboard cross. And never mind the tropical rainstorms.

Still, at least it's consistent: cardboard plot, cardboard direction, cardboard acting.

VERDICT: Depressingly inept; a missed opportunity -- considering the nature of the source material -- and, sadly, yet another question mark over John Woo's career.

RATING: 1/10.

The Director's Cut is an improvement

[ridleyrules · 8/10 · 26 October 2005]

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.

Woo's most mature mainstream movie yet.

[Iain Burnside · 7/10 · 9 September 2002]

Following the justifiably forgotten Hard Target, the formulaic Broken Arrow, the magnificent Face/Off and the trash metal Mission Impossible 2, Windtalkers marks the next step in John Woo's unsteady path through Hollywood, and his most mature mainstream movie yet.

The plot revolves around Sergeant Joe Enders (Nicholas Cage) and Private Ben Yahzee (Adam Beach), two members of the U.S. Marine Corps during World War II, and their burgeoning friendship in the middle of their battalion's costly advances on the Japanese army in Saipan. Cage is a world-weary misanthrope who has successfully found his niche in the military, and now finds himself struggling to come to terms with it. He is assigned to protect Beach, one of the 'windtalkers' of the title, during the upcoming mission that could help turn the tide of the war in America's favour. Ultimately however, his orders are to remain loyal to the code that Beach speaks, which has been based on the Navajo language, at all costs and not to the man himself, who is to be treated as expendable... What will happen under the intense pressure of a war zone, where men are forced together in the most extreme conditions for any hope of survival?

Perhaps because he finds himself dealing with real material, Woo seems to have let his characters become real people more than in any of his previous work. The fact that two actors as talented as Cage and Beach are involved certainly helped matters, and in fact Beach even outshines his more decorated peer, as his progression from a happy-go-lucky, rather naïve family man to a battle-hardened warrior is nothing short of exemplary. Woo's direction is again the true saving grace though, in particular the marvellous shot that introduces us to the war: a butterfly flutters over a beautiful clear river, which slowly turns a vicious shade of red as the mutilated corpse of a soldier floats past... gunfire breaks out and we find ourselves in the middle of hell.

Of course, what would a war film (or, for that matter, a Woo film) be without discussing the battle scenes? The sweeping Japanese landscapes are really Hawaiian but hey, they still look the part and do more than enough to reaffirm the trailer's message that `... the world's a beautiful place.' Woo's skilful use of contradicting beauty with violence can prove to be rather repetitive but it is certainly utilised in droves in these settings and, even though the carnage is certainly not on the traumatic levels of Saving Private Ryan, it is certainly vivid enough to deter the squeamish. Limbs are blown off, bodies are scattered without a second thought, and as for the fate that awaits Sergeant Ryan Anderson (Christian Slater)...

In the end it is clear that Windtalkers is not a perfect film by any means. Although the acting and direction are terrific the writing lets the end product down, particularly as it feels like there is no real end in sight, or even anything to aim for. We are never told why Saipan is worth fighting for, while the love interest (provided by Frances O'Conner in a thankless role) disappears without trace halfway through the film. Luckily for us though, this time Woo has managed to mould his uniquely romantic violence around an intelligent observation of comradeship amidst the most unfriendly of conditions, with an end scene that is genuinely moving.

All this and no doves in sight!

(7)

A Historian Review for Accuracy: See True Whispers Instead

[nafps · 1/10 · 29 July 2018]

There are already many reviews panning this film for simply being poorly made, badly acted, directed, and written, unbelievable, and gory and exploitative. A smaller number of reviews rightly consider it an insult to the memory of WWII veterans and more specifically Native vets and Navajo Code Talkers.

I'd like to focus my review on its many historical inaccuracies. The biggest one is that its central premise is wrong and appallingly offensive, the false claim that Marines assigned to be bodyguards to Code Talkers were ordered to kill them rather than let them be taken prisoners. Not only is it utterly wrong, it's near impossible to imagine any Marine killing another Marine, or any Marine officer giving such an order.

The claim ignores that some Code Talkers were, in fact, captured. The scriptwriter also seems to have not known that the famed code was not just two Navajos talking to each other. The original 28 Navajo Code Talkers composed their own complex code. Navajos who were not Code Talkers could not understand nor reveal that code.

This code was never written down until after the war, committed solely to memory, a great intellectual feat. Imagine the main character in The Imitation Game never writing down a code he'd written, for example. The Navajo code was also never broken, nor were any transmissions ever incorrect. This was a huge strategic advantage, and the entire USMC in the Pacific Theater came to depend on the code.

None of that is mentioned in the film. It would have been far more accurate and interesting than this film focused almost solely on Cage's fictional character. The Navajo Nation did make their own film, a documentary, True Whispers. See it instead.

There are also many good books discussing the Code Talkers: Chester Nez's Code Talker (autobiography); Doris Paul's and Nathan Aseng's Navajo Code Talkers (two separate books); Jere Franco's Across the Pond; and my own book Medicine Bags and Dog Tags. Thanks for reading this far, Dr. Alton Carroll US, American Indian, and Latin American History Northern Virginia Community College

Good parts are good, bad parts really bad...

[rixrex · 18 June 2005]

First, the bad: Nicholas Cage's over-the-top, suicidal maniac, idiotic self-pitying marine played with no subtlety at all. Peter Stormare's lousiest performance to date, he's been going downhill since the excellent work in FARGO. Perhaps that one was just luck for him, and a good script. Excessive battle scenes, so much so as to give the viewer shell-shock too. For these, a ONE.

The good: both Adam Beach and Roger Willie give solid, well-bodied performances as the Navajo code talkers. The effort to recognize the contribution of the Navajo code talkers is a very positive aspect here, and for these reasons the film deserves a NINE. I give it an average of FIVE.

John Woo's World War Two

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 29 June 2007]

John Woo (The Killer, Hard Boiled) has finally made "A John Woo Movie" in Hollywood. Finally, hyper-kinetic action and overwrought crises of friendship and conscience in a Hollywood movie.

Nicolas Cage's Sergeant Enders has a Navajo code talker to protect and kill, if necessary. Cage's vet is bitter, ferocious and merciless and some of the violence is truly sickening. Just as it should be.

The Marines are not perfect. Some are damaged, one is racist, and there is friendly fire.

Adam Beach (Flags of Our Fathers) does a good job as Private Ben Yahzee, the code-talker Enders has to protect.

Absolutely superlative stunt work.

Not enough about the Navajo code talkers but a decent film

[inkblot11 · 7/10 · 10 November 2023]

Joe Enders - Nicolas Cage - is a WW2 marine. On a Pacific Island, he witnessed his entire team die while holding a place as told. He gets a medal but, his eardrums were shattered and his equilibrium is off at times. Therefore, he is asked to protect a Navajo code talker, Ben - Adam Beach - as they go to another crucial spot to win back an island from the Japanese. There is another code talker and his protector, too. Enders orders are to kill Ben if he is in danger of capture, as the Navajo will be tortured to give up the code. As a battle begins, will Joe be able to protect Ben ? This film has taken some criticism for not focusing on the Talkers but rather on their protectors. True enough, this film honors Cage more than Beach. Nevertheless, it does introduce the importance of the Talkers in defeating the Japanese in WW2. Those who love history should run to the Internet and the library for more lessons on the Navajo heroes. The film is harrowing and heroic with a fine cast and sets. Therefore, all fans of war movies will find this one a good view.

Heavily underrated

[DanTheMan2150AD · 7/10 · 24 November 2023]

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.

a movie for guys who like movies!

[Aylmer · 7/10 · 16 June 2002]

John Woo may possibly be the best director working in Hollywood today. He has a perfect sense of balletic style to his action scenes unseen in this country since Sam Peckinpah. He also seems to derive a lot of inspiration from Italian filmmakers. He has the best slow motion since Enzo G. Castellari and the use of zoom lens since Umberto Lenzi. Blend this technique into an ultra-violent war film and you get quite an entertaining package.

People interested in well-told stories and believability should skip this one. This movie is far from realistic with lead actor Cage easily mowing down scores of Japanese soldiers without even looking at them. Every American soldier killed in the movie takes at least 2-3 bullet hits before biting the dust (eventually) while the Japanese soldiers instantly die once a shot is fired in their vague direction. However, the film has lots of action, lots of killings, and actually a couple fairly suspenseful scenes to keep you more-than awake. Those of you B-movie fans out there will be pleased to see the triumphant return of stock war footage in place of cheesy CGI for the battleship scenes... though there is light use of CGI later in the film for the airplanes.

This is the true victory of style over content. Although the film wanders from its original path and gets lost in the action, you'll be far too entertained to care. Those of you viewers who are like me and like to turn your brain off and just watch hundreds of humans blow each other to bits, those of you who were angered by how WE WERE SOLDIERS kept cutting back to "the home front", should waste no time in seeing this film. It's a classic action-packed and violent war film which pulls no punches and has no romance... just the way we like it. The story of Navajo code-talking is negligible and barely scratched, but the acting is decent, photography and set design excellent, and action/stuntwork absolutely spectacular.

The film is mildly repetitive and overlong, but a lot of us out here like this kind of film that way. Now if only they'd make a film presenting the war from the Japanese perspective... (besides TORA! TORA! TORA!, which was only 1/2 Japanese anyway)

Blowing in the Wind

[jimmylee-1 · 4/10 · 16 September 2006]

This showed up on the history channel and with the husband once again off playing poker I thought, OK, time to ingest a little more history. Only to end up retching over yet another Nicholas Cage bad movie.

Now, I just recently saw Con Air for the first time on STARz, so the juxtaposition is unfortunate for his rating, but is he letting his lizard tattoo or Elvis visitations determine his movie selections? Are the script readings done by a psychic? Does he gravitate to stupid characters?

I thought I was going to see something that was about World War II, but actually I got to see a silly film filled with characters I've seen so often I could have written this script myself during a silicon valley traffic jam, and done a much better and far more historically accurate job. They all trotted around after the usual conflicted Sergeant - or is Nicolas Cage always conflicted (see fixations above)? - with a Navajo Indian (instead of a representative of some other ethnic group) thrown in to cause racial tension.

Let's see, we had the bullying racist, who then has his life saved by an Indian (gee, there's a surprise), the panicking recruit who can't take the pressure and trips the mine field (wow, didn't see that coming), the accepting comrade who (symbolically) blends an harmonica with the Indian's flute (but dies saving the Indian's life, ditto, ditto), the young boy who must grow up too soon (ah, the poignancy), the Army lieutenant that treats everyone like tools (not again!), the mystic wisdom that teaches us all a little something, the constantly breathy flute music (used with all cultural lessons) - have we endured this one before?

Not really, because we've never seen quite so many battles, with so many bodies (tossed so high in the air) before, or filmed in Utah while pretending to be Iwo Jima. Was John Woo trying to win some kind of battle-filming contest here? Well, I hope so, because he sure lost a battle with the script.

Of course, we had the added stress for poor battle-worn Nicolas Cage that he might have to shoot his code talker rather than have him fall into enemy hands. Quite the sophisticated plot twist, that! Oh no, will Nicolas get too close and feel bad if he has to shoot his young trustee? More conflict! More angst! Cage's specialty! Makes the story so much better, right?

Better, but not accurate. Reality: the code wasn't the language - it was a derivative, based on, the Navajo language. If someone was captured, the code would be changed. The prisoner might understand the base language, but not the code itself.

Oh, yeah, periodically the Indians, who I believe were the original inspiration for the movie, would get to talk back and forth in Navajo, and we would get to see the translation on the screen. They would say their position (not in actual code). Oh, and one time in the movie, the Japanese noticed the Americans weren't speaking English.

And another time, according to the movie, the Japanese attempted to capture an Indian who was just standing around the front line because somehow they knew he was a code talker. Right. They guessed in the middle of combat that he wasn't Hawaiian or Japanese American, he was an American Indian. And they also had somehow figured out that the language that wasn't English was a derivative of an American Indian dialect, and therefore this man must be a Code Talker. Right there in the middle of the battle. Alrighty then. (It must be similar wisdom that causes me to doubt the veracity of this incident.)

These incidents brought history alive for me, alright.

Reality: Code talkers were translating messages NON STOP throughout the taking of Iwo Jima. Which makes it difficult to understand how the Navajos would have been hacking and shooting away on the battlefield, or standing around the front lines, and going through that growing-up-too-soon stuff. Reality: They were able to communicate three times faster than previous codes had hustled along, but like any other job, the number of messages increased to fill the time available. Seems to be a bit of a discrepancy between busy busy real code talker life and Hollywood. Oh, sorry. That's a duh.

In addition to not understanding the difference between a language and a code (is this rocket science?) the soldiers in the film didn't even wear the right dog tags. Reality: I've got my dad's dog tags from WWII, and you can get a lovely facsimile at the Smithsonian gift store right now. Were they not stylish enough? Was it more exciting to use choke chain dog tags? Every time I saw a soldier I saw an anachronism. As in big fat mistake.

I do appreciate that at least we have a movie in these Politically Correct days where we had two sides to a war: good guys and bad guys. You don't see that very often any more, so points to John Woo for that one area.

But I'm getting away from what was really going on in the movie, which was all about battered, bruised, benighted and badgered Nicholas Cage, who talked to the Navajo like Clint Eastwood talked to the trees in Paint Your Wagon. Not to mention the usual angst-ridden and conflicted stuff he faces. I got very little wind talking, and an awful lot of wind blowing out of this movie.

All it did for the important role the Navajo (and Comanche in the European Theatre) Indians played during WWII was bring them up in conversation - too many inaccuracies to be of any other use.

A Mixed bag, but not nearly as bad as most here say.....

[gazzo-2 · 6/10 · 7 May 2005]

I'm sure there are flaws in the movie here, lemme see if I noticed a few...: *Japanese WWII soldiers in Saipan fighting in a WWI Battle of the Marne trench warfare set-up. Uhhhh, no.

*Saipan made out to look like it was fought right behind MASH 4077th. No....not California Desert. Try a Volcanic Pacific Island w/ some jungle.

*Couldn't tell the two blonde GI's apart. The Redneck looked like the guy who gives the little girl candy.

*Adam Beach looked like Lou Diamond Phillips. Roger Willie was more convincing as a Navajo. Just saying--maybe I'm way off? *Cage was basically channeling John Wayne from 'Sands of Iwo Jima' save for the fact that Wayne as Sgt Stryker was 1000 times more believable. You know, ala the Duke and Rambo, never misses what he shoots at, a gazillion rounds miss him, etc.

*CGI planes were goofy.

*Shelling was stupidly accurate.

*Japanese guys couldn't hit the broadside of a barn at 4 feet.

*Leb from Armageddon didn't really cut it as Gunny, though I thought Christian Slater was better, before he lost his head. That was--well sick and weird.

*Banzai charge in daylight from strong uphill positions--somehow I don't think the Japanese were that stupid.

*Filmers missed the chance to tell us about the Navajo code-breakers.

What was good? *Two Navajo guys. I liked Roger Willie the best.

*Cage was alright, quit complaining. Same part he played in the Rock and whatever.

*Overkill violence-well 'Private Ryan' had it along w/ 'Black Hawk Down'. It's just the cliché now. If you don't put it in, you will be accused of whitewashing combat. Woo was in a no win game there. I admit his 'Face off' techniques got real old in a hurry in this one.

*I liked the cardboard cross being knocked over--a Plan 9 From Outer Space nod, ya think? No? Whatever they left that in....

*Tears of the Sun was a lot worse.

**1/2 outta **** for trying though I think they missed the boat on it, yes. It ain't terrible though.

The boys over at Mystery Science Theater 3000 should have a crack at this mess.

[alamosa · 1/10 · 26 June 2002]

What's that you say? "Windtalkers is a war movie, not science fiction!"

Let's see...Cage's character fires his pistol in no particular direction yet takes out large numbers of enemy soldiers who also seem compelled to present themselves as clear targets at the most inopportune moments during the countless firefights.

The bodies of enemy soldiers are hurled through the air in unbelievable symmetry as a result of conventional World War II ordnance detonations that contradict the laws of physics.

While under ferocious enemy attack, a Navajo code talker invokes the code (his native Navajo tongue) to request air strikes from the American battleships offshore. A less dramatic, more expedient request for assistance would have gone something like this: "Holy crap, we're getting pounded here on the island by the enemy! Anything you fellas can do to kill the Japanese soldiers who are killing us would really be helpful! Just look for the smoke, fire and bodies flying through the air!" No code needed, just plain old conversational (albeit very animated) english. No problem if the enemy hears the radio transmission because everything is ... what's the phrase?... happening right now!!!

I saw this movie a year ago during a pre-release studio screening in Laguna Hills, CA. John Woo and about 35 movie industry types (each armed with his or her own water bottle) were in the audience. When the movie ended and the audience members began filling out the obligatory evaluation forms (the price of admission) the stillness in the theater was deafening.

I assumed that the film would be severely re-edited. Apparently it wasn't.

"Windtalkers" was as much about the American Indian's (90% Navajo) unique contribution to our prevailing in World War II as Tom Sizemore's character -- collecting souvenir soil samples -- in "Saving Private Ryan" contributed to the study of geology.

evaluation

[saood-00843 · 9/10 · 25 June 2022]

The movie is wonderful and also its story about the language of encryption in wars and this is one of the basics of winning the war and the main character is suitable for acting and dialogues between Ben and the main character about their lives. They taught me the benefit of coding conversations between soldiers and the Navy.

Imagine "The Thin Red Line" if it were more conventional

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 18 April 2015]

"Windtalkers" (2002) stars Nicolas Cage as a follow-the-orders-at-all-costs soldier who's assigned to protect a code talker (Adam Beach), a Navajo who speaks his native language on radio transmissions to conceal the data from the Japanese. Christian Slater plays a similar soldier assigned to another Navajo (Roger Willie). The movie details the Battle of Saipan and also stars Noah Emmerich, Mark Ruffalo, Brian Van Holt, Peter Stormare and Frances O'Connor.

I was surprised by how good "Windtalkers" is. I say 'surprised' because it lacks the mass hoopla surrounding other WWII films, like 1998's overrated "Saving Private Ryan" (don't get me wrong, the first act of "Ryan" is great, but the rest of the movie leaves a lot to be desired. Remember the lame dog tag sequence?). The film was made by John Woo who knows how to make an exciting and colorful action flick, as witnessed by 1996' "Broken Arrow." "Windtalkers" cost a whopping $115 million to make and you definitely see it on the screen; unfortunately, it 'only' made back $75 million worldwide.

Both 1998's "The Thin Red Line" and "Windtalkers" involve the Pacific Theater of WWII and the taking of Japanese-held islands. While I consider "The Thin Red Line" a nigh-masterpiece, it's too meditative and spiritual if you're in the mood for a straight war flick. When that's the case, "Windtalkers" satisfies just fine. Remember the incredible air raid sequence in 1979's "Apocalypse Now"? That's the impression I got with the opening scenes of the Battle of Saipan in "Windtalkers."

Some complain that not enough emphasis is put on the code talkers, but the two Navajos are major characters throughout the story, particularly the one played by Beach. As for their actual code-talking, what else needs to be shown? The complaint holds no water.

Others complain about the utter annihilation of throngs of Japanese soldiers, but the statistics support this: There were 71,000 allied forces and 31,000 Japanese soldiers in the battle. 'Only' 3,426 allied forces died, while another 10,000 were wounded, but 24,000 Japs were killed and another 5000 committed suicide, while 921 were taken captive. On top of this 22,000 civilians died, mostly by suicide, in obedience to the imperial order of Emperor Hirohito encouraging the civilians of Saipan to commit suicide promising them an equal status in the afterlife with that of soldiers dying in battle.

Ultimately, "Windtalkers" lacks that special flair or perspective that denotes truly exception war movies, like "Apocalypse Now," "Platoon," "Where Eagles Dare" and "The Blue Max," but "Windtalkers" isn't far behind. The main difference is that it's more of a conventional war flick but, of course, that's all it needs to be.

The film runs 134 minutes and was shot in Hawaii and the greater Los Angeles area.

GRADE: B+

The Invasion of Saipan with an Occasional Navaho thrown in

[FADrury · 3/10 · 21 July 2005]

If you are looking for a film that will provide you with the story of the Navaho Codetalkers, this really isn't your film. If you're look for a war flick with plenty of gore and where everything seems to explode in massive fireballs (just like in the Simpsons!), this is your flick.

While the title focuses on the Navaho Codetalkers, most of the film is really taken up with inflated actions scenes and stock characters. While there is some effort to show the training of the Codetalkers, how they were actually used is obscured (they didn't call in coded fire missions) and some of the scenes are just ludicrous. The scene where one of the codetalkers poses as a Japanese soldier taking a Marine prisoner is pretty silly. I guess the Japanese officer they approach must have assumed this soldier was from Japan's wild west.

In essence, the "Windtalkers" theme is just something to catch you eye and make this film "different." John Woo really didn't want to make a film about the Navaho Codetalkers. This film is just an exercise in explosive excess.