Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

JWGTheMovieCritic Windtalkers is by far the most inaccurate and unrealistic war movie I've ever had the displeasure of seeing. I was a fan of the film growing up, as explosions generally attract young boys. Now that I've matured it's painfully obvious how generic it is. The acting is sub par for a war movie, the genuine emotions of war are vacant in this film. The amount of explosions almost make me think Michael Bay was really behind this film, using John Woo as an alias. Nic Cage is a one man army, which is truly the most irritating part of it all. His character is equipped with an M1A1 Thompson SMG. The Thompson holds 20 rounds a magazine, yet I don't believe I saw Cage reload a single time. Besides his infinite magazine and ammunition, he single handedly kills dozens upon dozens of the enemy, which makes the rest of his squad appear utterly useless. Adam Beach gives a rather a dry performance, which further proves my theory that he's nothing but a mediocre Michael Pena. How he landed a role in Flags of Our Fathers, a war film light years ahead of Windtalkers, is beyond me. In one of the final scenes, where Nic Cages character (Enders) dies, I couldn't decide which actor was less believable. For your closest companion on the battlefield sacrificing his life for yours, you'd think he'd have a little more emotion as he says goodbye. Two dull leading actors severely hurt the more dramatic scenes. This film is a textbook example of clichés, predictable outcomes, crucial scenes ruined by mediocre acting, and so much more. The only reason I rated it a generous 4/10 was for the entertainment factor. If you discard historical content and the near insulting portrayal of war, the impressive (although sometimes overdone) amount of explosions and the abundance of extras can result in some very attractive shots. The bottom line is this movie is a very poorly done film in regards to the war genre, but as far as action goes its enough to keep you entertained. If you're a history buff like I am, you'll want to rip your hair out in the first fifteen minutes. If you're just looking for a solid action movie, this might just be enough.

Wuchak "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+

Nico Viergever I did not expect too much of this movie, especially after looking at the IMDb ranking. I watched the film and I read the reviews and I noticed the reviews are packed with senseless prejudice.Windtalkers is, in my opinion, an excellent film. It describes the importance of Navajo code talkers to the US army during World War II. At the same time it describes the view of the American army to these same Navajo soldiers who were just as other minorities seen as inferior.The two main aspects why I thoroughly enjoyed this movie: the excellent combination of John Woo's fantastic direction and the editing and cinematography. Both in big, wide shots and in close by scenes the movie is brilliantly made with great eye for detail with fantastic shots. Of course a number of scenes are not very realistic. Of course John Woo goes over the top completely with explosions, according to some. But search for the described battle: looks like they went over the top there as well.Second reason: as the main character, a marine traumatized by previous experiences and always justifying his actions because he followed his orders and at the same time doubting that principle, Cage showed again that he is a great actor. He was impressive! Never mind the reviews of people who are negative about the film because they don't like Woo and/or Cage. Never mind the people who don't like the film because they only wanted to see Navajo heroics. This is a highly underrated film.

Qui Queg Sorry- this did not meet my expectations. First, i don't know much about war but i guess there is no armistice-button. Most of this is a massacre (if you watch the directors cut), and Nicholas Cage has a loss of memories (as he lies in the hospital with open eyes), is almost deaf, but suddenly his acoustic senses are intact, so he returns to war like all of what happened earlier was a bad dream, and also later he is mostly spared by the bullets. The twist of fate, what you find in history books, is, that the guy shooting with the flamethrower becomes a target himself and seriously burned, so one of the comrades has to give him the coup de grace. However, the shootouts look realistic but the airplanes seem to be slower than the bullets, like a simulation. But-what did i expect? i was watching movies like "enigma" and "a beautiful mind" which were sophisticated, but this was mostly like "saving private Ryan" with a few navajoes. In this genre i recommend rather "the killing fields", "full metal jacket", "the dirty dozen", "where eagles dare", "casualties of war", "black hawk down" or "apocalypse now". The final issue is, did the character of "joe enders" played by Nicholas Cage who tried to act coldblooded and taciturn like charles bronson, really exist? in fact i heard about "Carlos James Lozada", "Randall Shughart", "Gary Gordon" and "Chester Nimitz" on afn radio europe(you will find them on wikipedia) who did, because this should be a criteria. for evaluating a movie.