WWII. Joe Enders, a decorated Marine who is by-the-book to a fault, is just coming back on duty (by cheating on his medical tests). Ox Anderson, much greener, is also getting the same new task Protect the Navajo codetalkers (Ben Yahzee and Charles Whitehorse, respectively). While Enders is initially frustrated with his assignment, his respect grows as the codetalkers prove their worth in the brutal battle to take Saipan.
|Windtalkers Movie(DivX)||Resolution: 592x244 px||Total Size: 355 Mb|
|Windtalkers Movie(DivX)||Resolution: 592x244 px||Total Size: 353 Mb|
|Windtalkers Movie(DVD)||Resolution: 720x304 px||Total Size: 1387 Mb|
|Windtalkers Movie(HD 720)||Resolution: 1280x720 px||Total Size: 4169 Mb|
|Windtalkers Movie(iPod)||Resolution: 480x272 px||Total Size: 449 Mb||
|Windtalkers Movie(HD)||Resolution: 852x480 px||Total Size: 1078 Mb||
I was lucky enough to see this movie when it premiered in Hollywood on the11, and I was thoroughly impressed by what I saw. John Woo did atremendousjob making a realistic war scene. Adam Beach is so incredibly awesome inthis movie as Pvt. Ben Yahzee, I mean by the end his performance just movedme beyond belief! I'm so glad for him too because this movie is going to bea big break. If you like him in this movie and you haven't seen his othermovie "Smoke Signals" you really should. Nicolas Cage did a really good jobin the movie too playing the war-weary Sgt. Joe Enders who is assigned toprotect the code. I had the honor of meeting several of the actual codetalkers who were in town for the premiere and they all said they reallyliked the movie and that it was really accurate. They also said that theywere glad it came out so that their heroic deeds during the war couldfinally be told. If you haven't seen this movie you should, the NativeAmerican spirituality scenes in this movie are amazing, I love it! It's aheart-wrenching story of honor and friendship.
Sure, it's overly melodramatic, and at times historically inaccurate, but if you've ever wanted to see John Woo try his hand at making an epic war film, this film is probably what you would have imagined. Woo reteams with Nicolas Cage and Christian Slater to bring you the story of Navajo American Indians who became code talkers for the United States during the battles in the Pacific. If this DVD is what I think it is, then it is Sony re-releasing a single-disc edition of the Director's Cut that was found on the 3-disc set released by MGM in 2003. Unlike many other "new cuts" released by studios, which incorporate only a few minutes of new footage, the Windtalkers Director's Cut includes 20 more minutes of footage, including scenes that beef up the relationship between Nicolas Cage and Frances O'Connor's characters. This is a much-needed addition, as their relationship in the theatrical version felt underdeveloped. Overall, I think Windtalkers is a triumph for John Woo. While it surely won't be regarded as his best work, there is definitely an audience for this action-packed war story of courage and honor.
I had such high hopes for this film considering the subject matter. What I should have noted is that Cage is hit-or-miss with his movies, and that Woo was directing. This is 2 hours of my life I will never get back. I could spend quite a bit of time describing in detail all of this film's faults, but enough time has been wasted already. Avoid this terrible film at all costs. I wish I could have given it zero stars.
I'm a huge fan of John Woo, but find it a shame that the most interestingaspect of this particular story - how Navajo Indians were used ascodetalkers during WW2 - is drowned by his trademark gung-ho gunplay. Hiscommon theme of brotherhood amidst adversity is present, but works so muchbetter in his older films.Plot set aside, it's all about slo-mo dives, blasting of countless,facelessbaddies using guns with unfeasibly large ammo magazines, and cornydialoguethat's mostly (and thankfully) drowned out by a thunderous soundtrack.What's left, aside from these numerous and bloody battle scenes, isworryingreminiscent of Pearl Harbor and other trash of its ilk. ClichÃ©d characters(the racist, the dumb senior officer, the snow-white nurse), plot twistsyoucan see coming a mile off, and some highly suspect reasoning that'sconfusing or just not properly explained.Respect is due as always to one of the kings of the action movie genre,butthere was a proper story that needed telling within all the carnage, anditneeded a lighter touch to bring it out.
Windtalkers is almost a paradox. When viewed as an action movie, it isspectacular but as a war movie, it leans towards the mediocre side ofthings. The reason why this is is because well, other then introducingthesmall but signifigant part that the navajo indians played in the war,Windtalkers really offers nothing new in terms of how to view war or howthesoldiers viewed the war. Also, when there is an attempt at a message ofanykind or some ironic conversations among the characters, it seems forcedandonly in the film becuase it is trying to be a war movie and all warmoviesmust have them. Another thing that war movies have is confusion and anuneasy flow of the battle scenes which works for a war movie.Windtalkershas a more comfortable and natural flow with the battle scenes which aregreat in terms of action scenes but not really in terms of a war movie.Saving Private Ryan, and We Were Soldiers are great examples of how a warmovie battle scene should be because the actions of the characters andsuchare disjointed and has an uneven pace.However, the battle scenes in Windtalkers are by far the best, amd mostbrutal, that I have ever seen. In fact I would go as far to say thattheyare more brutal then Saving Private Ryans (We Were Soldiers is a tossup).The reason being is that tyhe characters, mainly Nicolas Cage's and theBenYahzee, get down and dirty with the enemy. Nicolas Cage takes out 6 guysatppoint blank range with a pistol and Ben Yahzee swings a knife wildly atenemy soldiers slashing throats, legs, arms, or whatever is in the way ofthe knife.Basically, it is a great action movie masqurading as a war movie. If youwatch it for the battle scenes, you wont be dissappointed. If you wacthitand expecting something like We Were Soldiers or Saving Private Ryan, youwill be dissappointed.sidenote: What also seperates Windtalkers from SPR ans WWS, is the useofslow motion. SPR and WWS had very little slow motion withyin theirbattlescenes and when they did it was the clunky, unpolished kind that fitsthemwell. Windtalkers has the smooth slow motion from high speed camaraswhichlooks very impressive but makes the battle scenes very stylistic which isgreat for a action movie but seems out of place in a warmovie.
This review is from: Windtalkers (DVD) to start out, ANY person who gives this movie 1 star, would not know a good movie if it came up bit them on the arm. DO NOT pay any attention to their review, Only mine is the one you follow. If you like war movies then this is the one to watch. Lots of blood, gore, guts. Good acting as well. LISIEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING. Watch it.
My husband enjoyed this movie a great deal - I did not. The underlying story of the "windtalkers" and their Navajo heritage was told, but it definitely could have been expanded upon. It was mostly done with comments of the soldiers involved in the war, allowig for somewhat of a change in their fellow soldiers. There were a one or two "flashbacks" and one "flashforward" that portrayed the "windtalkers" earlier life. The movie was exceeding violent and graphic in terms of war related issues. It could have been done with a lot less blood and gore. It was interesting to learn that the code was never broken and that it significantly helped in the winning of the war.
I have never been so disgusted by a movie in my life. I realise war filmsare meant to be violent things, I just think that they're capable of beinghandled with more tact and diplomacy than this. There's no story, nocharacter development, and I don't need to pay $10.50 to see someone'skneecaps blown off for my amusement. a must miss
This was one of the worst movies we've seen in a long time. The best partwas when the credits rolled and it was over. I can't particularly faulttheacting, but the directing, writing, special effects, military advising,computer effects, editing, and judgment of the people who produced thismovie were all incredibly faulty. (What was the point of the severedhead?To make us forget how absolutely vile the movie itself was?) Perhaps theyneeded someone like Hal Moore to put his foot down about how to make amovieabout the military. The movie wasn't even about the Windtalkers; insteaditwas about post-traumatic stress syndrome and guilt. I'd love to seesomething decent that tells the story of the Windtalkers, but this moviefalls so short someone should force a name change.
I just watched the director's cut on DVD after having seen thetheatrical cut some time ago.Plot summary: In WWII, a code based on the Navajo language was used tosecurely communicate between US troops in the Asian Pacific, withoutthe Japanese eavesdropping. We follow two Navajo code talkers and theirUS Marine "bodyguards" as they go into combat on a Japanese island.A lot has been written about this somewhat flawed John Woo movie. Afterhaving seen both versions, my main disappointment is still that the twocode talkers seem like background characters. A movie with a lowerbudget, without big Hollywood stars put in the foreground wouldprobably have been more satisfying. Maybe that movie should have beendone by another director too, I don't know. Enough good "general" war movies have been made. The code talker partof 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 ofWindtalkers doesn't turn a mediocre Woo film into a masterpiece, but itis certainly an improvement.Main advantages of the DC are more fleshed out characters. You get morebackground on all main characters, including the two Navajo codetalkers. I felt more involved. As a result, the code talker part of thestory is served better, but still not enough to my taste. The DC alsohas more uncut battlefield scenes. Woo really shows his talent here,with raw yet beautifully shot war action. You get the sense that youare in the middle of the action.I was particularly interested if a scene was put back in where a USsoldier takes a golden tooth from a Japanese corpse. This scene wasdescribed in several documentaries about censorship by the US Army. Notcompletely surprisingly, this scene was also absent from the DC.If you are a Woo fan or already appreciated the theatrical cut, it maybe worth checking out the director's cut.My ratings: 6/10 for the original cut. 8/10 for the director's cut.
Am I allowed to say this flick blose donkeys? Cage is over-exposed andover-rated. Blacklist this dork already! You know by now how I ratemovies: Must see in theatre/Ok for video/Waste of time. Windtalkers is awaste of your time and money. Play cards instead.....or do somelaundry.
Star rating (out of 5):3Who would like this:weekend warriors,history buffsWorth seeing...-in the theatre:no-buy it:no-rent it:yes*very real/no lack of bullets here
Being a massive John Woo fan, I was very eager to see the long delayedWindtalkers in Australia. With the fairly negative feedback from the US,myexpectations were lowered yet after it's screening, I was very impressed.After the endless war films released these days, it is hard to distinguishone war film from the other and these days, it all boils down tofilmmakerstrying to conquer new ground in the genre and John Woo certainly exceeds.Apart from the high level of male bonding that Woo excels at inWindtalkersand his other films, the story of the Najavo windtalkers would have to beone of the most intriguing concepts; assuming it's reasonable accurate,I'veseen in a war film. Not since Saving Private Ryan has a war film actuallycreated characters that emit some sympathy to the audience. After theaverage We Were Soldiers and hollow Black Hawk Down, the latter, a filmthatalthough was praised, i thought had no character development or generationof feeling for characters and felt more as a 140 minute documentary ofbrilliantly executed gunfire. Through Various scenes, Windtalkers createsaunique experience of Indian and caucasian American people to embalm apowerful story.As for direction, John Woo certainly knows his craft and although i missedthe awesome over the top direction of Face/Off, Woo certainly insertsflourishes of style with long steadicam sequences and various visual dreamsequences that capture well, the inner emotions of characters. With goodediting, cinematography for once that didnt copy Janusz Kaminski'sforevercopied dull washed look in SPR, technically, it is a well made film. JohnWoo creates an enticing complementary film to his more captivating Bulletinthe Head that adds something fresh to the increasingly over-producedgenre.
Contains SpoliersIn the current climate of war movies, nearly every war film has the sametheme of brave soldiers facing unstopable and unpredicatble odds to faceadversity. Perhaps Saving Private Ryan should take the flack for startingthis. If we didn't the message that war is futile in Ryan, then we'll get itrammed down our throats in every other war film.John Woo films are incredibly poetic and perhaps brilliant. And this has allof Woo's mannerisims and direction style. I think he's showed critics thathe isn't just a one trick pony churning out the same old action film butwith a different plot.Sure the film is well shot and very poetic. Sure it has the Woo-isms offriendship, loyalty and the human spirit woven into the story. But, I dunnoperhaps Woo's style doesn't fit the war movie.Sure the constant ambushes and the contininous explosions became repetitive,tedious and even boring. But that was the point. Its a war, not an actionfilm. It distracts you long enough from Cage's character still disappointedat losing his platoon.Whilst we've seen this tired cliche done over and over and over again Ithink Cage handled it very well, until his *SPOILER* end scene where he goesinto silly speak slowly whilst dying mode *END SPOILER*War does things to many people. Some run and cry. Some just run. Some likeSassoon and Owen realise the pointlessness and just how tedious and brutalwar is. This film doesn't show the pointlessness of war. Rather itsbrutality.And whilst its commendable that Woo tackled a hard task such as the use ofNative Americans in World War 2 I feel the film doesn't show both sides ofthe story. The Japanese or Japs come from all sides as if they are aninvisible enemy or unknown enemy. They are human too.There are problems to the film, things which aren't wrapped up. For examplethe nurse who writes letters to Cage suddenly disappears. The ending shouldhave been with her. How does she cope with Cage's war?This is an above-average war film with strong themes of friendship andloyalty. And perhaps you can see behind the explosions and the shrapnel tosee the bad writing, the over the top acting of Cage and perhaps roll youreyes at how Cage doesn't seem to get hit whilst he takes out a platoon ofJapanese soldiers.Its not a forgettable movie, but perhaps the sequence with Slater'scharacter being killed could be the one sequence that is probably rememberedthe most.Overall: 6/10.
Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, who watches a dramatic movie made inHollywood or anywhere else, with the expectation of getting a historylesson is simply ignorant of the purpose of movies. Movies are meant toentertain and in the case of advocacy cinema enlighten; documentariesare meant to educate. Movies do not educate; they can in fact be highlymisleading. Anyone wishing to know about the Battle for Saipan may Isuggest A Special Valor: the U.S. Marines and the Pacific War (ISBN:0452007372 / 0-452-00737-2) by Richard Wheeler (this book also coversthe first battle sequence, which was somewhere in the Solomons,possibly Guadalcanal given the 1942 year within which it occurred. Forthose too stupid to comprehend a serious history, try Guy Gabadon'sHell to Eternity; it's highly entertaining and full of the kind ofboyhood heroics most of the people here seem to think never occurred(it even includes a neat decapitation of Gabadon's best friend during aBanzai Attack. Gabadon's gun jammed and he watched his friend get cutapart). If Gabadon is too heavy for folks, check out a semi-coffeetable style book "Marines in World War II CommemorativeSeries-Breaching the Marianas-The Battle for Saipan", which is alsoavailable in a CD ROM format. For those interested in the naval battlefor the Marianas, the definitive work is by Samuel Elliot Morrison("Naval History of World War II", check for the appropriate volume forSaipan or find the abridged version of this study) or look for theVictory at Sea volume dealing with the Marianas. For those interestedin the air battle, try "Operation Forager; Air Power in the Campaignfor Saipan" by Army Command and General Staff College. If the tone ofmy comments seem a tad caustic that can simply be explained by thedisgust with many of the comments herein presented. Most peopleoffering sharp criticisms have no real clue about the Battle for Saipanor the Marianas operation more generally, Code Talkers or Navajo peoplemore generally, and/or US Marine and Japanese infantry tactics/fightingduring the Second World War. Most folks are rather fixed on criticisingNicholas Cage. Personally, I have no problem with anyone being criticalof Cage; from my perspective, he's neither much better or much worsethan most of the overpaid actors inhabiting Hollywood these days. I dohave a problem with people making statements about this film'shistoricity or lack thereof without first educating themselves to thesubject with which they are offering comments. My father was stationedon Saipan and Tinian in 1944 and 1945 (Army Air Corps). He arrivedbefore the islands were secured and he had friends shot by snipers andsaw Japanese snipers killed (he was not involved in the reduction ofJapanese defenses but passed down hundreds of photographs of theprocess...to suggest this was an ugly fight is to do an injustice towhat occurred). May I suggest that arm chair directors educatethemselves before becoming critical of film content least they makethemselves look foolish. I read perhaps 15 reviews and not a single oneaddressed this fundamental question. I don't give a care what anyonethinks about Nicholas Cage or whether Adam Beach looks like a Navajo;it would be nice if anyone offering comment about this or any filmaddress what is perhaps the most fundamental issue of any review. andthe only question of any relevance: Was this movie entertaining? Onewould hardly know from reading a couple of dozen comments.
It's okay for American soldiers to run over open fields and not getwiped out by artillery and heavy gunfire. It's possible that one mancan take out an entire Japanese army with a Thompson submachine gun.It's definitely accurate for Japanese soldiers to only shoot at U.S.troops when they're only fifteen feet away. And it is realistic, whenshot twenty times to keep screaming and bleed a quarter of brightorange or pink blood. Uhm? This sounds more like a M-rated video gamerather than a war picture."Windtalkers", directed by one of my favorite action directors JohnWoo, delivers this versus something along the lines of "Enemy at theGates" or "Private Ryan." He definitely holds to his stylish action ofslow-motion images, CGI, and fireworks-like explosions, with a slightfeeling of the mayhem of war, which leaves me, satisfied enough to sitthrough the two hour and fourteen minute "popcorn loving" film.Despite this cartoonish feeling, the film has some decent performances,particularly by Adam Beach and Roger Willie as the two Navajo Indiansand the hot-headed Christian Slater. Nicholas Cage is his typical selfas the impenetrable hero (as exaggerated in the first paragraph). Andthe historical look of the Navajos and their unbreakable code wasmildly interesting.I was entertained through the film, but I got nothing out of it. It'sjust another unrealistic action flick with a World War II setting. 5/10
Windtakers Didn't Have a Strong script. Like Saving Private Ryan. Alltrough It was Silmiler Storylineset In world war two story About Soldiers and Of course Violence. The Movie I thinkIs more about Joe Enders (Nicolas Cage)Then The Navajo Codetalkers. Like In Ryan' It has A little More FocusOn James Francis Ryan. (Matt deamon) Alltrough Windtalkers Had Violent SceensBut It was Pale Compared to Saving Private Ryan'sIn your Face Nightmarish More Graphic Pychologicly More Disturbing Then Windtalkers. The camera Just Flies In Windtalkers But In ryan I'ts Like Somone Had a Hand HealdCamera Looks more Like a domcumenrty.Windtalkers It's More Sentimentel Then Ryan Saving Private Ryan is More Blunt RealisticThen Windtalkers I recamend Saving Private Ryan. Then Windtalkers.
*spoilers* I have always liked war movies and john woo movies and this isthe best of both worlds. i have no idea why so many people hate this movie.there is so much action and it portrays the Japanese as they really were.The japanese would charge out in the open because they always fought to thedeath. it was called a banzai charge. and who cares about the navajobackround. this is a war movie not a history channel special. why does amovie have to be realistic? what happened to just enjoying a movie for whatit is? fantasy. it isn't real. it is just made for entertainment which thismovie does very well. this movie was BASED on true events. it never saidthe movie was totaly true. this movie is also cool because of the bodycount. the body count in this movie rivals commando. john woo movies havelots of action and so do war movies. this is what you get is you combinethem. my only complaint is that nicholas cage didn't jump sideways with 2pistols like he does in face/off.
Did anyone else notice the obviously from-an-old-war-documentary footageofthe battleships firing on the island after Ben Yahzee gives them thecoordinates of the Japanese entrenchments? I think with a budget of $115million, you'd be able to do some CGI work, or at the very least, clean upthe horrible footage that was used.
Bad movie. I was expecting a greater focus on the role of the Navaho code, instead it's about a shell-shocked Nic Cage coming to terms with his personal demons. A bright spot: Adam Beach does some fine acting. Looking for a good war flick, check out Black Hawk Down, We Were Soliders, Saving Private Ryan, and the soon to be released "Band of Brothers." These films are much more believable.