Windtalkers

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.