Windtalkers: The Real Review!

Rating: 10/10 (17 June 2002)

Well ladies and gentlemen I saw Windtalkers last night and have only one thing to say about its critics "They must have been abducted by aliens and shown a completely different movie then I saw!!" I thought it was terrific, bordering on absolutely fantastic! Yes - alot of the explosions were too pyrotechnic with more flame than would be released by real artillery and grenades, and I could have done without a few of the slo-mo sequences - but all in all I feel its the best war movie I've seen since "Saving Private Ryan"!!! The characters were very well developed, you really felt like you got to know who these guys were, and you felt you had a personal stake in their well being. The emotional stresses and fight scenes were savage and realistic, correctly representing the type of war it was in the Pacific. And the historical accuracy was down to a tee.
Stylistically the movie differs from "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" in a few important ways. The first two were filmed in a way to put you right there - on the battlefield with a combat camera - to make you feel like you were in the middle of it, and they did it brilliantly. Windtalkers is a little different.......and this is not a fault. Yes, many times you feel like you are participating in the battle. The camera angles are wide enough to encompass that viewpoint, but you also get the sense of witnessing a historic story. Its not that you don't get engrossed in it as much, its more like you are at times observing omnipotently and rooting terribly hard for your team. The editing was nothing like the cliche' ridden "Black Hawk Down", the pretentious "Thin Red Line", or the absolutely absurd and overblown "We Were Soldiers"!! Neither did it have too ambitious of a soundtrack like the cheesy "Pearl Harbor". No - the angles were from behind the soldiers and their sides (wide). If a marine shot a Japanese soldier, you saw him go down. It wasn't like you saw the soldier shoot and then the camera cut away to see the bullet hit its mark and some ridiculous death dance. That kind of editing disconnects the viewer I feel. Furthermore, the movie also provides an excellent model of Japanese fighting styles. Much of the fighting was close, bloody, and hand to hand in the Pacific. The Japanese armed with their bolt action Arisaka rifles were outgunned by the plethora of BAR's, Tommy Guns, M1 Carbines, and M1 Garands carried by the better armed Americans. Thus their fighting style was more often than not Banzai and infiltration bayonet!!! That is why on Iwo Jima in 1945, out of 22,000 Japanese soldiers, only 11 surrendered. 21,989 died!!!!!!!!!!! The Marines had 3700+ men KIA in 1 month's fighting on Saipan (where this story is set) and the Army almost a comparable number. Until now this battle has never gotten its due attention, being that it was launched on June 16th, 1944. 10 Days after D-Day. I guess my point is that the Japanese charging and attacks should not be mistaken for a Rambo-like directorial style.........
Some critics have stated that the movie is more about Joe Enders (Cage's character) than the Navajo codetalkers......... Again, I don't know which movie they were watching. As I stated earlier, the film bears the mark of its director John Woo. Not in any stupid "Broken Arrow" or "Face-Off" fashion but you do realize there is a deliberate attempt at choreography at times. This film will be installed in my Top 25 of All Time. Its no "Saving Private Ryan", but then how many films are........... Just 1.............. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and was touched by it. My wife was almost inconsolable at certain points she was crying so hard. I would eagerly recommend this film to anyone.....and I am pleasantly surprised, to say the least, to see John Woo make a good film again.