Roger Ebert Hated This Controversial War Western That's More Relevant Than Ever

There’s an old cliché that “those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it,” and that could be one of a dozen lessons baked into the text of director Alex Cox’s extremely divisive 1987 punk-Western film Walker. Intentionally anachronistic and historically inaccurate, the film nonetheless presents itself as “a true story” — not “based on,” not “inspired by.” Despite constant evidence to the contrary, the film insists that it’s a true story.

In other words, Walker is not subtle about the fact that it’s attempting something clever, but that failed to do much to assuage critics at the time. Roger Ebert in particular had nothing but contempt for Walker, saying in his review at the time that it “declares its badness right from the opening titles” and that it's “a pointless and increasingly obnoxious exercise” in what is “apparently intended as a comedy or a satire.” The film has been reappraised by modern audiences who are a little more on board with it (it boasts a 66 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes from non-critics), but it’s still a decidedly weird, weird, weird film.

What Is ‘Walker’ and Why Is It So Controversial?

Walker, from Sid and Nancy director Alex Cox, is ostensibly based on the life of William Walker, an American mercenary who more or less conquered Nicaragua in the 1850s in the name of manifest destiny — the idea that America was so great that we owed it to the world to spread our values (slavery, white supremacy, maybe democracy) to supposedly less-fortunate regions. In reality, the campaign was really about the two things that everything like that is about: money and power.

Ed Harris plays Walker and performs voiceover narration throughout the film, and the movie presents him as something akin to an immortal force of nature. He casually walks through battlefields, completely unfazed by gunfire and the nearly cartoonish level of violence, serving as the embodiment of American exceptionalism itself. While that’s happening, other characters drink out of Coke bottles, smoke Marlboros, and read issues of modern ‘80s-era magazines like Time and Newsweek that have Harris’ Walker on the cover.

It all culminates in a scene that is so outlandish that even a detractor should be impressed by the audacity of it: After Walker makes a speech promising/threatening that America will never leave Nicaragua alone, a helicopter full of modern American soldiers with machine guns arrives to evacuate all U.S. citizens from the country. (Remember: It takes place in the 1850s.) Then, news clips of Ronald Reagan talking about sending troops to Nicaragua play over the credits — just to put a laser-sharp point on it.

‘Walker’ Is Just As Much About Donald Trump as It Is Ronald Reagan

It’s important to note that Walker came out in the midst of the Iran-Contra scandal, when the U.S. government covertly (read: illegally) funded anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua by selling weapons to Iran. Walker is about a real guy who really did try to take over Nicaragua as a show of supposed American greatness, but the anachronistic gags — Coke bottles, modern soldiers, etc. — are meant to indicate that it’s also about what was happening in Nicaragua in the ‘80s. It’s not subtle, which is part of the film’s charm.

These days, the idea of American exceptionalism and the argument that it is the nation’s duty to spread American influence throughout the world (by force, ideally) is still in the news. Donald Trump’s administration captured the president of Venezuela and has regularly threatened to take over Greenland, and whether or not anyone thinks those are good ideas, they are, again, pretty much the same thing Walker did. That means the silly anachronisms in Walker don’t just situate it right in the ‘80s; they make it as timeless as the idea of America deciding it can bully the world to get what it wants. It arguably makes the movie even less fun than it already was, but it turns out that the stupid brutality of imperialism will always be relevant.