IMDb user comments for
Billy Jack (1971)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 9:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Index

88 comments in total

---

30 out of 35 people found the following comment useful :-
A Very Accurate Look Back, 1 December 2003

Author: tonesmyth from Arizona

I was a teenager when this movie came out. I've not seen it in years and found it on a bargain DVD the other night. While the matter of whether or not this is great film-making may be up for debate, there is no doubt in my mind that this is one of the most accurate records on film of what is was to be a hippie (or a freak) in the early 70's. If all you know about this is from watching "That 70's Show", this movie should be an eye-opener. I just have to make a few comments about some of the other reviews here. The musical performances were not polished and professional, however, in 1971, we weren't looking for that. We loved to sit around with other freaks and sing songs together. We liked that better than listening to the radio. We didn't play CDs at our parties, we sang for each other. Some of us had bad voices, but we didn't care. It wasn't karaoke, we wrote our own songs. This movie portrays what it was all about. The drama scenes were excellent. I was doing that kind of improv in my Jr. High Drama class. We did those kind of skits at summer camp. This again, was very common back in the day. I remember the redneck as well. I grew up in a western town and part of being a freak was that you got a lot of harassment from the rednecks. They'd gang up on you and try to cut your hair. This was really not an uncommon thing. This movie showed some contradiction of violence and the peace movement. Most of us had all of that inside of us at the time. We were influenced by Gandhi and Bruce Lee. We listened to Joan Baez and Black Sabbath. This movie hit home with so many of us because it's two main characters (Billy & Jean) were the two sides of our own psyche trying to make sense of the world around us. While the acting talent may be in question, I found the characters to be very real and many reminded me of people I grew up with. If this movie was to be remade, I doubt they could find an actor to deliver such authenticity. For anyone interested in knowing what the world was really like in 1971, this film will take you there.

---

22 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the best, 2 August 2003
Author: Dismenot from USA

A movie I think almost everyone should see. Billy Jack epitomizes the senselessness of blind hatred and bigotry, and, it was one of the best "B" movies ever made. I myself, went to a type of "freedom school" when I was a kid, and the song, "One Tin Soldier" almost became our school anthem. I love this movie and always will, but a word of warning, the younger generation wont find any "star-wars" special effect's, it was produced on a rather small budget, and anyone can find a filming flaw, in any movie, but if you take it at face value, and just enjoy the "John Wayne cleaning up the town(only moved into the 1970's instead of the 1870's)" and the message it convey's. then I think you will like this film.

---

24 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
An underappreciated masterwork, 26 August 2001
Author: WeepingGodFilms (scooter_slut@excite.com) from Dearborn, Michigan

It is true that Tom Laughlin does not look like an Indian, half-breed or otherwise. It is true that some of the scenes, particularly the scenes improvised by the committee, are unnecessary (though extremely funny) and the film itself is too long. It is true that the martial arts scenes in this film are few and far between. However:

The film is not a martial arts film and it deals more with the spirit of being an Indian, a true American, than it is about the looks of one.

Often dismissed as a cheesy karate movie, BILLY JACK is in fact an excellent study of conflicting idealogies, of violence as a quick but by no means correct solution, and of the different varieties of love. Though it is much too long a film, the sheer enthusiasm and love for the children that Jean (Dolores Taylor) expresses gets the viewer involved on an emotional level. While we cannot justify Billy Jack's (Tom Laughlin) actions, we know he is doing it out of love for Jean. We feel the rage he feels towards Bernard, a character that is suprisingly deftly acted. At the start of the film, we sympathize with him; by the time he has raped Jean we, like Billy, want to rip him a couple of new orifices. His well-deserved death is quick and pathetic, like the shooting of the dog.

Billy Jack himself is an American icon, the true definition of a hero, presented in such a way that the audience questions their own ideas about heroism.

The characters are well-drawn, the cinematography breath-taking, the improvised scenes much funnier than anything to hit SNL in a long time. So why is it that this film, the most financially-successful independent film to EVER exist, is so often dismissed as nothing more than a bad karate movie? Because of bad marketing, for one thing; the other is the way it's often described: "A half-breed indian Vietnam Vet played by a white guy protects a 'hippie' school from bigotry." Much like the Freedom School that Billy seeks to protect, the film itself is marred by such bigotry and misconceptions.

---

15 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Judge it against other films from the time, 16 December 2002

Author: grahamsj2 from SE US

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I seldom read other reviewer's comments before I add my own two cents' worth, but I did for this one..don't know why. Anyway, it seems that this film is being judged against the films of today instead of with others from the early 70's. Much of what made the film a blockbuster then seems so dated now. Judged against other films of the day, Billy Jack was BIG and Billy Jack was IMPORTANT. The acting in this film is not great, but most of the cast is made up of relative unknowns. The story, as I said, is definitely passe (by today's standards). But Billy Jack was a "social consciousness" film, designed to put forward the cause of pacifism. The Vietnam war was still raging in 1971 and the antiwar juggernaut was steamrolling. This film, while not strictly an anti-war film, advocates peace, love and all that other hippie stuff. Oh, yeah...HIPPIES. When's the last time you saw a real, honest-to-God Hippie? The film is pretty much full of hippies. They espoused peace and love and sharing, a message that just wouldn't cut it today. But mixed in with the peace movement is the beginnings of the growing need to reconnect with one's ancestry. Billy Jack is an Indian. No, they don't call them Native Americans in this film, they call them Indians. Everything has changed in 30 years and that's why it's not fair to judge this film by today's standards. This film is very violent, has nudity in it and would certainly be rated "R" today. Billy Jack's martial arts sequences are actually realistic, with no one flying 20 feet through the air, turning a dozen back flips and then kicking 13 people in a quarter of a second. Somehow, it wound up with a PG rating. It's a 30+ year old film but one that deserves to be judged fairly, so judge it against other films of the time. I think you'll find it can stand on its own.

---

14 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Not so ridiculous, 4 December 2003
Author: pcofhod from Jackson, Tennessee

Granted, I'll admit that this movie, or many movies of the same period, are not going to win an Oscar or anything. It wasn't intended to be a box office runaway, or a cash cow. It was meant to make a statement. I was fairly young by the time this came out, but even by then, I'd found many things in my own life that I'd identify with in this movie. First, I'm half Cherokee, and went through the whole biased, racist, "halfbreed" garbage myself, and still do on a rare occasion. Secondly, I'm a martial artist, albeit of a much different style than the Hapkido studied by Tom Laughlin and the character of Billy Jack. Thirdly, I'm what would be termed a hippie. This movie made a very powerful statement about what racism, as far as pertains to Native Americans, was and can still be like in this country today. It made a statement about the hippie movement, which 99.99% of its detractors have no idea what its about, or why we did it and continue to do it. So you can tell there's a stuntman that takes Tom's place in the park. Big deal. MANY movies, especially of that era, have similar "problems" with the suspension of disbelief. The thing you have to remember is that this is a MOVIE. Yes, its supposed to give the surrealism of watching something in real life, but we know its a movie. Enjoy the story for the sake of the story. Don't nit pick each and every little detail and flaw. Ever seen those movies with the cars driving down a wet road at night, and you can see the reflection of the car headlights, and the trails they leave on the lens of the camera? Of course you have. This is something that will distract the nit picker but won't mean much of anything to someone trying to enjoy the story. Besides, nobody's perfect. You've got to be who you are, what you are, and all that is revolved around what turns you on, not in a sexual sense, but "turned on" as in "makes you tick." So what if Fox was the original bankroller of the film? They obviously didn't KEEP bankrolling it. The quality is terrible, by today's standards, yes. In 1971 though, the quality was actually very good by comparison. The acting was, as someone said, very natural. You weren't thinking of looking at actors trying to be someone else, you had the sense of these people being exactly who they were supposed to be in most cases. Again, not Oscar material, but it flowed smoothly enough, I think, that overall, the effect was successful. There's so much more I could say, but I'll get off the soapbox now and hush. The lesson is its a film, enjoy it for what it is. If you think you can do better, don't talk, do. Then you can rattle on about what is "so ridiculous" and what isn't.

---

10 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Opening Champ, 26 December 2004

Author: WaikikiTodd from Waikiki, Hawai'i, United States

Without a doubt the BEST opening sequence in movie history (with the possible exception of Barbed Wire; spectacularly beautiful, tremendous aerial shots, and subject matter...whew! And from a non-Hollywood operation, no less!!! Hurrah! The horses seem almost moving on script. And the pure rawness and glory of nature is at its most striking. And, lastly, and far from least, the incredible song by Coven (who says one-hit wonders leave little legacy). The song perfectly frames the powerful/powerless relationship that is central to the movie, and the simple truth that spiritual power will always, ultimately, trump the material. A raw film it is, and that is its glory.

---

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
A VERY important film to the products of the 60/70s., 9 July 2003

Author: James A. Reible (shakeyjim@citlink.net) from Bullhead City, Arizona

Seeing this film back in '71 when it first came out did very much to change my attitudes and commentaries. Only in the old days would a movie like this create such a great change in a persons psyche. I'm very glad I discovered this film when I did and even though the production and acting qualities are pretty 'low' this movie definitely is a 'must see' for everyone. Enjoy.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
the message that I seen in this movie, 27 February 2006

Author: eaglenest79 from United States

When this movie came out I was barley in my teens, but I remember the power of the message in that movie. Having just bought the DVD of it, I see the power of that message is still there.

The message to me is as thus, Violence does not solve everything and should be used ONLY as a last resort if ever. the school's admin if you will was pure pacifism, he on the other hand, had to fight for everything in his life, so naturally that's how he responded. It did however remind me of an era that has long since come to pass and the young of today do not or maybe never will understand. And that is the true problem. without understanding the problems that made change occur, we are just as liable to have to relive them. I sincerely hope that movies that were this "gritty" then are able to be kept around as a mirror into the minds and mindsets of that time and the struggles as we all became more human.

---

16 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
It's True What They Say About "Writer/Producer/Director/Actors", 31 August 2004

Author: scottrodo from Wheeling, WV

It has been many years since I have witnessed this nadir of American cinema so I may get some things a little out of order. That won't matter one bit. Believe me. And you will if you've seen this thing. Really.

Anytime that the same name appears as the writer, the producer, and the director, one has to at least be mildly suspicious that nobody else seemed to want to help out. Add lead actor to the credits and you have a recipe for disaster. Somewhere Michael Medved's Golden Turkey is squawking at this load of horse excrement that through it's antidisestablishmentarianism reputation became something of a cult movie. As cult movies go, it is no better or worse than most. The bad thing about this gut buster is our hero, Tom Laughlin. Some things are impossible to fabricate. Tom's contribution to the list of such things is his decision to put himself on the credits as producer under a pseudonym. What false name did he use?, you ask. Why dear reader, he used the name Mary Rose Solti. See. I could not possibly have made that up. I checked the IMDb listing for dear old Tom and found that he's used enough pseudonyms in his career to be the most wanted interstate bank robber in history. Too bad he chose another calling.

Enough about Tom! What could I say that hasn't already been said anyway. I will give him this much.....Billy Jack was an incredible investment that returned over 80 times the initial capital required to make it! It was, however, a case of a blind squirrel finding a nut. Tom just happened to be in the right place at the right time. The three (count them) movies that he made after this demonstrated even more heavy handed preachiness than Bea Arthur off of Prozac. Two of those three featured, you guessed it, Billy Jack! The other took place too long in the past for Billy Jack to have been born yet.

Okay.....really enough about Tom!

Billy Jack is the classic story of peaceful, back-to-harmony-with-nature good folk being put down by the man. Or in this case, rednecks. It seems that the "Freedom School" has run afoul of the local banjo-boys who want it shut down, bulldozed over, and replaced with a Wal-Mart. (I'm making the Wal-Mart part up because Wal-Mart had not, by the early seventies, penetrated as far as the desert southwest where the movie takes place.) The local ruffians, with the half-hearted help of the local constabulary are intent on running Jean Roberts and her subversive school out. They are being bankrolled by the big rancher who represents American greed and capitalism. Exactly what the school teaches (aside from Freedom) is never actually explained, nor is the vehement opposition to the school. Wait, it has to be that the school helps the local tribe and the bad guys are even worse than we thought because they are kicking the Native Americans when they are down and out and are perpetuating racial stereotypes and prejudice. Little do they know that their kids will someday be begging the tribe for janitorial jobs in the Bear Runs With Cash Casino. Maybe the "Freedom School" is teaching the finer arts of the gaming industry. We'll just never know. To this maelstrom of bad feelings and violent sentiment is introduced Billy Jack. He's a half-Indian half-White tribal policeman who just happens to have been a Green Beret and who just happens to be a martial arts expert and who just happens to be really messed up because he just happens to have been over in Nam. Since he is also doing a fairly decent Robert Blake impersonation, we know he is not to be trifled with and that sooner or later all that pent up rage is just going to boil over and erupt and it ..... Ooops, I'm rambling nearly as badly as the monosyllabic dialogue. Billy Jack knows injustice when he sees it and, wouldn't you know it, sometimes the only way for peace loving touchy-feely types to flourish is to get a genuine Bad Ass like Billy Jack to do their dirty work for them.

Pretty soon, the rancher's son up and kills somebody (but not before raping his victim). Billy Jack can no longer rely on words. Sometimes an avenging angel's gotta do what an avenging angel's gotta do. With the help of his trademark Funky Hat, he kills the damnable miscreant. Oh yeah, the rape victim was Billy's love buddy. Since he has stepped over the line, he seeks sanctuary in a church (call him Quasimodo) but he gives himself up to an angry throng in order to prevent further death and chaos. I knew that Mel Gibson got that movie idea from somewhere, now I know where. We're left with the quick wrap and set-up for a sequel, The Trial of Billy Jack.....followed by the three-quel, Billy Jack Goes to Washington. Hey, a felony is no barrier to public service. Damn right.

The plot is basic and emotionally charged. In the proper hands, this would have been done decently. For example, Sam Peckinpah would have had a scene in which someone has their ears torn off with vice-grips. That would have been great cinema! This train goes off the track at the outset with the theme song, "One Tin Soldier". This song is, at best, a bad parody of really really bad folk-anthem. Hint: I think the songwriter(s) really thought it was quite good, else they surely could not have slept at night.

The trademark, Funky Hat, is almost a character in and of itself. Having been ten years old when this movie came out, I endured an entire decade of seeing really "cool" dudes wearing replicas of Funky Hat. They also wore black outfits and never seemed to have girlfriends (or boyfriends for that matter). Even today, there are those who still relish its feel on the head, its broad brimmed protection from the sun, and its ability to render the wearer totally ridiculous in appearance. I suppose you could hide a lot of pot up there in that dome and the customs officers at the border would never notice.....they'd be laughing too hard to make you take it off.

In the proper hands this movie would have favored character development while blurring the lines between good and evil ala Norman Jewison. Not so in the ham fisted directorial style of Tom Laughlin (or should we call him Mary Rose?). Tom seems to subscribe to the school of cinema that holds that audiences only recognize extremely polarized characters. Either that, or Tom had some sort of experience with peyote that rendered him incapable of crafting two dimensional (let alone three dimensional) characters. Suffice to say, you are not going to find any conflicted good guys or bad guys here.

There is not a single character that I wanted to see alive at the end of the movie. As the show drug on, I was hoping for some biblical justice that would wipe all these people from the earth.

I'm not even going to delve into the total lack of production values. That would be akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Let's just say that Ed Wood put together more polished productions. I'm sorry to all of you who have such an excitement going for this movie. It is just plain bad.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
"Go ahead and hate your neighbor/Go ahead and cheat a friend", 5 May 2007

Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca

Strange, shaggy, hallucinatory movie suffers from sensory deprivation. "Billy Jack", a highly self-important piece of grand-standing masquerading as a quasi-action flick, is noble in its attempt to put heart and humanity back into the action genre, although as an entertainment it comes up short. Follow-up to the 1967 cult hit "The Born Losers" has half-breed freedom fighter Billy Jack (Tom Laughlin) saving mid-western town from corporate elitists and their evils. Dated, muddy film with a documentary-like approach is full of Indian mysticism, barefoot hippies, and general mayhem in search of a message. Laughlin, laconically handsome and occasionally good-natured, cuts quite a presence on the screen; if only he had reeled in his ego and the tendency to put all his thoughts and passions into one low-budget basket, he might've been a major movie star. Every time Laughlin appears, the film's draggy pacing picks up (perhaps because the director was Laughlin himself, under the pseudonym T.C. Frank). Followed by two more sequels in 1974 and 1977. ** from ****

---

---

Page 1 of 9:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history