Billy Jack (1971)

I've given this a low rating for one good reason: I did what someone else suggested I do and that's not compare "Billy Jack" to films of today but compare it to the films of 1971. Gosh... lessee... OK, compare it to "Fiddler on the Roof," "A Clockwork Orange," "The French Connection," "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." Should I go on? Those of you who were 14-21 back in 1971 need to face a simple fact and that is "Billy Jack" was a low-budget "message" film that managed to resonate with your age group. My sons stumbled on me watching this today and one remarked "the acting and dialog are terrible." They are majoring in media in college and know the difference between good and bad film-making.

I was 9 when "Billy Jack" came out and the whole hippie thing was already becoming nostalgia by the time I was old enough to have been a part. Consequently, the movie felt more like watching old clichés come to life than anything either nostalgic or inspiring.

That said, the movie isn't really a train wreck. I thought it was worth watching to see the sketches done by Howard Hesseman (Johnny Fever from "WKRP") and his friends from the Committee. The hold-up scene felt like "who's on first?" collided with the Monty Python crew.

Fmovies: 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.

Generation Xters will not have a chance at understanding this to the magnitude planned. Keeping things in proper perspective requires consideration of the time frame of this movie. In the real world we were still "in country"/Nam and getting very fed up with the associated atrocities both there and here. The differences between liberals and conservatives were at an all-time-high. This movie definitely leans to the left on many issues but only really to point out how important it is to not lose our humanity. It was really about a man who, disillusioned by what he saw his own country do overseas, came home to find the same thing. The fighting scenes were excellent for their time. The use of a hard style of martial arts was different and very impressive. Tom's execution of moves were both well done and in most cases reasonably realistic (maybe a few too many karate chops). The acting was anywhere between good to just adequate,,, which in some cases gave it a more realistic feel (less hollywoodlike).

Billy Jack fmovies. The half-breed Billy Jack (Tom Laughlin) lives in an Indian reservation protecting the Indians, the stallions and the students of the Freedom School, a peaceful art school run by Jean Roberts (Delores Taylor) and where the students can choose their own destiny. When the teenage daughter of the corrupt Deputy Mike (Ken Tobey), Barbara (Julie Webb), is retrieved by Sheriff Cole (Clark Howat), she tells that she is pregnant and her father beats her up. Sheriff Cole and the local doctor (Victor Izay) ask Jean if she can lodge Barbara, she welcomes the traumatized teenager. But her father, together with the corrupt and powerful Mr. Stuart Posner (Bert Freed) and his coward son Bernard Posner (David Roya), initiate a campaign to damage the school reputation and humiliate the students while Billy Jack fight to control his temper against the bigotry and violence of the locals. But when he discovers what Bernard did to Jean, he has to use violence to defeat evil.

"Billy Jack" is one of those unforgettable cult-movies that belongs to my adolescence. I do not recall when I saw this movie for the first or last times, but I still love it. "Billy Jack" may be dated in 2013 but the Utopian non-violence, non-bigotry and non-racial segregation messages of the Freedom School are still beautiful. Unfortunately in the end peace is vanquished by violence. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Billy Jack"

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.

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.