El pistolero

A terrible film set against the natural beauty of the California coast (my guess is the creators knew what a dog they had). Mexicans with samurai swords and training? A gun that looks like a six-shooter but holds 12 shots (is this a LeMat)? TOM LAUGHLIN? He should credit himself as "Laugh (as in "funny")-lin". The best scene occurs when Laugh-lin (astride his horse) faces off against a bad dude about to commit rape. As in "Billy Jack," Laugh-lin woodenly tells the dude "I don't want to kill you. I'll just ride away." The dude can't deal with the karma emanating from Billy - oops, I mean Finley, and Billy - sorry, Finley - kills him. The dude doesn't know that when Billy - er, Finley - takes off his hat and rubs his hand on his head and face and speaks in a weary tone, that's it! Yikes!

A better title may be "Billy Jack - Sorry, Finley - Kicks Ass on the Monterey Peninsula." Punctuated by really boring gun and sword battles (other viewers will anxiously wonder - as I did - who's going to win). This should be a "0."

Tom "Billy Jack" Laughlin spends most of his movie speaking in a monotone, wearing silly-looking floppy hats, and either shooting people or hacking them up with a Samurai sword. The exterior scenes (filmed mostly along the Pacific Coast) are often strikingly photographed, but the dialog and acting are stiff and ridiculous. Like the BILLY JACK movies, Laughlin has a lot to say about man's inhumanity toward his fellow man. But, after about 10 minutes of listening to his preaching, you won't care anymore. With just a few changes to the screenplay, and an update to the 20th century, this could have been another BILLY JACK movie. At least the BILLY JACK movies were somewhat entertaining.

Educated in the Orient, peaceful pistol-packing Tom Laughlin (as Finley) is also a samurai swordsman. He shoots and slashes people who want to take land away from Native Americans and Mexicans. They've just stolen California from them. A US government shipment of two million dollars in gold is involved. "One Week Later," birds peck at what could be a carcass. Many shots of "The Birds" amount to what could be homage to director Alfred Hitchcock. An entire family is missing. Twitching the flesh around his left eye expertly, best friend or enemy Ron O'Neal (as Paulo) and others are led to believe Mr. Laughlin stole the gold. He's clearly full of himself. Helping pass many dull stretches is beautiful Barbara Carrera (as Eula).

*** The Master Gunfighter (10/3/75) Tom Laughlin ~ Tom Laughlin, Ron O'Neal, Barbara Carrera, Lincoln Kilpatrick

This movie apparently takes place in pre-Civil War California and everybody rides horses instead of Harleys, but other than that it's a typical Laughlin film, except even dumber. Laughlin plays a guy who is trying to save local Indians from being sold into slavery. It's difficult to figure out who exactly the bad guys are, because Laughlin kills whites, blacks, Mexicans, Indians, rich, poor . . . in fact, he blows away just about everybody (in the name of justice and equality, of course). Laughlin's idea of conveying anger (the only kind of emotion he shows in the picture) is to grit his teeth, talk slow and appear to be constipated. He carries an odd kind of shotgun/pistol (which didn't exist at that time, but why quibble...) and a samurai-type sword and proceeds to use both on everyone within eyesight. Fred Williamson, usually a reliable actor, also conveys a lot of anger, but it's probably directed at his agent or whoever got him to agree to do this movie. The story bounces around and goes off into every tangent possible, the "acting" is generally atrocious, the photography at times is so dark it's hard to see anything. Laughlin was apparently trying to make an "anti-Western", but in one respect he falls back on a bit that a lot of B westerns did: he manages to fire a limitless number of rounds from a six-shooter without reloading. Then again, maybe it's supposed to be an early version of a machine gun; that would make about as much sense as anything else in this picture . . .

This is not a good film, and much of the criticism of it is justified, but the comment that the use of the LeMat revolver is ahistorical may be mistaken. This film is set prior to the Civil War, and thus before 1861, but subsequent to California statehood, and thus after 1850. The LeMat was first manufactured and sold in 1856. If this is set between 1856 and 1861 the presence of the LeMat doesn't need to be a problem. The use of a katana, on the other hand, is a problem. Extremely few Japanese, or those familiar with the Japanese, arrived in the U.S. before the 1880s, and those who came then were almost exclusively farmers, rather than samurai: Katanas would be very unlikely to be found in antebellum California.