Nascidos para Perder

While the acting and plot were weak, this movie is worth watching, if only to educate or remind us of the tumultuous 60s... with the ending of the Vietnam War, Hells Angels, drugs-sex-and-rock-n-roll... in a society where returning Vietnam Vets were considered renegades and loose cannons or just plain crazy... in a society where we screamed peace, while resorting to violence... in a society where women's lib was just beginning to surface in the American Consciousness, with the burning of the bras... in a society where the youth of our country cried out against the "establishment", and we "did our own thing"... where altruism flourished along with the rise in cults, crusading preachers, and activism... in a time when man first walked on the moon... when we, as a society believed... nothing at all could stop us. In all, the movie depicted well the general atmosphere of beliefs and attitudes of the times, that, while they might seem moronic to us in today's world, perhaps, 30 years in the future, our attitudes and beliefs will seem moronic to the generations to follow.

This movie is interesting on many levels. Although it contains a few shocking scenes (if viewed unedited) it still comes across as kind of campy. When a girl on a motorcycle p***es off a motorcycle gang the fun begins. First of all, the girl on the cute little scooter type motorcyle looks like she just finished a gig on the "Hullabaloo" TV show complete with her matching go-go boots and bikini. She is kinda cute except she has a haircut that looks like they put a bowl on her head and cut around it. (She could have at least wore a "Bob's Big Boy Cascade" to sex it up a bit). She mouths off to the group of scumbags who all look like rejects from the Manson Family.

One shocking scene for 1967 is the part where two gang members french kiss (they are both men)! This is to illustrate the free-sex attitude of the era and supposedly (I am guessing here) to show what a bunch of degenerates these guys are.

Jane Russell is over the top here as a drunken, floozy mother of a teenage trollop who does a strip tease in her trailer park that has to be seen to be believed. The look on her face while stripping is somewhere between orgasmic and root canal. RENT THIS AND HAVE FUN!

Given its low budget, this is not a bad movie. A motorcycle gang, led by the scruffy Jeremy Slate, terrorizes a small California town, and in the process rapes several college girls. There's lots of tough talk, motorcycle noise, and violence, as you would expect for a biker film.

Of course, to balance out all the villainous mayhem, you gotta have a hero on the scene. And for the era in which the film was made, there was no better hero than the charismatic loner, half-breed Billy Jack, played with serene gusto by Tom Laughlin. He's a one-man show of moral and physical strength, as he outwits and outfights the biker roughnecks. The film makes the point that bad parenting and ineptness in traditional law enforcement foster an environment conducive to delinquency.

Interestingly, although this is the first Billy Jack film, Laughlin played a similar role ten years earlier, in a movie called "The Delinquents" (1957). His character was Scotty, a good guy teenager who gets mixed up with a bunch of high school hoodlums. Whereas in "The Delinquents" all the villains are kids who drive around in jalopies, in "The Born Losers", the kids have grown into adults who ride motorcycles.

In "The Born Losers" the characters tend to be stereotypes. In a time period that immediately preceded the women's lib movement, the film's female characters are very, very subservient. The film's plot does depend on contrivances to some extent. Dialogue lacks subtext. Production design is ... colorful. And the costumes reek of late 60's garish "hip" (love those pink walls and pink clothes), all perfectly in sync with the Age of Aquarius. Tom Laughlin's direction is excellent. Color cinematography is very good. The outdoor scenery is wonderful, as is the music in the opening title sequence.

I've seen a number of biker films. "The Born Losers" is one of the best. It was highly successful at the box office, and led to later Billy Jack films. It has a cinematic style that is almost iconoclastic; not insignificantly, it preceded "Easy Rider" by a couple of years. Such was the impact of "The Born Losers".

If you like Billy Jack, this is for you. Over 2 hours of a leading actress that can't act, a leading man who stands still without expression, and an inane group of men who are supposed to be dangerous because they are slightly bizarre. Sprinkle in ten minutes of Billy kicking big donkey, and you have the formula.

Tom Laughlin knew a winner when he saw one and would use the main elements of this film in all of his future Billy Jack movies. In later films, his real-life wife would take over the role of the leading actress that can't act.

This is a very low-budget movie. Future Billy Jack against the world movies had a couple more bucks. But true to form, as in all Billy Jack movies, there is no competent acting anywhere.

Personally, none of this stuff turns me off of Billy Jack movies. In one movie, I see it for the gas station scene. In another, I want to see Billy put his right foot up against the guy's left ear. In a third, I want to see him shoot it out.

For an anti-war pinko, Laughlin sure knows how to create some nice fight scenes. If the man would have moved a few more times per pic, he would have been a major star. But his style is to stand around for most of the movie with a deadpan expression, and then finally kick some butt.

The Billy Jack movies are a lot like chitlins, limburger cheese, or kim chee. If you like that stuff, you don't mind the smell.

This one stinks to high heaven.

But it's a Billy Jack stink.

The first "Billy Jack" film is a serious examination of rape and personal cowardice disguised as a biker/drug exploitation film. It manages to satisfy on both counts. No nudity, lots of outrageous clothing, and plenty of nazi bikers. Not quite as good as its sequel (which was written previously) but also not so preachy and talky. Dig the "nature carnage" at the film's beginning. Decent photography (marred in the DVD presentation by pan and scan process), but mid to low grade actors. Russell appears as a burnt-out, harried mom. Is she really acting? She's way over the top, but fun as always.

p.s. (2008, second viewing) p.s. the movie isn't going to appeal to everyone, but it's coming from a good place compared to a lot of exploitation films. There's a lot of classic Hollywood here, Tom Laughlin drawing on a lot of his roots. Like "Billy Jack" this movie is a very passionate statement against rape and it condemns society's attitude about rape. But because the victims are so beautiful, frankly the movie feels more exploitative and less serious than the more successful sequel. You could look on this movie as a learning experience for Laughlin, but it's a very interesting drive-in biker movie in and of itself, very different and more carefully put together than a lot of its brethren. For example this time around I noticed that the film can be seen as an anti-Western -- as opposed to the stereotypical concept of a white man rescuing the white virgins from the "indians", here we have an ostensibly Native American hero rescuing the white women from white bikers (bikes and jeeps standing in for horses and stagecoaches in the traditional Western iconography of course).