El pistolero

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.

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."

What makes this an unfortunate effort is the waste of a pretty good cast. There are good performances, which are made more remarkable given the context. Tom Laughlin was in complete control of this film, so, like it or hate it, he gets the credit or blame. Beautiful scenery. Decent production values. However, Laughlin's performance as Finley, the Master Gunfighter, will remind viewers of Billy Jack, for those familiar with the self- rightious character Laughlin portrayed in the movie of the same name. Billy Jack's unquestioned acceptance and popularity may have, at least in part, been bolstered by the country's emerging sympathies for society's downtrodden. Civil rights and anti-war protesters were making daily news, and, for some, "dogooder" Billy Jack may have been a cinematic (though melodramatic) symbol of the times. A similar Gunfighter theme opened years later with the country a bit less emotional and perhaps skeptical of the more simplistic notions, "make love not war", "give peace a chance", and "he's my brother" of a few years earlier. Not that everyone or even most shared these ideas, but they did dominate the news of the day. Gunfighter was greeted by a culture where many competing views gained traction regarding complex social issues. Left to stand on its own merits, Gunfighter appeared cliché, redundant, and shallow, not adding much to the ever more complicated social conversation.

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 . . .

Tom Laughlin didn't have to stretch much for this role, to be sure, but as the previous poster said, Barbara Carrera alone is worth the price of admission. If you liked the Billy Jack flicks, you'll undoubtedly like this as well. If you like westerns, you'll like this too. It's a pretty solid performance, and Laughlin is surrounded by a good cast. This movie also has considerably higher production values than the first Billy Jack pictures. This is particularly noticeable in the cinematography, as well as the set design. One would suspect this is because by the time this was made, Laughlin was beginning to enjoy some degree of success and fame due to the buzz generated by the two previous Billy Jack installments.