El pistolero

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.

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.

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.

The kind of film one would expect from the genius behind "Billy Jack Goes to Washington," the movie does distinguish itself in the area of weaponry. Apparently set in the era of old California, the gunfighter blazes away with a remarkable handgun called a LeMat--which didn't exist if the period is prior to the Civil War as it seems to be. Nonetheless, bringing this weapon to light is a nice historical touch. While the Union officers in the Civil War used six-shooter percussion revolvers, they were hard pressed if they came up against a Confederate with a ten-shooter LeMat (nine balls plus a shotgun round). The other milestone in weaponry is the use of swords not a la Zorro but in the fashion of Samuri, a ludicrous touch only Mr. Laughlin could have thought up. If you enjoy odd weapons or the odd use of them, you must see this film,