If only had been able to walk out, but I wasn't the driver!
Es ist mir egal.
It was a horrible attempt to capitalize on the popularity of the first movie...
I just saw part of the original on TV and it wasn't that good... I put that whole thing in the "What were we thinking?" pile. Someday, I'll get around to taking the pile to the dump... Sorry until then.
I'm only here for the cookies
As bad as the production was by most definitions, I was 18 when I first saw this movie, and some of the underlying principles and the basic message of this movie changed my life at that time. There was some kind of spiritual charisma in this movie for me and it became like, yes, a train wreck...I couldn't take my eyes off of it, especially being an Arizona native and recognizing the wildly rough but amazing location editing. For one thing, the shot when Jean and Billy Jack reunite after he is released from prison has Delores Taylor standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon and Tom Laughlin standing on Gates Pass, several miles west of Tucson, which is some 300 miles apart. He does this throughout the film, which I found to be a creative use of Arizona's infinite variety of locations perfect for this movie. How else could he have gotten in so many shots of the whole state? I thought that was rather clever, and it was one of the things that influenced me to study film later in life.
Now, 35 years later, after studying film somewhat and becoming a media broadcasting techician, I watched the film again. The production is so raw, I can see where one could consider it "bad." But the film hits me in a wholistic manner, more than just for its standard production value. I would compare it to Tarantino, and I can view Tarantino from the "laughable" perspective, as well as from a "genius" perspective. Both filmakers have a raw, primitive, sometimes violent style that moves way off track of "mainstream" but still conveys a powerful message, even if it is the offbeat opinion and perspective of the filmaker...but isn't that what the "art" of filmaking is all about?
You are welcome to go ahead and blast me for comparing Laughlin to Tarantino. You wouldn't be the first. I stand by my guns. Thank you for reading my humble opinion.
I wouldn't think of blasting you: You've given a very thoughtful and eloquent defense of this film. It is a disappointing follow-up to the original "Billy Jack," but it's far better than "Billy Jack Goes to Washington" – mainly because Arizona is a lot more beautiful than Washington.
This film is a real mishmash of vignettes, all of which conclude showing the simplemindedness of the white man and the valiance of the American Indian. Naive? Perhaps. Accurate? Again, perhaps.
At almost three hours, this film is itself a bit of a "trial" for the viewer, but what amazing direction and cinematography. If only the script could have been half as good.
And I much prefer Laughin to Tarantino, who just seems to want to assault the viewer (though even I will admit "Inglourious Basterds" was excellent).
I find a lot of it to be very accurate, as to how 'white law' deals with Native Americans. See it all the time. The bombing of the TV station? VERY possible. No one does anything about it? ABSOLUTELY.
But a lot of their information is faulty (none of the presidents have been 'pro-Indian'...they'll give a tidbit while they take a chunk...info about Wounded Knee in '73...false). The acting in this one was AWFUL! I can't watch it when I'm in a bad mood, because I want to shoot my TV.
Sending in the military BEFORE things happen, and going after what would be the victim in this case? ABSOLUTELY. History bears this one out. The stats at the beginning of the film are true.
The 'distancing' themselves from being called 'pacifist', etc. The conferences...just terrible. Bad acting all around. This is because most of the people in the film aren't actors, but even the ones that are do a lousy job.
But, the beating of the Native American who is brought to the old white guy's club is based on a real incident. Raymond Yellow Thunder, in 1972, was beaten, stripped, carried around in a trunk in sub-freezing temperatures, and 'made to dance' (though some say that is false...) at an American Legion club, then forced back in the trunk. He died from his injuries, and the Hare brothers, who's daddy was a 'wealthy' rancher, and they served 8 months and less than 2 years.
Some of the interactions may be plausible or based on reality but they make out the school to be so awesome it is unbelievable. Take the entire subplot about helping out claw hand kid. Apparently love in the answer to psychological trauma. Who would have guessed, apparently nobody tried being nice to crazy people before. Suck on that people with college educations. And how about the dude who invented the lie detector that works over the TV. Its a good thing they used probably the most powerful and impressive invention of the decade to confirm that the local businessman they always assume is lying is in fact lying. Its not like that could completely revolutionize world politics and create an environment where all leaders have to be completely honest. Nope, better use it strictly on a county wide basis.
shareDespite the good intentions of the film makers, I found this to be horribly exploitative and manipulative, most significantly involving the child. I have no question that the creators were sincere, but the heavy handedness of the storytelling, and the over exposition of dialog was condescending to audiences. While the use of violence is heavily defended and intended to be ironic, I found the over-use of it rather hypocritical. The "restaging" of the Kent State shootings was excessive and cruel. Overall, I felt it was rather amateurish.
Just my 4 cents...
Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
[deleted]
Well put, venusofwillendorf111
I don't think any movie of this caliber needs to have a Tarantino or "A-list" profile to tell a story that is so close to home as this one. Many viewers need some A-list players or CGI effects to keep them in the movie theatres, Broadway, NYC is frequently empty due to a lack thereof. However message of "The Trial of Billy Jack" story itself being the main character and is just as powerful as the first but has fallen on deaf ears. Many viewers today seem very comfortable with their governing bodies doing their thinking for them... the day of the independent thinker is gone. "Solient Green" and "1984" come to mind.
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
The issues in this film are still an unchecked boiling pot in this country except with another generation. Instead of Viet Nam, America's in the middle east killing, accidentally or on purpose, unarmed civilians, torturing prisoners, war is more a business than ever before. There's massive corruption on every level. The oil industry is more of a mega-power than ever. And on and on. The more things change, the more they stay the same. But now today's younger generation are iPad and social network zombies and don't give a damn about anything but their connection speed.
shareSo true ...so true, Jim
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off