This cult film is arguably American International's best non horror film ever made, a biker film that is heads above all the "Hell's Angels" made to follow. It is the most anti-establishment film against the anti-establishment, dealing with Native American Billy Jack (Tom Laughlin) and his battle against a motorcycle gang who is terrorizing the community. When three young women are raped, the gang sets out to silence all witnesses and it's up to Billy and one of the women (Elizabeth James) to bring them to justice even though James refuses to aid the police out of her own fears.

The film that spawned a series of sequels (only the first of which is worth seeing, a total classic and even better than this) got two chances for success. It was a moderate hit on its first run and in its re-release after the premiere of "Billy Jack", it did even better. This film is brave in many ways because it doesn't hide anything and even though there's not excessive nudity outside a few bare breasts, there's also hints of homosexuality among the gang and a violence that is painful to see but necessary as a reflection of these dangerous times.

Playing the leader of the gang is Jeremy Slate, a talented featured actor in westerns whole soap fans will remember playing Philip Carey's right hand man on "One Life to Live" for years. He's not afraid of kissing a man on the lips or slugging a woman (obviously insinuated but realistically so), and the build-up to him getting his comeuppance is worth the wait. It's not often that you see a B movie that runs nearly two hours, but this film never drags.

Playing the mother of one of the victims is a very camp Jane Russell, heavily made up, wearing gold lemay (so you know she's trailer trash), and completely over the top in her two scenes. Tom Laughlin is very subtle in his performance, making clear his disgust with Slate and his gang, and unafraid of playing a vigilante for justice. He gets a huge prison sentence (or option for a huge fine) while slate and his gang get less. Some justice, huh? The gang obviously warrants no sympathy and this is one time when police brutality seems welcome on the screen even though it's only Billy Jack who has the courage to stand up and face these scourges of the earth.

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).

For some reason, I remember this as being the target of jokes and sneers when it was new.

Making sure to avoid prejudice, wanting to see it myself and know for sure, I recorded it when it premiered on Turner Classic Movies so I could watch in the right mood.

What a pleasant surprise it turned out to be.

To the best of my weakening memory, I don't believe I've ever seen Tom Laughlin and now I wonder why.

First, he was a really good-looking guy, and he was a very pleasant personality on screen. He should have become a major player.

Elizabeth James might not have been the best actress around in the '60s and '70s, but my gosh was she a looker. She had a fit, athletic presence, and just glowed on the screen, and she should also have been a major player.

And why isn't there more information about her? She seems a fascinating person.

Not such a surprise, but really deserving prominent mention, was Jane Russell's performance.

She has not been treated with the respect I think she deserves, having not completely recovered from the "wouldn't you like to tussle with Russell?" PR nonsense from her first movie, "The Outlaw." But she was, frankly, great in this small part. Actually, she had been turning in great performances for a long time, and she has been great because she made the effort to become an actress, and not just coast on her looks.

Jeremy Slate was so good in his villainous role, his character was almost admirable, almost likable. The man is a standout in any movie he is in. He's been gone a little more than two years now, and he left a void.

Let's be honest: The script could have used a good editor. There were some hokey moments that could have been fixed with just a little effort before production.

But all in all, this is a good movie, within the context of what it tried to do and be.

Now I look forward to seeing the other "Billy Jack" movies.