|Page 4 of 5:||    |
|Index||45 reviews in total|
After watching the newer version, I decided to compare. I loved walking tall when I was a kid. Remembered some of it, but a few years back I caught it on TBS late night. WOW did this film age well; nothing is better than a true story. My father, or someone I know says the movie is close too the books. Maybe that is why the story and film age well. Realism always lasts the test of time. I had to get some sleep and missed Walking Tall 2, but hope to cath it on TBS some time soon. Thank you TBS late night from all us insomnia suffers, nothing is worse than info commericals, or old re-runs. This movie is closer too the trues story so I give the new Walking Tall the old 2 by 4 and give the old version a 7 out of 10. I think the Rock could play a better bad guy.
Walking Tall lived up to every expectation I had for it, unfortunately for the filmmakers, those expectations were not too high to begin with. The story of Buford Pusser, a rural county sheriff in Tennessee, is too bizarre to believe. A point the filmmakers seem to acknowledge during the end credits by noting that certain events were fictionalized. But I shouldn't be too hard on this movie. It's violent, brutal, manipulative & simplistic. In other words, it's everything that a 70's exploitation flick is supposed to be. Bottom line: should be a good movie for a drinking game. Everytime Buford has an attempt made on his life (4) you do a shot. Everytime someone spots the boom-mic (8 times by my count) you do a shot. You get the picture. Happy drinking and enjoy the civil rights violations.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I just watched this one tonight and I am appalled at how much praise
has been laid upon the title character of Bufford Pusser. If these were
indeed the kinds of actions taken by the subject of this film, then
those are highly questionable ones.
The film is certainly well made, but it also seems to glorify violence as a way to solve a problem. Not that the answers to the problems of the town in the film easy ones.
In the process of fighting for a better life for the people, it was a war that in the end, was for not. So many die in this story, including Pusser's wife, not to mention the family pet, that they lose more than they could ever hope to gain.
Pusser's wife, played so well by Elizabeth Hartman, is really the only character who actually seemed to question her husband's actions and really exhibited any kind of intellect or thought to the possible results. If a thinking viewer is watching this film, they are going to question Pusser's actions and form the opinion that there could have been a better way then the easy way of resorting to violence.
Pusser uses a gun, torture and intimidation. The same methods used by the hoodlums to torture a naked girl. He is no better... a moral cripple.
And this seems to have been the American way for decades. That might makes right and that we are the "good guys". This is shameful behavior and to reward it as heroic is moral bankruptcy.
Baker is good as Pusser and the film keeps you glued to your seat. The only failure of the film is the lack of presenting an opposing viewpoint. That violence doesn't solve anything. Is the small town in this film all "perfect" today? The scene where Leif Garrett is sitting next to his father's hospital bed with a rifle in his lap was definitely a face palm moment. America continues to be a violent nation because it teaches their young that such actions are "heroic". A very sad commentary on a nation that could hold so much more promise.
A strong film that should really have elicited more controversy and criticism of the title character's actions.
This film seems to enjoy a reputation as being memorable, but it could have easily been one of the great films of the 1970s. It has a good story, based on true events, a likable hero, good action, good actors and decent drama. What seems to hamper this film is poor sound quality and direction. It is obvious that attempts were made to capture quality sound because the boom mike is visible in several scenes through the film. There were times when a dramatic close up would have served the character well, but instead there is a wide shot while the character delivers his or her line. The camera seems to remain stationary a good deal when zooms and pans would have served the action and events well. I actually gained some respect for Jo Don Baker as an actor after seeing this movie. I had previously seen him in the awful mess called, "Mitchell". The movie seems to run a bit long too. I kept thinking it was about to wrap up, only to have a new series of events unfold. With a little better organization and thought, this could have easily been one of the best films of the 1970s. Unfortunately, the viewer gets a watchable film that will likely be remembered but not considered very memorable.
I don't know if anyone else has commented on this, but this film must
set the record for misplaced "boom" or microphone intrusions into the
visible frame. What kind of drugs were the crew on while making this
movie? Didn't they notice these howlers during the daily rushes and
editing of the movie? It happens so much throughout the film its really
laughable, and certainly gives it a B movie feeling. However, there
were A list actors in the movie.
Thats why this negligence seems so out of place. Anyway, I still enjoyed the movie, even though it seemed a little hokey, far fetched and simplistic.
Good, straightforward, violent entertainment.
Walking Tall (1973) is a classic example of white-exploitation flicks
that were very popular during the 70's. Joe Don Baker stars as Buford
Pusser, a former pro wrestler who comes back to his home town and finds
how much it has change. One day he goes off with an old childhood
friend who takes him to a mobile home casino. It's there he discovers
how depraved the city and the surrounding area has become. Under the
thumb of a local Southern Mob. After a terrible beating, Buford decides
enough is enough and tries to make a difference.
Joe Don Baker is one bad dude and is perfect as Buford Pusser. The rest of the cast is adequate as well. This movie promises brutal bare fisted action and it delivers. A no holds barred type of flick. If you like this type of films then watching Walking Tall is a no brainer. Go out and get yourself a copy!
Stay away from the remake!
When this flick about the now legendary Southern Lawman hit the screen in 1973 audiences were whooping and hollering. After it was revealed in various magazine articles ("People" for one) that some of it was "Hollywooded" viewers were sort of let down that the real Buford Pusser may not have Walked as Tall as depicted. That however doesn't take anything away from the film. Joe Don Baker turns in a top notch performance as the Hickory Stick wielding Southern Sheriff who cries havoc and lets slip the dogs of war on the State line mob only to pay a very hefty price for his victories. It airs now and then on cable channels but is edited here and there so rent or purchase it. Two sequels followed but the story by then was clearly running out of steam and this one is the best.
Based on the story of Buford Pusser and the state line gang on the Tenn.-Miss. border in the mid 60's. Though the movie does diviate from the actual story, it does depict some of the actual events of the feud between Pusser and the so called "Dixie Mafia". Having grown up in the area and knowing a few of the people depicted, I have to say none of them were as glamourous as the actors that portrayed them. If you should find the movie interesting, Author W.R. Morris has written several excellent books on the life of Pusser and the State Line Gang.
This movie was the true story of the life of Buford Pusser who was a nobody who run for sheriff against Al Thurman the current sheriff and won. Joe Don Baker plays the role of Sheriff Buford Pusser, Elizabeth Hartman plays the role of his wife Pauline Pusser and Gene Evans plays the role of Sheriff Al Thurman. When Pussor is beaten to with in an inch in his life that's when he decides to run for Sheriff. Pussor did things different then Sheriff Thurman and the biggest thing was that he didn't have a ***. When Pussor starts to clean up the town the mob gets very upset and tries to get even with the sheriff. Does the mob go to far in their effort to stop the sheriff from interfering in their own personal business. Since there's no main actress in this picture, I can't give it 10 weasel stars but I can give 8 weasel stars.
The movie was so-so. I mean the story was blown a little out of
proportion. Think about facts, he didn't defeat the State Line Gang.
They murdered his wife, and blew up his home. There should have been a
part devoted to the other side of the story...from the eyes of lets
say, a bootlegger.
I think the band Drive By Truckers hit it right. "Now they're lined up around the block to see that movie and cryin' for his ambushed wife. Marveling about shot 8 times, stabbed seven. Some folks can't take a hint. they say he didn't take no crap from the State Line Gang, well what the h*** they talking' about? I'm just a hard working man with a family to feed and he made my daughter cry, I said he made my daughter cry."
|Page 4 of 5:||    |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|