26 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Historical Inaccuracies Galore, August 8, 2005
This review is from: The Trial of Billy Jack (DVD)
I saw this movie in late 1974 when it first came out. I noted the references to historical incidents such as the Kent State shooting, My Lai Massacre and Watergate among others. I did a lot of research on the claims made by Laughlin's movie and was appalled at the inaccuracies and down right lies.
I sent a long letter to Tom Laughlin's business Billy Jack Enterprises. He never answered me. That was 30 years ago. Now he has a website. I sent him an email version and he didn't answer that either.
In the beginning Jean (Delores Taylor) is being interviewed. She refers to Kent State (the May 4, 1970 shooting of 13 students at that university) and claims Attorney John Mitchell said there was no need to investigate the incident because he knew in advance the Guardsmen couldn't be responsible for the shooting. This is absolutely wrong. Mitchell never made that statement and the FBI was out at the campus the next day investigating.
Jean also said that even after fault was found on the part of he Guard "as usual Washington did nothing about it." Unbelievable, considering that when this movie was being made (in 1974) federal prosecutors indicted four guardsman!
In another part of the film, Billy Jack is referring to My Lai and all the "colonels and generals and White House aides who ordered the whole affair." White House aides? This is preposterous. (But it sounded sexy and intriguing during the Watergate era.) For the record, one lieutenant colonel ordered the offensive into the area and Lt. Calley himself ordered the massacre.
Moving on, Jean says about another situation, "I remember because [President] Ford had just shocked the nation by pardoning Nixon and agreeing to let him destroy the tapes." The second part is another untruth. Ford actually just gave Nixon partial control over access to the tapes, which were put in the custody of the General Services Administration in San Clemente. Nixon was given no authorization to destroy the tapes.
And then there is the issue of the "International Seminar on Child Abuse" which contains more nonsense. The movie makes Jean and the Freedom School look like they are the great enlightened champions of humane treatment of abusers and portrays the world of professional therapists as being in the Dark Ages.
A doctor says: "So in summary, you're saying that to love these people that we find dispicable, that we hate. And I can really hate these people that cut off the fingers of their children and beat their children. And that somehow in the experience of loving them, they're going to change before our eyes and stop beating their children?"
She isn't even sounding like a doctor, she's sounding like a cynical police officer. This is one of the more egregious misrepresentations in the film. In reality, the Freedom School's methods of treatment were the contemporary standards among mental health professionals at that time! (and still are)
In another part, an Indian spiritual guide told Billy that Kit Carson had 400 Navajo men, women and children rounded up and massacred in a cave. This is another fabrication. There is no record of Carson doing such a thing. What the scriptwriters could have mentioned is that some Spaniards committed such an atrocity. They rounded up some Indians in a section of Canyon de Chelley in northwestern Arizona and killed them in a cave in 1804. The cave is called "Massacre Cave" not "Cave of the Dead" (the movie phrase).
Also, the writers could have mentioned a factual outrage by Kit Carson, his "Trail of Tears" death marches of Indians in 1864 to Bosque Redondo in New Mexico.
There is more I could mention. Laughlin, as the main producer, was incredibly irresponsible with the script. No one should take the claims made in this movie seriously.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A flop?, October 19, 2005
A Kid's Review
This review is from: The Trial of Billy Jack (DVD)
There are those reviewing here that say this movie was a total flop and a box office bomb? Better get your facts straight, The Trial Of Billy Jack was made for 8 million dollars, grossed 89 Million and was so popular, it was one of the first movies to ever play at 2 theatres at the same time (along with the Godfather 2). In 2005 dollars, this would be 300 million (equal). Flop indeed. This movie was one of the most successful independent films of all time (along with Billy Jack). Some may not like the politics in the movie, but this is a beautiful movie (daring, outspoken), Billy Jack was an outsider, a martial arts hero fighting the system. This is an ambitious movie about one finding their inner self, conquering demons, finding your own center, about war, peace, freedom and speaking your own mind. A classic!!!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
For Billy Jack Fans-Not History Buffs, May 25, 2008
This review is from: The Trial of Billy Jack (DVD)
I remember seeing this film eagerly after having seen the movie "Billy Jack" a year before....at that time I was thirteen and found the movie
entertaining at times, but disappointing, just too "heavy" on politics and paranoia. At that time, all I wanted was more action, more of "Billy", and the martial arts...If I didn't like the character, "Billy Jack" so much...I'd have probably not given the film much thought.
Over 30 years later I still like the character, and now have a more sentimental attachment to the films.
I don't think I ever considered the "historic accuracy"...I never took the movies as seriously as people seem to do today. To me, I was watching another Billy Jack movie. I liked the series of Billy Jack films in all their schlockiness and don't care much about "historic accuracy" or
over analyzing....There are just some films out there you can't take seriously, I know Tom Laughlin did then and does, but I don't care.
If you saw the films as a youth as I did, and liked them, this film is for you, otherwise leave it alone.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
