Watch The Master Gunfighter For Free

Good start, but then it gets ruined

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

What makes this an unfortunate effort is the waste of a pretty good cast. There are good performances, which are made more remarkable given the context. Tom Laughlin was in complete control of this film, so, like it or hate it, he gets the credit or blame. Beautiful scenery. Decent production values. However, Laughlin's performance as Finley, the Master Gunfighter, will remind viewers of Billy Jack, for those familiar with the self- rightious character Laughlin portrayed in the movie of the same name. Billy Jack's unquestioned acceptance and popularity may have, at least in part, been bolstered by the country's emerging sympathies for society's downtrodden. Civil rights and anti-war protesters were making daily news, and, for some, "dogooder" Billy Jack may have been a cinematic (though melodramatic) symbol of the times. A similar Gunfighter theme opened years later with the country a bit less emotional and perhaps skeptical of the more simplistic notions, "make love not war", "give peace a chance", and "he's my brother" of a few years earlier. Not that everyone or even most shared these ideas, but they did dominate the news of the day. Gunfighter was greeted by a culture where many competing views gained traction regarding complex social issues. Left to stand on its own merits, Gunfighter appeared cliché, redundant, and shallow, not adding much to the ever more complicated social conversation.

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.

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.

I remember seeing this when it first came out. At the time, considering the year of 1975, it was looked upon as quite an adventurous film, with dash and charm. I haven't been able to find it since, and I have been searching. One dealer advised me that, since this was a made-for-TV movie, it was probably never released to video. A real pity, if true.