classicsoncall Revisiting films I saw for the first and only time when they were originally released can be interesting. This picture was a stunner back in 1973, and though it's held up pretty well over the decades, I can see how a lot of modern day viewers would find the character of Buford Pusser to be morally objectionable given his methods in bringing corrupt criminals to justice. The one scene that completely violates political correctness today had to do with Buford's son Mike (Leif Garrett) walking into the hospital with a rifle after the ambush! Holy smokes, could you just see that happening today? The kid would have gotten arrested and sent into counseling.Buford's (Joe Don Baker) childhood buddy Lutie (Ed Call) had a pretty good description for The Lucky Spot - he called it a shopping center for sinners! I thought that was pretty colorful, but nowhere close to accurately describing what a bunch of Neanderthals the average citizen of Selmer, Tennessee was. Knowing that this was based on a true story, it's pretty chilling that characters like this could actually take over a small town to this degree, especially the ones you rely on to enforce the law. I'd have to say that Gene Evans' portrayal of Sheriff Al Thurman ranks right up there with Brian Dennehy's Sheriff Teasle in "First Blood" as one of the dumbest and most corrupt lawmen in film. And I watch a lot of westerns.On the other hand, there is one scene that brings the 'dated' argument to a whole new level when you stop to think about it. When Buford and his wife (Elizabeth Hartman) purchased their first home, they paid six thousand dollars for a house, three hundred acres and two catfish ponds! Say what you will, but that sounded like a dream sequence to me.

A_Different_Drummer The movie was pretty good FOR THE TIME (more below). The IMDb reviews however are in some cases more entertaining than the movie. Some people see this as dated or some sort of "time capsule." This pretty much ignores the recent remake but, more importantly, also ignores the fact that the theme -- that of a gradual and steady corruption of a once-healthy town (village/city/country) does indeed happen, and happens more often than people acknowledge. Some people look at the star and go WHAA? -- who is this guy? OK, Joe Don Baker did not have the most spectacular career in Hollywood but he was a reliable asset for these kinds of films. And some people look at this and see merely a Charles Bronson knockoff, ie going to the theatre to vicariously taste the violence that was otherwise lacking in the 70s. Some truth to this, in its day this was very much a "guys" film, definitely not a "date" film, and it was indeed in the category of the Bronson flicks or the Billy Jack flicks. Remember that martial arts movies were barely known in N.A., and MMA did not exist. So if you wanted to see someone get thumped upside the head, this film would be on your short list. But all the above ignores the fact that this was a biography and THESE WERE NOT that common then, so, in that context, the context of a true story, the film becomes that much more interesting ... and that much more entertaining.

threerandot 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.

junky2004 This movie isn't just about history, it is based on the true life events of Sheriff Buford Pusser in McNairy County, Tennessee. You must see part 2 and 3 also to get the whole story. It shows how the Sheriff cleaned out the moonshine, drugs, and prostitution that was going on back in the 1970's. Also you can search the web and you will see other Sheriffs across the USA have paid tribute to the former Sheriff Pusser.Sheriff Pussers daughter has setup a museum for anyone who would like to see the actual home, cars, and property of the former sheriff.All 3 movies are really great. Especially part 3, it shows what happened to make Buford want to have the 1st movie made.I hope this was helpful for everyone who didn't understand.