Walking Tall (1973)

A Masterpiece!

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Movie based on the real life exploits of Buford Pusser. He was a sheriff in a small town in Tennessee who, almost single-handedly, cleaned up the corruption that was running the town. In the movie he' s played by Joe Don Baker. He also has a wife (Elizabeth Hartman) and two young kids. For trying to clean up the town Pusser is attacked multiple times, almost has his car driven off the road, is shot at and, in the most disgusting scenes, the family dog is shot dead and his wife is brutally murdered.I saw this when I was 11 at a drive-in. I remember loving it and being shocked by the amount of blood and violence (it was, for its time, VERY bloody). Seeing it today it's slow, way too long and not as bloody as what we get today. Sometimes it plays like an R rated TV movie with flat direction, silly dialogue and crappy music. Also the filmmakers show no shame when they push the graphic killings of the dog and wife into the audiences face. Good acting by Baker and Hartman only help to a point. Mostly I was bored and disgusted. Only for drive-in movie completists.

Seeing WALKING TALL today for the first time, it's clear how just influential this film has been in the intervening decades. The story of one man clearing up the criminal element in his town has been done to death but here it feels fresh and electrifying; some might say that a fellow like Steven Seagal owes his whole career to this movie, with films like FIRE DOWN BELOW looking and feeling almost identical. The unique hook that WALKING TALL has is that it's based on a true story.Joe Don Baker stars in his best role as the larger-than-life Buford Pusser, a normal fight who stands up for justice and ends up becoming the sheriff of a small town in the process. It's an action picture with some incredibly violent set-pieces and showdowns, but it never forgets to focus equally on character and plotting, making it one of those rarities: an all-round action flick as every bit as good as a big budget mainstream Hollywood film. Sequels and a remake followed, but none could successfully re-capture the original's raw power.

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.

All you folks complaining that this is amateur film-making because the boom is visible in several shots don't understand how movies are made. In order to get good sound on dialog, the mike is hung very close to the subject. It is almost always captured on film, but in the area which is not meant to be seen by an audience, as the square film frame is supposed to be matted at top and bottom by the projectionist when shown in a theater, or by the technician when transferring film to video.In the case of Walking Tall, whoever supervised the transfer to video did so "open matte", meaning they transfered the ENTIRE film frame without proper matting, hence the visible boom. This was not carelessness on the part of the filmmakers, but on the part of whoever put it out on video. You'd see microphone booms in Star Wars if it were transfered to video this way.When I saw Walking Tall in the theater, it did not have visible booms. Blame the video release, not the filmmakers.