Fantastic!

Admirable film.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Although full of actors with a lot of experience in westerns--Jim Davis, Harry Lauter, Lee Van Cleef, Douglas Fowley--this cheap and irritating film from Republic comes across like it was made over a weekend by a couple of guys who got some money (very little of it, from the looks of things) together and said, "Hey, let's make a western!". This was released by Republic near the end of its existence--the studio went out of business two years later--although it wasn't actually made by them but was an independent production they picked up for distribution. That at least salvages their reputation somewhat, since Republic specialized in making westerns and knew how to make efficient, action-packed horse operas; I can't think of any of its own product that is as tenth-rate as this mess is.There are so many things wrong with this film that it's difficult to know where to begin. For starters, although it's called "Raiders of Old California", it's set along the Texas/Mexican border, nowhere near California. As pointed out by other reviewers, the US troops wear uniforms and equipment that weren't issued until 15 years or so after the period the film was set in (the late 1840s). The film opens during the Mexican-American War of 1848 with a US Army attack on a Mexican fort, and it's an indication of what's to come--the "action" is dull, slow, poorly staged and full of stupid mistakes (while attacking the fort, the US soldiers don't bother running but stand out in the open, where they are promptly shot; soldiers fall off their horses although no shots are heard being fired; after the battle is over and the Americans have taken the fort, a Mexican soldier rides through the front gate and starts speaking to his commanding officer--in English--apparently not noticing that the fort has been taken over by American soldiers), and the "fort" itself is a painfully obvious, shoddily made set that looks like it was slapped together with wrapping paper and plywood.The story of greedy villains trying to take land away from poor defenseless peasants and farmers has been done a thousand times before (and a thousand times better) and despite the cast of western veterans, no one acquits themselves particularly well. I hope their checks didn't bounce so at least they got something out of it, because this flabby, badly written, sloppily made hackjob isn't anything any of them should be proud of.

Never having heard of producer-director Albert C. Gannaway, I wasn't sure what to expect, even though I am a long-time fan of Jim Davis.In addition, I had never seen Faron Young in a movie, either, and again had no idea what to expect.Faron Young, whom I remember from my childhood as a singer, turns out to be one good action hero, an excellent cowboy movie star.Director Gannaway was an absolute master of camera placement.So I was not only surprised, I was exceedingly pleased by what I saw in "Raiders of Old California."The script has some flaws. I never heard of Comanches in California, but except for the title, California doesn't seem to have anything to do with this. It seems, except for the title, to be in Texas and maybe Arizona. "Seems" because of a discussion about the boundaries of the land in question.But the story moves otherwise beautifully, with superb action, highly professional stunts, and plenty of them, and, again, lots of action, with Faron Young playing his part as if he had made a hundred movies.Harry Lauter gets one of his best roles, and plays it perfectly. He was an actor! And deserved more and bigger roles.Jim Davis has never been more evil. Another truly great actor.Douglas Fowley gives what must be his most unusual performance, as a crusty desert-rat kind of sheriff. Another truly great actor, he more often played a villain, and usually a city slicker, but his characterization here is just eye-popping.Lee Van Cleef also gives an excellent performance as a nasty character, and his eventual switch to hero roles was gratifying to his fans, and impressive to his audience. He was paid, according to reports, with satchels and briefcases full of money to make a series of Italian westerns, and he earned every penny.Everything -- except for the occasional script and/or title flaw -- about "Raiders" is excellent. For a very little known western, it is more than excellent, and I highly recommend you give it a look. There is a first-quality print available at YouTube, where I saw it. I hope you like and admire it as much as I do.

Jim Davis is star and protagonist of Raiders Of Old California, a western from the last days of Republic Pictures. Davis is an army captain who uses the Mexican War and the uniform to steal himself a Spanish land grant from the previous owner Lawrence Dobkin who after a murder attempt by Davis henchman Lee Van Cleef on his life, retires and becomes a friar.It's been previously pointed out the disparity in times for a film set in the post Mexican War years, with Davis, Van Cleef etc. wearing Civil War era uniforms and carrying even later weaponry. Herbert J. Yates was not much for authenticity and research.Faron Young and Marty Robbins from the Grand Ole Opry are a good guy and a bad guy in this film. It was getting a little too late for country and western stars to become western stars on the big screen. Their time to become another Gene Autry had passed.Those who are thespians do a good job with their roles. But Raiders Of Old California is a subpar western.

As a history teacher, this sort of western irritates the life out of me. While it's supposed to be set just after the Mexican War (which ended in the late 1840s), nothing about the film looks right—nothing. The guns are all repeating cartridge pistols circa 1870s-1880s, the cavalry uniforms from the 1860s and the whole look of the film is just another late 1800s film. So why, then, did they bother setting the film in this much earlier era if they just didn't care what they slapped on the screen? I guess they just wanted to churn out anything—hoping the public just would watch it anyways.The film involves a very common theme to westerns—the baddies who are trying to grab up all the land and force the good people off their own property. In this case, an evil American is trying to force Mexicans off their land now that it's become a US territory. Unfortunately, it's all very familiar, the acting is unspectacular (at best) and the production just looks cheap and slapped together. My feeling is that since there were at least 13923035440509 other westerns made during this era, why not try watching one of the others first? After all, it's most likely a lot more interesting and better produced than this cheapie. And, perhaps my score of 3 is a bit generous.