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.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

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.

Joe Don Baker is Buford Pusser, an ex Marine who returns to find his small, peaceful Tennessee town corrupted by an immoral cabal marketing illegal stuff like gambling, white lightning, and trailer hos. He is elected sheriff and cleans it all up.Baker is mulling over the decision to run for County Sheriff. It's a dangerous job in this milieu. He's already seen a friend killed and has himself been horribly tortured. His wife, Elizabeth Hartmann, objects. "Is your pride worth the lives of your wife and children?", she asks. Both Baker's character and the viewer take the sentence to be rhetorical. It's not.But it's the sort of challenge that every wife lays down before her man when he's about to commit himself to some heroic deed. How many times has John Wayne's cinema wives clashed with him and his career as a sheriff or a Marine because they want him safe at home, not out risking his life, wondering if he'll come home in a body bag? Phil Karlson, the director, has made a couple of powerful movies but I'm not sure that he understood the import of Hartmann's question. It may have been that he realized it, but it may also have been an accident, the kind of phrase that slips easily by someone's critical apparatus. That's what I meant when I called the movie ironic.There's another scene that demonstrates the same irony. Baker has just been ambushed, his wife murdered and half his jaw shot away. His face is encased in plaster up to his eyes. He's weak and can barely move. And we see the crowd of friends in the corridor gawk and make a path when Baker's young son solemnly enters the room, carrying the little rifle that Baker gave him for Christmas. The kid is going to kill anyone who tries to hurt his Dad. Do the film makers know what they're saying? Anyone expected a Steven Segal wisecracker or anything resembling the loutish remake with Dwayne ("The Rock") Johnson will be disappointed. This movie is ambiguous in too many respects. It's not a simple revenge movie like "The Punisher," although there is an abundance of violence and blood. After that first mauling and the subsequent humiliations, Baker is rabid with revenge. His face turns into a horrifying Gargoyle mask as he tortures the spies and law breakers.I would guess -- judging from some recent polls and comments from our own politicians -- that about one out of four Americans will see this as the simple triumph of good over evil. (The distribution will be skewed in the direction of boys in their early teens.) It won't occur to them -- though the notion is brought up once or twice by character is the movie -- that Baker is a flawed person, that his pride verges on arrogance, and his anger on enjoyment. He brags about his scars.It's hard to argue with such a black and white view of the sheriff. He only drinks an occasional beer to be friendly, doesn't smoke, doesn't cuss, doesn't approve of see-through blouses, doesn't hold with loose women even if they love him, he's all tenderness with his wife and children, and doesn't gamble. Has there ever been such purity -- outside of the Bible and Arthurian legends? Baker is surprisingly good in the role of the real-life Buford Pusser. You can tell the story is based on actual facts and personalities because where else would you find people with names like Lutie McVey or Ferrin Meaks? As for Buford Pusser, that name would be the first to go. As the heroic central figure, he'd have to have a name like Matt Steel or Bull Durham.But the acting (and the location photography) are fine across the board. Nobody is a dud. Baker himself always sound like he's reciting lines in an acting class, doing his level best, but it's okay in this kind of role. After a while you get used to it and come to believe that this is how he sound off screen. He had a similar role, except as a murderer, in "Charlie Varick," where he was easily the most complex character. Probably the best performer in this film is Rosemary Murphy as the villainous Callie Hacker, head of the Whore Division. She doesn't get a chance to exercise her chops here, but catch her in "Night Moves" if you can.It doesn't really matter how you take the movie. You can either accept it as a shallow revenge story full of blood and sentiment or as the rather deeper and murkier thing I suspect it is. It will still be gripping and emotionally moving. The climax has the law-enforcer breaking the law in search of insurance that the law will prevail. Dirty Harry with a motive. Ironic.

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.