Wednesday, June 16, 2010


Alright, I'm finally putting it out there for the whole world - or at least those of you who have an opinion on it - to make thier opinions known.

Jay Schober, a friend of mine whom I used to do a radio show with (along with Jim Findlay), contends that "Billy Jack" is the better film. Why? Well, to give you an idea of how Jay's mind works, one reason he contends, is because his kindergarten or first grade substitute teacher was a Mrs. Colpitts.

Mrs. Colpitts had a daughter named Cissy (whom Jay never met). Cissy became an actress (at least for a time) and was, in fact, a supporting player in "Billy Jack". Cissy is the young lady Bernard Posner makes remove her top in the scene prior to Bernard driving his new car into the lake. Ok, we get see her knockers - they're nice and all that, but it doesn't make this better than "Born Losers".

The second, and probably most significant reason Jay has for his argument is that Katy Moffitt, a singer who also appears in "Billy Jack", once told Jay that he was "cute".

So, using this same "logic", I asked Jay recently that if Bernard had told Jay that he thought he was "cute" and perhaps would want to "do" him in a gay fling, would Jay STILL think "Billy Jack" was a better film. Jay thought about it for a micro-second and then said "No."

Ok - here's my argument:

"Billy Jack" is inferior to "Born Losers" because it's pretentious (its biggest sin), it's over-rated, and Tom Laughlin's stand-ins were much thinner than he was and had longer hair to boot. Then there's the issue that it became a Laughlin ego-fest.

"Born Losers" was a cheap, sleazy biker picture but at least it didn't pretend to be anything BUT a cheap, sleazy biker picture. Besides, ya gotta love it when Billy Jack says to the motorcycle gang, "It's Sunday. How come you boys aren't in Church?"

Only one person I know of saw "Billy Jack" looking for the "love and peace" message while the rest of us were going to see:

a). Billy Jack kick the snot out of people.
b). To hear the great theme song again.
c). To get another glimpse of Cissy's major league yabos.
d). Billy Jack's scripted witticisms (which are generally better than those in "Born Losers", I have to say).

I had read somewhere along the line that sometime after "Trial of Billy Jack" (don't get me started on this one), the Laughlins had the nerve to complain that their monthly household budget had slipped to a "mere" $50,000 (or some such figure) per month.

One of Tom Laughlin's co-stars once had lunch or dinner with some friends of mine many years ago and she told them that Laughlin had no judo ability whatsoever during filming. He couldn't even lift his leg above his belt line. And yet, the publicity machines would tell us that ol' Tom was a black belt in Judo.

So, I've said my piece here at least for the moment. Jay, the ball is in your court, buddy!


  1. Ok, when I was a kid I saw "Billy Jack" when it first came out. I saw "Born Losers" much later. Of the two (and of the other two as well), I liked "Billy Jack" the best. Now, please understand that when I say "liked" I mean I was entertained, as a child. I am downloading the first one as a torrent now, just to try to see your side.

  2. Ayy, it's a toss up. They're both pretty bad. Split decision.

  3. BJ was not a Judo dude rather his MA in the movie was Hop-Key-Dough - asto the movies lets just say they were a low budget hit during a "Fight the Man" theme - Thanks


What do YOU think? Is "Billy Jack" better than "Born Losers"? Please leave your comments.