SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

Flyerplesys Perfectly adorable

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

JohnHowardReid A forceful western set against the background of the American-Mexican war, this is most certainly a novel approach to the usual cowboys and Indians formula.It's well acted too and features some very convincing performances from the likes of Jim Davis, Lee Van Cleef, Faron Young and Marty Robbins.Although Arleen Whelan is prominently featured in the movie's credits and in all its advertising, her role is both small and unimportant. This is a men's picture and just about all the players turn out to be either heroes or baddies.Allegedly based on true history, the somewhat bloodthirsty plot is crowded with action -- perhaps a bit too much action at the expense of exposition?By the humble standards of the Independent Western, Gannaway's direction is remarkably speedy and never less than competent. He makes very good use of his real locations.

Michael Morrison 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.

MartinHafer 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.

FightingWesterner Former Cavalry officer Jim Davis and fellow heavies Lee Van Cleef and Marty Robbins take control of a huge parcel of land following the Mexican American War, pushing the Mexican peasant farmers off the property given them by it's former owner, a General in the Mexican Army.Raiders Of Old California looks a bit cheap but it's so hard-boiled and action packed that the low-budget doesn't hurt it all that much, though I wish country stars Robbins and Faron Young could have strummed and sang a few tunes.Speaking of Young, he's pretty good as Davis' nemesis, a justice seeking U.S. Marshall. If he had been fifteen years older he could have been an excellent Saturday matinée western star.Lee Van Cleef too has a pretty meaty role as Davis' number one henchman. Here he's just as mean, cold, and cruel as he is in later performances. This is essential viewing for Van Cleef fans.