Diagonaldi Very well executed

Steineded How sad is this?

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Scott LeBrun The exploits of real-life Tennessee sheriff Buford Pusser continue in this sequel to the hit film "Walking Tall". Bo Svenson now takes on the role; and while he may not be as good an actor as Joe Don Baker, he does alright at playing the take-charge, no-nonsense lawman, who finally gets out of the hospital after being ambushed near the end of the first film. He tries to go about his business while the bigshot criminals whom he pursued the first time around are now hellbent on getting back at him.There are some good action sequences in this thing, such as one involving a runaway car and chase scenes on the river. Director Earl Bellamy does a decent job with the direction. One highlight is when Buford and his deputies, played by returnee Bruce Glover and Robert DoQui (who replaces Felton Perry as Obra) take apart the car of a racer (Richard Jaeckel) who doubles as a hired goon. The movie overall is fun if not as memorable as "Walking Tall" part one. At least one should be able to root for Buford and enjoy hating the bad guys.Svenson is ably supported by a bunch of familiar faces. Glover and DoQui are very engaging as the deputies. Other holdovers from the first film include Noah Beery Jr. and Lurene Tuttle as Bufords' parents, real-life siblings Leif Garrett and Dawn Lyn as his children, Red West as the helpful Sheriff Tanner, and Logan Ramsey as cranky big time criminal John Witter. Co-starring are the always reliable Luke Askew, a typically creepy John Davis Chandler, and a lively Frank McRae. Supremely sexy Brooke Mills and Angel Tompkins provide plenty of eye candy.All in all, this first "Walking Tall" sequel is solid entertainment, although it's sobering to hear the postscript at the end.Seven out of 10.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

ebiros2 This was the first "Walking Tall" movie I saw, I think in a $2 movie theater along Hollywood Blvd. , so I didn't have any reference to the first installment done by Joe Don Baker. I remember being shocked at the corrupted system of McNairy County and the brutality of the "redneck gangs". I was also amazed at the fact that one man decided he's not going to let it slide, and went out to do something about it. Courageous ? I thought so - to a point where it sent shivers up my spine.I think this movie is a great story about American courage to stand up and do something about a system that's only serving its own interest. I was pretty blown away about it, and think this is still one of the best movie of the hero/anti-hero genre, which one might laugh but includes recent movies like the "The Punisher", but even more so because it's a true story. The recent remake starring the "Rock" just doesn't do any justice to the real fire in the story of Buford Pusser.A "classic" that I'm sure will resurface again in the future.

moonspinner55 Follow-up to 1973's "Walking Tall" continues the real-life drama surrounding Tennessee sheriff Buford Pusser, but this installment plays like a lame TV-movie. Bo Svenson takes over the lead role from Joe Don Baker, but he's much too mild for the part; he comes off like an ambling country singer with a bat instead of a guitar. Good supporting actors like Richard Jaekel, Luke Askew and Robert DoQui end up with very little to do. I would give the film one-star strictly on its good intentions, but the screenplay is a transparent and lazy mass of routine predicaments and the production is cheapjack. Followed in 1977 by "Final Chapter-Walking Tall" and in 1978 by the television film "A Real American Hero".