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.

fredcdobbs5 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.

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.