Customer Reviews

Texas Rangers [VHS]

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

If these actors are Texas Rangers then Charlie's Angels are real detectives. I am a Western fan and this movie has no redeeming value. Tom Skerritt should be ashamed to appear in this film. If I could have rated this video at -5 I would have done so.

Hot off the popularity of their television shows, James Van der Beek (Dawson's Creek) and Ashton Kutcher (That 70's Show) attempt to score big on the big screen. That has since happened, but this film wasn't the reason why.

The producers were obviously attempting to throw quantity not quality at the big screen, since they employed a host of well known television actors and a couple of singers. You have Dylan McDermott as the Captain in charge, Robert Patrick, Matt Keeslar, Usher Raymond, Tom Skerritt, and even Randy Travis. As an after thought they've even thrown in Rachel Leigh Cook as the token female character.

The acting is never bad, it's just that there's really not much going on here to warrant any excitement. You can sit and watch this film from beginning to end without blinking and you'll swear that you must have missed something. That's what makes this simplistic film bad.

The plot is super simple: bad men kill innocent people. Young studly guys band together as the "Texas Rangers" to right the wrongs, but not for revenge.

Unfortunately, this story doesn't have oomph to make it any good. Alfred Molina, as the bad guy, just never comes off quite as bad as he should. The reason? A fine actor, Molina seems to be bored and somewhat ashamed to be in such a stinker. He does bad things but he never comes off as evil or homicidal or even psycho. This movie really begs for a Bruce Dern in "The Cowboys".

And the good guys...these guys are apparently sharing one brain among the 30 of them. In one fight scene, they come charging in a single line across the plains to a wooded area where the bad guys are holed up with tons of places to hide. Of course the good guys are masacred. Since no one bother to introduce us to any of the good guys beyond the major players, we really can't care too much if any of the good guys get killed. In fact, I was hoping that more of them would be killed off - they really started to annoy me.

In short, Texas Rangers is long on being a Teen Beat homage and short on being a real western. There is very little character development in either the good or bad guy camps and there is no storyline, but the central one. I think there was an attempt to throw in a love story angle, but it gets lost when Kutcher jumps in the tub with van der Beek.

This film isn't the worst I've seen, but it certainly isn't even noteworthy.

If you want to see a bunch of your favorite television studs in a cowboy outfits, then by all means rent this. Otherwise rent a decent western, such as The Cowboys, Rooster Cogburn, Shane, or Tombstone.

I won't go long winded. If you have time to kill and like westerns, watch it. It will NOT be something that will stay in your mind very long.

Texas Rangers, one of the earliest organized law enforcement in America, has been treated in movie industry, and probably the best one remains King Vidor's version made in 1936. Since then, the name has been used as a TV series, and even as a baseball team, so it is time for someone to pick up this ledendary figures to make a film out of their eventful history. And here is a film based on this important part of American history again.

The film starts with massive killings of innocent people by the villainous John King Fisher (Alfred Molina). And in order to regain the justice in the land of Texas, young gunmen get together under the command of Leander McNelly (Dylan McDermott), whose way of carrying out justice seems sometimes very dubious. James Van Der Beek is one of these brave youths recruited for the purpose, as are Usher Raymond and Ashton Kusher. Robert Patrick also appears as Sgt. John Armstrong who supports McNelly, and you will find Rachel Leigh Cook, who falls in love with one of them. Also, Leonor Verela ("Blade 2") appears, but her role is a very painful one, I warn you, fans.

OK, and about the film ... well, first, don't expect something that might enlarge your knowledge about American history. Though the character of McNelly is a real one, and the location of the film is very beautiful and authentic, the story itself is nothing new, nothing inspired, just what you have seen in other western films. Though the film at least doens't stop to muse, and during this short running time there are enough shootings to keep you absorbed, you will feel something missing in it.

The actors including Van Deer Beek are not bad, but it is McDermott who attracts the viewers most, with his comparatively complex characterization. However, I find Alfred Molina, usually a very reliable actor, is fatally miscast as a villain, and Rachael Leigh Cook looks very uncomfortable (though she was once in a costume drama "True Women.") Probably it is because we know (and she knows) that her role is just an obligatory one.

Director Steve Miner, like his "Lake Placid," keeps the story going anyway, but he neither hits the right mark, nor misses it too wide. Surely "Texas Rangers" is entertaining, but needs something more to be really original.

How do you film a movie about Texas in Canada? The town representing Brownsville, Tx was indeed filmed in Canada. The location scenery definitely proves that. Anyone familiar with the Brownsville area can see a total mis-representation. Why did the filmmakers not go to Bracketteville, TX to film. Bracketteville and the surrounding area is the home location to may great westerns; i.e.: The Alamo, Bandolero!, Lonesome Dove, Bad Girls, just to name a few. And the landscape is more appropriate to representing the Brownsville area. The movie took a lot of liberties with actual events, also. The movie was based on the book, "Taming the Nueces Strip" by George Durham as told to Clyde Wantland. George Durham was a real person who's exploits with McNelly's Rangers are well told. In "Texas Rangers." Durham is nothing more than a minor character,played by Ashton Kutcher, represented as the friend of the central character,Lincoln Rogers Dunnison (who was he?), played by James Van Der Beek. If the movie had followed the real historical events as they really happened as told by Durham, it would have been a much better movie. Alfred Molina as King Fisher was very disappointing, greatly over-playing the part, probably trying to enhance a poor scripting of his character. I was greatly disappointed.

When you bake cake, you need to crack eggs to make it taste good. When you begin to bring law and order in an area that is overrun by unlawful people, do you need to break the law to be effective?
This 2001 film shows how an undisciplined insufficiently trained bunch of cowboys, led by a sick, dying, and embittered ex-preacher who returned from the Civil war to find his family were killed, rebuild the Texas Rangers after the war, in 1875, to fight against bandits who overrun Texas and rustel cattle. The ex-preacher leads a small army of about two dozen men against the outlaws. One of them is a young man whose parents and brother were killed by the outlaw leader, a man who is intelligent, but can't shoot. Another is a black man who is mistreated by the ranger sergeant because of his color. The ranger captain doesn't follow the rules of law. He captures men and hangs them without trial. The intelligent man tells him that this is wrong. The captain also races into battle without a proper strategy, and needs this man to help him.
The action is good, but there is really no character development, and it would have been nice if it contanied more history.

I will start out saying I am a native Texan and have some bias in my review of this movie.
That said, this movie is a very fragrant pile of horse manure. The movie claims to be based on fact, and then throws all the fact out the window to tell a sickeningly PC morality tale. Be aware that the only "facts" in this movie are some of the character names.
Here is a list of some of the more glaring inaccuracies:

1. McNelly's Special Force of Rangers was not a bunch of kids. They were mostly seasoned frontiersman, and George Durham stated in his book that the only reason he was allowed to join was that his father had served under McNelly in the Civil War.

2. King Fisher might have been ( and probably was ) a criminal. However he was also the elected sheriff of his county and highly thought of by many in the area. McNelly tried to arrest him several times, but could never make it stick due to lack of evidence. The two certainly never had a pistol duel. King Fisher was asassinated, along with the famous gunfighter Ben Thompson, coming out of a theater in San Antonio, TX many years later. And he certainly never massacred the citizens of a town.

3. Captain Richard King ( called Duke in the movie) was never captured by bandits and was certainly never hung by them. The name change is probably the result of the King Ranch not wanting anything to do with this travesty of a movie.

4. There were no African American Rangers serving with McNelly. The only black man with the force was the cook. ( Stereotypical, but true ) I imagine Usher's character was added to boost ticket sales and to placate Hollywood's PC paranoia. I don't know who dreamed up the "scout" and "rifleman" ranks, but it's complete b.s., they were simply rangers.

5. This movie was filmed in Canada, which looks nothing like South Texas. I live in South Texas, and it is semi-arid brush country. Not very photogenic, I assume.

6. The main culprit behind all the unrest along the border at that time was a man named Juan Nepomuncio Cortinas. He was a former bandit, Governor of the state of Tamualipas, and a general in the Mexican army. The bandit gangs were encouraged and sanctioned by the Mexican government, not Anglo outlaws.

There are other gaffs, but I am tired of listing them. My main gripe is the portrayal of McNelly and his men being loose cannons who just didn't give peace a chance. The border was in a state of undeclared warfare at this time and McNelly did what had to be done to stop it. He was not a cop, he and his men were soldiers. The Rangers at that time were not a law enforcement agency, that came later. ( They also didn't wear badges.)
In short, read George Durham's "Taming the Nueces Strip" or Walter P. Webb's "The Texas Ranger's" for the real story. Toss the movie in the pasture for fertilizer.

Bad acting; bad movie plot; story; etc.........just a piece of junk.........a good title; but badly written and performed; skip this one; ............

i watch a lot of movies and although i don't write much reviews,but i just had to write one for this movie...i like it so much that i watched it maybe every day for a week!!!..:))...it's one of the best movies i've ever seen,maybe not good in a sense of art or whatever,but it's a story for the heart and i love it...i can say that the caracters of James Van Der Beek and Dylan McDermot are so cool and sexy and although i dont know the history about the Texas rangers,i did like the theme...anyway,cool movie....................

"Texas Rangers" may not be historically accurate, and it may not be "Tombstone" (despite the many similarities), but it is an excellent, action-filled Western in the "Young Guns" tradition. Despite the presence of James Van Der Beek, Dylan McDermott is the heroic presence of the film. In true Clint Eastwood style, he does a lot of squinting, very little shaving, and a lot of shooting - never breaking a sweat even as he spits out quite decent one-liners. The cast may be ensamble for the most part, but Dylan steals the show. It is unfortunate that "Texas Rangers" didn't enjoy a wide release last November. Given some of the awful movies that DID enjoy wide release last year ("Tomb Raider," "The Musketeer," "Planet of the Apes"), it is truly a shame. Watch this movie - particularly if you're a fan of the genre. It doesn't have the class or quality of a Clint production, but it's good fun all the same.