One Ranger

Except for Thomas Jane's ridiculously over-the-top Texas accent and his cowboy hat that didn't fit, the movie's not all that bad.

A dialogue coach and a properly fitted hat could have turned this from a 5 into a 7 rather easily.

The premise was a bit goofy, but the action made up for it--sort of. There are a lot of flicks out there now that are worse.

Malkovich was hilarious in a part where he channeled Billy Bob Thornton's "Karl" from "Sling Blade" sort of transformed into a British intelligence agent, but it wasn't supposed to be funny. It just was.

Overall, a pretty good way to kill an hour and a half. Not great,, but not bad.

I was in the mood for a low Budget b-movie. I just noticed this one could been interesting. The trailer was acceptable and Malkovich was in it.

So, consequently I downloaded for free and after 20 minutes I just noticed everything starts to make nonsense. I mean, I was not expecting an Oscar winning script, but at least a decent one. I was wrong.

The movie itself is an insult to intelligence. Really damb decisions from all the characters and really, really predictable from beginning till the end.

To add, John Malkovich is the worst acting part here. Why he is trying hard to speak so slow and have British fake accent?

So, overall a bad B-movie that could have been far better with a more risky adult oriented script.

I stumbled upon "One Ranger," a 2023 action thriller featuring Thomas Jane and John Malkovich, without knowing much about it. However, with such talented actors attached to the project, I was eager to give it a chance. To my delight, the storyline was a classic police versus criminal tale, which I found entertaining despite its familiar tropes. Writer and director Jesse V. Johnson deserves credit for crafting an engaging script that kept me hooked from beginning to end. Throughout the 95-minute runtime, the pacing was just right. The film struck a perfect balance between action and character development, which made for a thoroughly enjoyable experience. The cast was well-chosen, with Thomas Jane and Dominique Tipper delivering strong performances. The only minor downside was John Malkovich's peculiar delivery, which was distracting at times and made it difficult to take his role seriously. The action sequences were well-executed and complemented the movie perfectly. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by "One Ranger" and would recommend it to fans of the genre.

The idea is outlandishly stupid, but has potential for a fun fish out of water film.

Thomas Jane plays a caricature of a texas ranger straight out of a western movie. He comes across an international terrorist robbing banks in Texas for some stupid reason and is then recruited by "British Intelligence" as they call it in the film to track and identify him in london.

The terrorist plans to set off some nuclear device or something stupid like that, aided by some Russian gangsters, Islamic terrorists and an assortment of other stereotypes.

What sounds like the setup to a fun Beverly Hills Cop style fish out of water action comedy ends up being a bore, with most of the jokes falling flat, Thomas Jane and his British female partner having zero chemistry, and the villains turning into a joke as the movie goes on.

John Malkovich is in it for an easy payday as a British Agent, doing his best impression of the old microsoft windows text to speech robot voice, whilenot even hiding his American accent.

The opening scene is pretty good with Thomas Jane tracking down a drunk Indian horse thief for some petty crimes and being a hardass about it.

From there on it's just downhill.

Thomas Jane has zero character development throughout the movie. He never grows. They do nothing with the fish out of water scenario. No character development for his female partner as well. They remain static cardboard cutouts. The whole cultural aspect is never really played with, probably for fear of offending people with stereotypes.

Structurally, the film is an absolute mess. The entire London plot goes nowhere and the finale takes place in the Texas desert again, just where the story started. This renders the entire London part, the center of the movie, superfluous. You don't send your hero on a globe trotting adventure only to end up where he started.

There is a fight with Thomas Jane and an oversized muscular Russian gangster again. Three of them actually. They utilize all kinds of household items and kitchenware again. This could have been a great callback to the fight scene in Punisher. However, they lack humor here. The violence and amount of damage each character takes is equally ridiculous here, but lacking the opera music and likeable side characters from Punisher, it just comes off as uninspired here.

Also, if you're going to have 3 fights against the same villain, there should be some character development. Maybe the villain could have gained some respect for Jane's character over their encounters. He had no real reason to follow the main villain. He was a mercenary.

So much wasted potential.

Also, how cheap do you have to be to use digital blood instead of squibs? Oftentimes the bullet wounds look like low resolution overlays. They aren't even always tracked right, which tells me they had some underpaid kid there adding them in on after effects. Thomas Jane coproduced this. How can you produce your own star vehicle like this, and then mess something as simple as squibs in an action film?

Very disappointing.

All that being said, I generally enjoy seeing Thomas Jane on screen. He lost his leading man flair, but he's still good. A shame he joined the dollar bin direct to video crew like Liam Neeson, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson and others. This film wasted a good idea with a bad screenwriter and poor direction, though given the budget, I don't want to place too much blame on the director. Still, he put his name on it and not Alan Smithee. Should have had more pride in his work.

And here is the paradox. If you are old enough to remember when Tom Jane was a hot-ticket A-lister, ditto for John Malkovich, then unfortunately you are also old enough to remember when both Dennis Weaver and Clint Eastwood did this same story (the former on TV, the latter in a feature), and did it much better. Just about every aspect of the production is weak, but most especially the writing and the editing. Director Johnson, best known for his completely forgettable "B" action flicks, does absolutely nothing to raise his reputation. In fact, ONE RANGER violates one of the "commandments" of film-making, which is to never make the villain more interesting than the hero. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))