Un ranger

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.

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.

This shows why not to make a movie from the first draft. If the writers had done a little work on this, it could have been quite good. I don't know how Texas Rangers dress, nor do I care. MI-6 enlists him to help catch or kill a terrorist who's planning mass destruction in London. The terrorist is of course Irish, his main henchman is a Russian who is nearly indestructible. The fights he has with the ranger are ridiculously over the top. And repetitive. The ranger constantly, and without for the most part, his own gun, blasts heavily armed terrorists away again and again. Malkovich, for the first time in any role, sleep walks through this. Guess he needed a few bucks. Direction is pedestrian. This could have been so much better.

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))

Alex Tyree (Thomas Jane) is the titular One Texas Ranger. He takes down a buggy full of criminals but one gets away. He is recruited by Agent Jennifer Smith (Dominique Tipper) from British Intelligence to retrieve Irish terrorist Declan McBride (Dean Jagger) who is imprisoned in Mexico. Declan escapes and is set to blow up London.

This starts off bad. His banter with Tom is supposed to be fun and endearing to the audience. I did not find that to be the case. His gun battle with the buggy four starts out good, but there is too much bad writing. Why doesn't he take his horse? How does a bad guy double back to take Tom hostage? At least, it's still in Texas. Once Agent Smith shows up, the movie goes down a bad rabbit hole. First, she's a non-descript British Intelligence. The writing should be more specific. Writer/director Jesse V. Johnson probably thought that it would be fun to have a cowboy and a British gentleman team up. I can see that pitch. I don't see it on the screen.