Texas Rangers

In 1875, ten years after the end of the Civil War, Texas, especially the area along the Mexican border, is a wild, lawless place where ranchers and homesteaders are frequently threatened by bandits. The State Governor therefore decides to re-create the Texas Rangers, who had been disbanded after the Civil War, to uphold the law. The film follows the exploits of a company of Rangers led by Leander McNelly. The villain of the story is John King Fisher, the leader of a gang of outlaws who specialise in stealing cattle and then fleeing into Mexico, where the stolen cattle are sold to the Mexican army. The gang are ruthless killers, who have no compunction about murdering unarmed civilians in cold blood. It came as no surprise to discover that the film is loosely based on fact and that McNelly and King Fisher were real historical figures; "Leander McNelly" did not sound like the sort of name any scriptwriter would invent for a fictitious character. The film allegedly takes some liberties with the historical record, but these are unlikely to upset anyone other than experts on Texan history.

Although the Texas Rangers are, strictly speaking, a law enforcement agency rather than a military unit, the film bears more resemblance to a war movie than to a cop film. The plot is that old staple of war movies, the one about the tough, experienced commander who takes a group of raw recruits (most of them are young men with little or no experience of guns or policing crime) and turns them into a crack fighting unit. In their initial battle with the bandits, the Rangers fall into a trap, and many of the young and ill-trained men are killed. Nevertheless they regroup, attract new recruits and face off against Fisher and his men in a final showdown.

The film is directed by Steve Miner, previously known to me only as the man who made "Lake Placid", a dreadful horror-comedy unlikely to appeal to anyone other than those who feel that there is something inherently hilarious about someone getting their head bitten off by a gigantic crocodile. Fortunately, Miner makes no attempt to inject comedy elements into "Texas Rangers", and it is a better film than "Lake Placid", although that is not really saying much.

The past few years have seen something of a revival of the Western genre. Many recent Westerns ("Dances with Wolves", "Unforgiven", "Wyatt Earp", "3.10 to Yuma") have been grand films made on an epic scale, but "Texas Rangers" is a much more modest, small-scale effort, more reminiscent of the old Western B-movies. Its total running time is very short for a twenty-first century film- the version I saw on British television recently only ran to eighty minutes. It is essentially a good-guys-versus-bad-guys Western of the old school with plenty of action and gunplay but without any deep significance. There are occasional attempts to inject a note of moral ambiguity- McNelly can be uncompromising in his methods- but there is little doubt that he and his men wear the metaphorical white hats and the Fisher gang the black ones. This is the sort of thing that Hollywood used to churn out by the dozen in the forties and fifties. 5/10

I don't know why people are saying this is a horrible movie. It's actually a very enjoyable movie, but was a bit short, and short on character development. The actors do decently for being mostly TV actors, and the scenery was great, as well as the music. And it doesn't suffer from pacing problems. I almost wish I could have seen it in the theatre. Overall a good movie. As far as historical accuracy, I don't know, but Hollywood has been known to extend the truth a bit. For the most part, however, it is fairly believable. Don't listen to people that say it's a waste of time, make your own decision, but I believe it's at least worth a rental if not more.

I sat in the theatre, watching the credits. It was nearly empty, the theatre i mean. As the other two people that had just seen this horrible train wreck of a film with me left the theatre, i hung my head and cried. I mourned the Western film genre. No not really, but that wouldnt sound too unlikely if you see this horrible nightmare. I did ask the question listed above, however. "Where have you gone Clint Eastwood?" The last good western i remember seeing was an Eastwood movie: Unforgiven. So after witnessing this "western" i begged that question. We need Eastwood, i don't care if he is 71 years old. All we need is one more good western, just one, and there will be hope left for the genre.

But, I know this will never happen. Because after viewing this...thing, and recalling American Outlaws, i have discovered the truth. It is simply this: Hollywood is attempting to kill the western. Don't deny it. Think about it. Just think about the cast of this movie. First there's James Vanderbeek (who's last name im sure i spelled wrong.) Does ANYONE out there buy Dawson as a Texas Ranger? I mean shouldn't this guy move off the creek before he tries to be a tough guy?

Next theres Ashton Kutcher: Dude Where's My Car? Enough said.

Then theres Usher: USHER?!?!? How the hell did that happen? Seriously, are you tellin me that just after the Civil War a confederate state is going to make a black guy a lawman?

So, add to the worst casting in the history of American cinema quite possibly the worst script Hollywood has puked up in the last fifty years and you have THE WORST WESTERN EVER. Where have you gone Clint, where o where have you gone?

These people obviously love the old "spaghetti westerns". I was expecting Clint Eastwood to show up at any time. So true to the old genre that it's almost camp. Even the music is true to the genre that I expected to hear the theme from The Good, The Bad,and the Ugly at any moment... Some of the lighting and background is obviously theatrical, and the editing from scene to scene is clipped in places. I don't know why people are complaining so much when this was obviously more than a little tongue in cheek, with a tip of the hat to Italian westerns. Hey, who needs a plot when you've got the good guys against the bad guys? Viewed in that light, it was well-done. Otherwise, hardly an historical document ;-) If you want to know about Texas, read James Mitchner...

A lot of people have commentated that Texas RANGERS feels like a straight to video film but I disagree and wish to point out that it seems more like a pilot for a TV series . The script and the way the cast play their roles certainly suggests this since we've got characters that seem anachronistic and could very well have become litery devices for a long running TV series . An example is of having one of the rangers as a black character , think about it he's in a Southern state and he's black ! What an obvious character to use at a later stage to explore racism . Unfortunately because none of the characters will be appearing in their own series this leads to a serious problem that many people have picked up on and that is there's no character development . In fact this makes the entire film feel totally clichéd and unconvincing

There are other serious problems such as the way the film uses an overlayed map every time the rangers move from one location to another . This happens in nearly every single scene without fail and becomes totally patronising after the first 20 times . No seriously I'm not exaggerating , if someone treks more than a few yards we see a soft focus overlay of a map come up on screen without fail . Perhaps the fact that the film was obviously NOT shot in Texas might have everything to do with this ? Anyone who has a vague notion of where Texas might be will be stratching their head asking what the rangers are doing in Montana . I'm also pretty certain that the creation of the Texas rangers didn't happen as we're shown here

TR is not a film that will satisfy everyone and I have a feeling that it will satisfy no one . Western aficionados will dislike because of its inaccurate feel while DAWSON CREEK viewers ( Am I right in thinking that this is who it was marketed for ? ) will very quickly become bored with the clichés