Texas Rangers

All the elements to makes this a great genre movie are present here, especially in its formulaic but yet promising story premise. Then where did it go wrong? By the characters and cast for starters.

The movie has an impressive cast and most do a more than fine job. It's ironic that however the actors I were most worried about (Usher Raymond, Ashton Kutcher) did a great job playing their roles and the actors I was most confident about (Dylan McDermott, Tom Skerritt, among others) were miscast in the movie. But disappointing or not, every character in the movie lacked some good development and background. The main character (played by James Van Der Beek) start off promising but as the movie progresses you more and more begin to wonder to yourself what makes the main character so special or even relevant for the story. Dylan McDermott is a good actor and he also for most part is good in his role but he just isn't convincing enough as an experienced tough dying gunslinger. It makes you wonder why Robert Patrick and McDermott didn't switched roles in this movie. It would had made the story at least a bit more believable. The main villain is being played by Alfred Molina. Perfect you would think. The character however seriously lacks some development and depth which makes him a pretty shallow and way too uninteresting main villain for the movie. And then there are the actors who are just simply underused in the movie, such as Tom Skerritt. I mean does he even have lines in this movie? Cause I really can't remember any. So poor casting and character treatment all around for this movie.

They tried very hard to make this movie a cool action movie, also with a bombastic action score from Trevor Rabin. But however the movie is lacking in way too many action sequences to make this a good genre movie. They also desperately tried to make the action moments cool, with quick shots and cuts, that however really don't add up to each other and instead make the movie an incoherent one when it comes down to its action. The movie as a whole has poor editing all around. It almost seems as if this movie wasn't even shot entirely and the movie was not put together until in the editing room, when it was too late to do some pick up shots.

Despite it's promising premise, nothing in the movie really works out the way it was supposed to. It really is too bad because in its core this movie really had potential. But perhaps they should had known better not to touch the Western genre, that has been pretty death by now for the few past decades. This movie now is nothing more than a still somewhat watchable movie for on a rainy afternoon, that perhaps should had gone straight-to-video immediately instead.

Perhaps best watchable for the die hard genre fans only, everyone else can better just skip this one.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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.

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...

From the opening shots through every scene acted out afterward NOTHING that is depicted in this movie EVER happened. It is a worse distortion than "Tombstone." I don't know where to start. For openers, the actor portraying McNelly admonishes a Ranger who is about to leave the service that he is "riding a Ranger horse and saddle, wearing Ranger clothes and carrying a Ranger gun," and if he leaves he will be arrested for theft. Anyone who knows squat about the Rangers of that day knows they had to bring their own horse, tack, weapons and clothes and then they would be considered for the service. Using Ranger badges for target practice is absurd beyond words. At that time the Rangers HAD NO badges. Just a letter stating they were Rangers. The makers of this movie either did not know or care. All a Ranger had to do to quit is ride away with what he brought. Also, John "King" Fisher was not a Mexican. He never shot down a crowd at a cattle auction. Leander McNelly's assignment in the Nueces Strip was to stop Mexican raiders from stealing cattle in Texas. His run in with John "King" Fisher was incidental and no shots were fired. McNelly and his men rode out to Fisher's ranch, arrested him and turned him over to a local sheriff. Days later they met Fisher and some of his men on the trail. Turns out Fisher had a friend who was a local judge and the judge let him bond out. McNelly had no authority to override that and Fisher went free for a time. The Black man McNelly took into his band was a former slave named Ben Kinchlow. He was hired as a tracker at no pay,just meals and equipment. When the shooting started between McNelly and the Mexican raiders, Kinchlow held the horses. The Mexican General was an officer in the Ruales, not the Mexican army, and he had no connection with Fisher. He was killed in the first shoot out with McNelly's men. The pistols McNelly's men used were black powder five shot revolvers. The pistols used in the movie had not been invented at the time. The rifles they used were single shot, black powder muzzle loaders. It wasn't until around three years after McNelly raided Mexico that the Rangers were given 1873 Winchesters. Over all the movie is an almost amusing "western" shoot-'em-up. The kind kids paid 15 cents to see back in the 1950s. It has nothing to do with the Texas Rangers. I don't know where the movie was filmed, but I know the land from Corpus Christi to Brownsville to the Rio Grande and is is an ancient sea bed, flat as a football field as far as you can see. This movie could have been titled "Leo Gorcey and the Dead End Kids" and the title would have been no more non-related than calling it "Texas Rangers."

It's a real shame. "Texas Rangers", Steve Miner's new take on the founding of the famous band of Old West law enforcers, was held back from release for almost a whole year, subjected to numerous re-edits, dumped into theatres without any fanfare, and greeted with apathy and pathetic grosses. And you know what? It's one of the most entertaining films I've seen all year.

The film stars James Van Der Beek as an upright Eastern inventor's son who, on his first trip to the wild west, sees his parents and brothers killed before his eyes by marauding bandits. Desperate for revenge, he enlists with the Rangers, a more-or-less vigilante band led by Leander McNelly (Dylan McDermott), an ex-Confederate soldier with a vendetta of his own. McNelly's band of young gunslingers battle their way across the Texas border country, sniffing out bandits, doling out frontier justice, romancing the women-folk, etc., etc.

In other words, "Texas Rangers" does nothing you can't see in any B-western on Saturday afternoon TV. It's just that it does most of it a lot better than we've seen for quite some time. After the rather too glossy "American Outlaws", it's nice to get a Western with a gritty, authentic look. The towns look appropriately small and weather-beaten, the costumes nice and trail-worn. The only gloss here is on the guns...and I guess some of those young cowpokes are kind of glittery, too.

Miner's direction is curiously hot and cold here. He excels in quiet moments, dialogue and character, but his action scenes sometimes come up short. He seems particularly to have a bad habit of always putting his camera in the wrong place when his quick action payoffs arrive (bullets hitting home, knives landing on target). Still, the picture moves with lots of energy and excitement, and Miner is definitely to thank for that. Also, he scores in the big action climax, where the Rangers storm the desperadoes' Mexican hideout. Here, the camera always finds the right spot, and the result is a fast, pulse-quickening blowout.

A fine cast gives a lot of luster to the material. James Van Der Beek has never been just another WB pretty boy, and he takes to the Western with grace and conviction. Ashton Kutcher is okay as a hayseed gunman, but at times comes off a little too much like he's still on "That '70s Show". Usher Raymond is nicely understated as a former-slave ranger, and while Rachael Leigh Cook's rancher's daughter is really superfluous to the plot, her gorgeous face is absolutely essential. Fine supporting turns dot the picture, with standouts being Randy Travis and Robert Patrick as McNelly's lieutenants and Vincent Spano as a cocky, villainous gunslinger.

Really, though, this is Dylan McDermott's show. I have never been much of a fan of "The Practice", and was stunned by the force and power of McDermott's work here. He carries himself with solid-as-a-rock strength, and handles his quieter emotional moments with consummate restraint. He also looks superbly the part, eyes glowering beneath his black hat, guns blazing away from the back of his horse. Of course, it also helps that Scott Busby and Martin Copeland's screenplay turns McNelly into a complex and fascinating character. Haunted by the memory of his wife and child, (stolen by bandits while he was off in the wars), dogged by a sickness that is bearing down on his soul, always trusting the gun and the noose over the badge and the lawbook, McNelly is a classic western hero, bigger than life and still movingly human. It's a terrific performance, one of the best I've seen this year, and it makes me wish that they'll keep making westerns just so McDermott can keep acting in them.

Of course, they won't keep making them if people won't get off their duffs and go see the good ones when they come along. And trust me, "Texas Rangers" is one of the good ones, a top-class B-picture with an A-list lead performance. Give it a look, if it's still at your local theatre. I guarantee you won't be sorry you did.