Strong and Moving!

Simply A Masterpiece

How sad is this?

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Although Texas Rangers is a tribute to a force that has a proud tradition of contributing law and order to our second largest state, the story of Leander McNelly and King Fisher just didn't work out the way it did. Perhaps there should have been that way, but just as Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart never met in life, McNelly and Fisher didn't have it out.TV stars James Van Der Beek and Ashton Kutcher are a pair of young recruits that Dylan McDermott as McNelly signs up for the newly reconstituted Texas Rangers. During the Civil War and the Reconstruction period the Texas Rangers had been disbanded. After the carpetbagger government was finished, the newly elected Texas State government reestablished the Rangers and they had a great responsibility as the US Cavalry was dealing with Comanches as its primary mission.King Fisher as played by Alfred Molina was one nasty dude, no doubt about it. But his primary source of income was cattle rustling. He rarely committed crimes like murder north of the border, bad for business to get people madder than they really could be. He stole cattle and sold it to the local Mexican satrap whomever it might be at a given moment. The wanton murder you see here was not really his style though he'd kill you without hesitation if you got in his way.In any event the state of Texas and King Fisher reached a negotiated truce and Fisher became a prominent rancher in the Uvalde area. I saw his grave there and he's one of three prominent citizens Uvalde claims, the other two being Dale Evans and Vice President John Nance Garner.Texas Rangers is a good TV movie about this body of law enforcement in its early days, but it's hardly ever going to be rated a classic.

I had never heard of this movie and whatever reviews were written about it, but the best I can recreate is that it's "inaccurate". Well I get over these things easily if I'm enjoying myself. I stumbled upon it as one of the many delights of daytime TV and hell, it beats fresh air. The opening credits alone already amused me, how do you cast James Van Der Beek, Ashton Kutcher and Usher Raymond(which is a way classier movie credit than "Usher" by the way. Think of the hassle when he plays an usher)and sleep at night? Ashton Kutcher still talks like he could fall of a water tower any minute, and it doesn't help that Van Der Beek's last name here sounds a lot like Dawson, but Usher proves to be a halfway decent actor, he might be one of the only rappers/singers/businessmen that actually took lessons and is believable in any way. Director Steve Miner gets everything filmed, probably within time and budget, but really doesn't have a lot of creative input, this looked like a job for him, the splatter from the two better/less awful "Friday the 13th"-installments suits him better. The story is not that compelling but provides quite a lot of surprises, even though they're not all that well written. The big problem really is that our main actor needs an extra dimension which he can't provide. We can't all be Clint Eastwood and we don't need a bad imitation of him, but try to make what you feel seem genuine,not like you're still that guy from "Dawson's Creek" trying to get into bigger projects. The casting just ruins it a bit for me, it could have been very good but it's not.

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...

This film could have been much better than it actually was. Sure the scenery and cinematography were beautiful, but the storyline seemed to be tossed out the window after half an hour. Shame as it had a strong cast, but they weren't allowed to perform as it seemed that the director pressed the fast forward button, there is no character development and actors seem to appear out of no where. An example being Eric Johnson from Smallville, I mean when did he enter the film! He wasn't in the first half of the movie but then halfway through and without an explanation there he was. Maybe if the film was longer and they concentrated on actually telling the story then this film would be great, because all the elements are there. What a shame?