Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Newfangled Western
Review: "Texas Rangers" may not be historically accurate, and it may not be "Tombstone" (despite the many similarities), but it is an excellent, action-filled Western in the "Young Guns" tradition. Despite the presence of James Van Der Beek, Dylan McDermott is the heroic presence of the film. In true Clint Eastwood style, he does a lot of squinting, very little shaving, and a lot of shooting - never breaking a sweat even as he spits out quite decent one-liners. The cast may be ensamble for the most part, but Dylan steals the show. It is unfortunate that "Texas Rangers" didn't enjoy a wide release last November. Given some of the awful movies that DID enjoy wide release last year ("Tomb Raider," "The Musketeer," "Planet of the Apes"), it is truly a shame. Watch this movie - particularly if you're a fan of the genre. It doesn't have the class or quality of a Clint production, but it's good fun all the same.
Rating:
Summary: NO PRISONERS NO MERCY
Review: After seeing his family shot down in cold blood James Van Der Beek(Varsity Blues)joins the texas rangers to get revenge on the bandits that have been stealing cattle and shooting and killing everyone.Dylan Mcdermott is the Captian who has a sickness but will not stop riding until he gets revenge on the bandits for killing his family as well. I dont know why everyone is giving bad reviews to this movie-I thought that it was great!
Since I like westerns-and I once even had my room western style! Everyone did a cool job-Ashton Kutcher was cool-and also funny!
After watching Dude Wheres My Car? its good to see him doing something kind of serious for a change. My favorite horse was the buckskin-because it looked just like Spirit-Stallion Of The Cimarron!
When I first watched this film and that horse came on screen-I said thats Spirit! I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes westerns-or just feels like watching nothing else!
Rating: 
Summary: Texas Hot Sauce needed for this dry piece of meat!
Review: Does anyone have any sauce for this rotted piece of meat I would like to call a film? It has left this dry taste in my mouth that I feel only some A1 or actual oxen blood would be able to quench. Seriously, this was one of the worst excuses for a western film that I have seen in a very long time. I grew up watch the "Duke" with my father and was always impressed with the vast landscape of the uncharted America and the troubles that faces these pioneers on a daily basis. I expect to see that same quality or better in the westerns that are made today because we have the technology to make them stronger, more entertaining, and powerful, but I guess Texas Rangers decided to go a different route. They decided to hire a TV director and a bunch of TV stars to help create that sense of reality in the film. So, instead of seeing Texas through the eyes of the adventuresome, we witnessed Texas through a sound stage in Hollywood as our youth of the WB whimpered in their trailers and thought about the girls of tomorrow. Who decided on final casting for this film? I know the Weinsteins were not behind this, or were they? This was the biggest hurdle to overcome in this film, and while I spent most of my energy on that, I discovered that there were actually more hurdles to follow. The story coupled with the poor production was another hit to this already devastating picture.
Let's talk about the actors that chose to place their names to this picture. How about I actually start with a quote from Dylan McDermott from the supplemental features of this DVD. He says something along the lines of, "Material like this doesn't come around everyday, and when it comes to your door, you have to take it because you never know when it will be around again." Can we be certain he was talking about Texas Rangers? I wonder how much he was paid for that sound bite. The material was rated second worst behind the acting in this film. Anyone with a 4th grade reading skill could see this. I guess McDermott had someone else reading his work for him. While I would say that McDermott was the only one holding this film, he continually dropped it on more than one occasion. His character was decent, but not the greatest hero that I have seen emerge from the Mason-Dixon line. I think what hurts him the most was that he had to work next to James Van Der Beek, who never felt like a hero to me. I never really watched Dawson's Creek, but I have this feeling that he brought some of his character from the television show to the film. It was embarrassing to see him act, especially during his climactic ending that seemed more like amateur night at the local bar instead of acting. Can we be certain that this wasn't community theater we were witnessing, except with a bigger budget? The same can be said for Randy Travis, Usher (in a very pathetic role), Kutcher (suffers miserably from miscast syndrome), and Molina (typecast for the paycheck, and it was very obvious in this film). I think that most were so excited to be working with their friends, that they forgot that this was an actual paying role and they would need to put some work into it. Even Rachael Leigh Cook was absurd. Her final speech in the film had me laughing hysterically, and it wasn't intended to be funny in the least bit. Miner completely miscast this entire film, and it is obvious from the revenue that nobody else was buying it either.
With no support from the actors the story was sure to fall, and it did. There was nothing spectacular or original about the story. I have even read articles that state that the overall story behind this film was false and very fabricated. How can you take yourself seriously when you are trying to make a true story from fiction? Only Charlie Kaufmann could successfully do this and I did not see his name anywhere on the credits. This was a shoddy piece of workmanship that does not deserve to be called either a "western" or a "adventure" or a "drama". I would only use the word "junk" to describe what Miner has created.
Overall, if you couldn't tell already, I didn't like this film. From the opening credits until the futile ending it was nothing but pain souring through my eyes and mind as I watched the story unfold. The ensamble acting proved that you could bring together all the wrong people and create 100% disaster. Nobody in this film seemed to fit in the least bit. With the actors completely miscast, the story seemed like wet paper. Nothing was of any substance. This was a poor excuse for a film, a poor excuse for history, and a poor excuse to try to appeal to the pre-teen girls of America. Hopefully we have all learned a lesson from this and can move on without any troubles. GULP. I hope...
Grade: * out of *****
Rating: 
Summary: Texas Rangers stinks up the screen - in cowboy outfits!
Review: Hot off the popularity of their television shows, James Van der Beek (Dawson's Creek) and Ashton Kutcher (That 70's Show) attempt to score big on the big screen. That has since happened, but this film wasn't the reason why. The producers were obviously attempting to throw quantity not quality at the big screen, since they employed a host of well known television actors and a couple of singers. You have Dylan McDermott as the Captain in charge, Robert Patrick, Matt Keeslar, Usher Raymond, Tom Skerritt, and even Randy Travis. As an after thought they've even thrown in Rachel Leigh Cook as the token female character. The acting is never bad, it's just that there's really not much going on here to warrant any excitement. You can sit and watch this film from beginning to end without blinking and you'll swear that you must have missed something. That's what makes this simplistic film bad. The plot is super simple: bad men kill innocent people. Young studly guys band together as the "Texas Rangers" to right the wrongs, but not for revenge. Unfortunately, this story doesn't have oomph to make it any good. Alfred Molina, as the bad guy, just never comes off quite as bad as he should. The reason? A fine actor, Molina seems to be bored and somewhat ashamed to be in such a stinker. He does bad things but he never comes off as evil or homicidal or even psycho. This movie really begs for a Bruce Dern in "The Cowboys". And the good guys...these guys are apparently sharing one brain among the 30 of them. In one fight scene, they come charging in a single line across the plains to a wooded area where the bad guys are holed up with tons of places to hide. Of course the good guys are masacred. Since no one bother to introduce us to any of the good guys beyond the major players, we really can't care too much if any of the good guys get killed. In fact, I was hoping that more of them would be killed off - they really started to annoy me. In short, Texas Rangers is long on being a Teen Beat homage and short on being a real western. There is very little character development in either the good or bad guy camps and there is no storyline, but the central one. I think there was an attempt to throw in a love story angle, but it gets lost when Kutcher jumps in the tub with van der Beek. This film isn't the worst I've seen, but it certainly isn't even noteworthy. If you want to see a bunch of your favorite television studs in a cowboy outfits, then by all means rent this. Otherwise rent a decent western, such as The Cowboys, Rooster Cogburn, Shane, or Tombstone.
Rating:
Summary: Texas Rangers stinks up the screen - in cowboy outfits!
Review: Hot off the popularity of their television shows, James Van der Beek (Dawson's Creek) and Ashton Kutcher (That 70's Show) attempt to score big on the big screen. That has since happened, but this film wasn't the reason why. The producers were obviously attempting to throw quantity not quality at the big screen, since they employed a host of well known television actors and a couple of singers. You have Dylan McDermott as the Captain in charge, Robert Patrick, Matt Keeslar, Usher Raymond, Tom Skerritt, and even Randy Travis. As an after thought they've even thrown in Rachel Leigh Cook as the token female character. The acting is never bad, it's just that there's really not much going on here to warrant any excitement. You can sit and watch this film from beginning to end without blinking and you'll swear that you must have missed something. That's what makes this simplistic film bad. The plot is super simple: bad men kill innocent people. Young studly guys band together as the "Texas Rangers" to right the wrongs, but not for revenge. Unfortunately, this story doesn't have oomph to make it any good. Alfred Molina, as the bad guy, just never comes off quite as bad as he should. The reason? A fine actor, Molina seems to be bored and somewhat ashamed to be in such a stinker. He does bad things but he never comes off as evil or homicidal or even psycho. This movie really begs for a Bruce Dern in "The Cowboys". And the good guys...these guys are apparently sharing one brain among the 30 of them. In one fight scene, they come charging in a single line across the plains to a wooded area where the bad guys are holed up with tons of places to hide. Of course the good guys are masacred. Since no one bother to introduce us to any of the good guys beyond the major players, we really can't care too much if any of the good guys get killed. In fact, I was hoping that more of them would be killed off - they really started to annoy me. In short, Texas Rangers is long on being a Teen Beat homage and short on being a real western. There is very little character development in either the good or bad guy camps and there is no storyline, but the central one. I think there was an attempt to throw in a love story angle, but it gets lost when Kutcher jumps in the tub with van der Beek. This film isn't the worst I've seen, but it certainly isn't even noteworthy. If you want to see a bunch of your favorite television studs in a cowboy outfits, then by all means rent this. Otherwise rent a decent western, such as The Cowboys, Rooster Cogburn, Shane, or Tombstone.
Rating:
Summary: A Poor Play on History
Review: How do you film a movie about Texas in Canada? The town representing Brownsville, Tx was indeed filmed in Canada. The location scenery definitely proves that. Anyone familiar with the Brownsville area can see a total mis-representation. Why did the filmmakers not go to Bracketteville, TX to film. Bracketteville and the surrounding area is the home location to may great westerns; i.e.: The Alamo, Bandolero!, Lonesome Dove, Bad Girls, just to name a few. And the landscape is more appropriate to representing the Brownsville area. The movie took a lot of liberties with actual events, also. The movie was based on the book, "Taming the Nueces Strip" by George Durham as told to Clyde Wantland. George Durham was a real person who's exploits with McNelly's Rangers are well told. In "Texas Rangers." Durham is nothing more than a minor character,played by Ashton Kutcher, represented as the friend of the central character,Lincoln Rogers Dunnison (who was he?), played by James Van Der Beek. If the movie had followed the real historical events as they really happened as told by Durham, it would have been a much better movie. Alfred Molina as King Fisher was very disappointing, greatly over-playing the part, probably trying to enhance a poor scripting of his character. I was greatly disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: THE CRITICS AND ME
Review: I don't usually always agree with critics and their negative reviews for movies I might wish to attend so I usually try to go and see for myself. I have often found in the past, what they classify as "sleepers" often turn out to be pretty good. Unfortunately, after having been to this one, I have to agree with most reviews. the only reason I went was because my favorite country artist, Randy Travis, also stars in this film, not nearly as much as i would have liked but because of his performance, i've probably even rated this higher than i would have. I don't want to be the judge of others but it is as some have stated pretty much like any other western - shoot 'em up, move 'em out to the next encounter. I just felt the entire story plot was strange and much more violence than I would have liked - not only the shooting but also a couple of hangings. Perhaps some will enjoy this type of thing; as for me, not so. Will I buy the movie if it comes out...yes, but only because i am a collector of Randy Travis items. Would I pay to see it again...no. As the Dallas Morning News said, they probably hired Randy to fully add credibility to the "goings on." If there is some truth to that, they probably knew they would need someone like him and people like me to get viewers...and it worked. I am not indicating others should not go - I'm only advising of the violence and some sexuality and the fact that personally, I did not enjoy it. .
Rating: 
Summary: pretty decent....
Review: I gotta admit, it was better than I thought it was gonna be. I like Leonor Varela's performance (but then again, I liked her as Cleopatra) and I couldn't pass on seeing Ashton Kutcher in chaps and a cowboy hat. Let's just say, if you're looking to compare to Tombstone, Young Guns, or Magnificent Seven, save your $... If you're looking for a bit of a laugh and some action, get the movie. Trust me, I didn't think too much of James Van Der Beek's performance, but Ashton Kutcher, Usher Raymond (surprise surprise), Randy Travis, Leonor Varela and Dylan McDermott (sp?) add to the movie. Happy viewing!...
Rating:
Summary: It's better than a stick in the eye...
Review: I won't go long winded. If you have time to kill and like westerns, watch it. It will NOT be something that will stay in your mind very long.
Rating:
Summary: It's better than a stick in the eye...
Review: I won't go long winded. If you have time to kill and like westerns, watch it. It will NOT be something that will stay in your mind very long.
| 
