User Reviews (82)

Add a Review

  • 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
  • smpteguy30 January 2007
    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...
  • 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/
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • This movie was excellent! I am a teenager who didn't really think she would be interested in a western - I was wrong! This movie may not have had a huge plot or a great bunch of typical movie experiences, such as romance, sex, swearing, etc. but it had a perfect amount of western-style storyline to make it fascinating!

    The story is jam-packed with emotion, excitement, tension, even humor. The roles, in my opinion, were perfectly cast and even if the story is kinda predictable, it's not at all boring.

    If you want to see it, don't hesitate! It is completely worth the money spent and the time it takes. In fact, I've watched it over 10 times and have bought it, taken the audio and put it on my MP3 player to listen to, and have the soundtrack.

    It's wonderful! 100% recommended!
  • 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
  • Sandcooler17 February 2008
    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.
  • mxracer15726 February 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    this movie uses hot young stars to cover up for horrible writing. the group of actors in this movie is very talented. the musical talent in the acting group is actually even more impressive. adding randy Travis into the mix, who always seems to play either a very good guy or a very bad one with usher was nice. you see Ashton kutcher playing a reckless young man with a good heart, similar to his many other rolls in movies. you see van der beek get the lead roll because of his state of supremacy of Dawson's creek. the writing in this film was based basically on a few historical facts and nothing more. for anyone that wanted to actually know anything about the Texas rangers, what they had to do, what they were faced to go up against, this movie falls flat. the introduction to the film was easily seen, of course van der beeks parents are going to be killed so he has to join the rangers. the ending is what was so tough to digest. the preacher dies, and van der beeks character takes command of the rangers even though he has only been member a few months. good decision making is smart. a well thought out plan usually works better than a quick reply. but, the commander had two other men with more experience. wouldn't they have taken command? oh well, nice movie unless you wanted honesty.
  • Western featuring a great main and support cast , though this sat on the self for almost two years dealing with events happened after American civil war , a decade later it ended , the prior Texas Rangers had disbanded to fight for Confederacy and the Union Army was occupying Texas , charged pmainly with defending Texas from defectors depredation and Indian attacks . Texas governor asking for help McNelly to form a company of Rangers to defeat the banditry along the Mexican frontier . Some cheerful greenhorns who volunteer to fight outlaws along the Rio Grande in 1875 Texas . As youngsters ,Jamen Van Der Berk , Usher Raymond , Jon Abrahams and Ashton Kutcher , band together and enlist the famous Texas Rangers commanded by the mysterious McNelly : McDermott. All are robbed of their families by the bad guys led by the really nasty Alfred Molina . The demanding mentor teaches them to shoot and kill at whatever mean . Then , Van Der Beek to avenge the death of his family and becoming an aide to the unit's enigmatic commandant against the rustling racketeers who continue committing daring robbery raids and bloody massacres.

    This Western is not bad , but its script is derivative , plain , superficial , and simple . The picture has fun thanks to the breathtaking battles , noisy action and moving raids .There is a long passel of shootouts , assaults , attacks , hanging and slaughter , but taming the West takes a backseat to deep drama centered primarly about ailing starring's fate in this vengeance oater .Beautifully edited widescreen with impressive photography in Panavision by Daryn Okada , along with rousing musical score by Trevor Ravin .Casting is pretty good but hindered by weak screenplay and filmmaking . Acting honors go to Alfred Molina playing magnificently a sneering villain .After sitting on the self for 2 years , yella-belled studio exects denied the stale oater an advance screening , well aware of its weak appeal. This western revenge actioner was professionally directed by Steve Miner , in spite of failing at boxoffice .

    Other films concerning about Texas Rangers are the followings : Texas Rangers 1936 by King Vidor with Fred McMurray , Jack Oakie ; The Texas Rangers ride again 1940 by James Hogan with Jon Howard , Broderick Crawford ; Streets of Laredo 1949 by Leslie Fenton with William Bendix , William Holden ; Texas Rangers 1951 by Phil Karlson with George Montgomery , Noah Beery , Gale Storm .
  • While I understand that tough measures were needed (at the time) in trying to pacify a lawless frontier region, this movie tries to justify lynching and summary execution without due process - and fails. It also fails miserably to address the race question by allowing the 'token' black into the first batch of Ranger entrants when the first black did not get into the organisation until well into the 20th century. This is a movie trying and failing to be 21st c. politically correct in a 19th c. gang war (good guys v bad guys). Non-riveting performances from the main players with a less than average, clichéd storyline, this is a very poor movie all round.
  • 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 thought that this was an okay movie, but I felt that Dylan McDurmott had one one too many sililoquey. Maybe because his character was a preacher or maybe Steve Minor wanted to capitolize on the many lawyer characters that Dylan McDermott has played, but I felt like the character was either preaching a sermon or giving a closing arguement to a jury in many of the scenes. It is a fact that I am biased when it comes to Rachael Leigh Cook, but I felt the film needed her "down to Earthness" to balance out Dylan McDermett's over the top acting. Overall though I liked the movie.
  • I just saw this on TV and quite enjoyed it, but yes I do agree with the first comment that it doesn't seem to have much in the way of big picture values. Good story though and could have made a really good historical movie, a sort of Untouchables of the Wild West. I really could not understand a word Rachael Leigh Cook said; an example I suppose of the lax standards that let this movie down. On top of better standards, it needed bigger stars (Kevin Costner as McEnelly perhaps, and Brad Pitt as the young sidekick). Alfred Molina, though, was good as the principal baddie. Also needed a more complex back story - Texas, after all, was stolen by force by the USA, as was California. And the near-absence of sex gives the final nail in the coffin that is the 'should have gone straight to video' opinion.
  • 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."
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The film was pretty entertaining, very noisy but ultimately fairly ridiculous. The acting was wooden, but fun (not sure it was meant to be so funny....but was nonetheless entertaining because of that!). I also firmly believe that the good guys SHOULD be better looking than the bad guys, so have no problem with the casting overall! Although most of the reviewers mention Kutcher, Van Der Beek et al, am I the only person in the world who believes the narrator who only introduces the story at the very start of the movie was none other than the late, great, legend that was James Coburn? I scanned the closing credits (yes I watched the WHOLE thing!) but the narrator wasn't mentioned at all....was Mr Coburn embarrassed by his contribution or involvement, or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely....can someone PLEASE put my mind at rest (and settle a dispute with my partner!)?
  • I went into the movie expecting it to be great, knowing it was about the infamous Texas Rangers. Learning that the movie was filled with a wide range of well-known and talented cast members, I thought surely this movie could not miss. I was wrong. The disappointing part was not the actors or the action scenes, but the plot. The cast collectively offers an extensive amount of acting experience, yet the writing material caused the characters to appear flat and one-dimensional.

    Plot: Outlaws shoot your brother, mother, and father...your natural tendency is to join the Texas Rangers. Good choice. But as the movie goes along, we quickly loose sight of why we joined the rangers in the first place. We rescue a captive girl from the outlaws. She betrays us. A supporting character finds a love interest. Starts getting interesting, then is limited to the extent of a few scenes.

    In comparing this movie to American Outlaws, I felt that this movie had more potential, but I enjoyed American Outlaws more. Texas Rangers seemed to drag from one plot point to the next. I usually use Lonesome Dove as my western movie comparison, as it has a seasoned cast, action scenes, and a great plot. Texas Rangers falls short by one great plot.
  • Texas Rangers is a very good looking film, shot on magnificent Alberta, Canada locations. There is not much plot to speak of, just the forming of a band of Texas Rangers to hunt down a psycho cattle baron (Alfred Molina, who could play a role like this in his sleep). The film is relatively watchable, but Dylan McDermott's inept performance as the lead ranger really drags it down, along with the poorly cast youthful actors. Robert Patrick and country singer Randy Travis bring verisamilitude to their roles as Ranger lieutenants. Trevor Rabin's beautiful score seems to belong in another movie altogether.

    So, if you manage to find a copy of the movie, it may be worth a look on a slow evening, but anyone whose seen a real western will find no surprises here.
  • I just happened upon this film on TV accidentally, and unlike other critics I have to admit that I enjoyed it. Sure it was way over the top with the action and bloodshed which was constant with very few breaks.

    The stars were fairly unknown (other than on TV), but they did a good job. As far as history is concerned, I have no idea as to the accuracy or otherwise of the story of the exploits of the rag-tag Texas Rangers so soon after the War, but I was enthralled by the great musical score as well as the beautiful scenery. Lack of name stars probably caused this film not to reach any major Cinemas and therefore became a virtual "sleeper". In todays film making of course, there is always a psychological theme, and it certainly was not forgotten here.
  • ...save your cash for a Walker, Texas Ranger marathon; it'll have more "facts" than this pile of crap.

    For a Western with pretty men, prettier ladies, and ugly sons of guns as the Bad Guys, this is okay at it's best. For this to try for the "based on" style? Uh-uh.

    The dialog was sad, the situations as predictable as a TV-movie, and the biggest sin of all- it was draggy. Not slow paced, but deadly dull with talking heads you don't really care too much about.

    As a Texan, I was upset for how the real Rangers were shown. While I know that not all early Rangers were men of sterling character, I sincerely hope that they were more than this group of navel-gazers.
  • This is an acceptable movie, but not a great movie. It isn't "Tombstone" or "The Outlaw Josey Wales"... but the stars really look good. "Attractive TV stars join the Texas Rangers and bring law to the West." The bad guy is really bad, the young idealistic good guy is really good, and the haunted, cynical mentor of the young idealistic good guy is kinda mixed.

    Not too many surprises: I think the reason I am not rating this movie higher is the elements of political correctness that have crept into this 1870's era Western: The idealistic young woman who wants to know if the Texas Ranger asked the names and served warrants on the accussed before using deadly force, the wisecracking black ranger doing an Eddie Murphy "Beverly Hills Cop" imitation as he crept up on a camp of vicious outlaws... in these cases, I lost my "suspension of disbelief" and said to myself "no one in this situation would have said or acted like that"... it was distracting. Welcome to 2001.

    Dylan McDermott was good as the angst ridden Captain... there is some good action scenes and the scenery is excellent. If you like Westerns it is worth your time. You won't feel bad about going.
  • IMDbDon19 June 2008
    Who do you blame for a movie like this? When you watch a movie you can easily blame an actor for not putting in a good performance, a writer for a flawed script, or a director for not getting the right job out of an actor, or a casting director for a miss-cast. In this movie you can blame all of them, but, the bulk of the blame goes to one certain group: the producers.

    Alan Greisman and Frank Price must step up and take most of the blame for what is wrong with this film. This was a get-rich quick scheme that got what it deserved. When you set out to make a movie only for the money, and not for the movie, and there is no heart in it from the producers, this is what happens. There must be an undying passion from a film maker for it to show up in the final product on the screen. Here it just didn't happen. No heart in no heart out.

    Money talks and bullshit walks, and if you look at the following numbers, you can figure out which one this film is:

    Production Budget: $38,000,000

    Total US Gross: $623,374
  • We have a president from Texas at an unheard of level of popularity, and a population focused on justice and the elimination of ultra-violent terrorist criminals and what does Miramax do? They take an ace in the hole movie like Texas Rangers and barely release it! The Texas Rangers is a story of a group of brave men risking their lives to rid their territory of lawless violent criminal gangs who are terrorizing law abiding citizens. This is a true story and is based on one of the first wars against terrorism in our country's history. If Miramax had taken hold of the historic background and actually promoted this film, I'm sure it would of made the top ten in box office the week it was released. Instead they release it on 400 screens! They're treating it like one of their "art" films that are usually released in off beat "art" theatres. Miramax blew it. Texas Rangers was an excellent film and reminded me of the good old westerns from the '40s and '50s with an excellent cast of young popular actors. I highly recommend this film and hope more of you are able to see it. If you can't catch it in the theatre, definitely put it on your list of videos. I will definitely purchase it when available.
  • I never heard of this film before seeing it listed on Showtime. I thought it was a fairly decent film...even when I saw "Dawson" and then "Kelso" come on the screen. Nevermind Usher being there too. I thought..Oh great...this will be so lame. Not so. It could have had less scenes where the good guys were riding hell-bent for leather across the plains...it was shown over and over..I wondered if the same areas were used for each of those scenes? It was some what predictable most of the time too...of course you knew the Mexican girl wasn't dead...the attraction between her and Lincoln was too obvious for her to die so soon. I was surprised that Aston could do serious acting..his stint as Kelso seemed to be the extent of his screen talents in my opinion...sorry..he isn't a big deal to me as far as Hollywood "stars" go. Being married to Demi means na-da..big deal. Anyway...I liked it..enjoyed it...and wished it had been a stronger movie all around. The characters needed more depth..we needed to know when, why and how they came to all be where they were. The director, producer and others cashed in on the two main stars being so hot at the moment when this film was made. With a little more effort it could have been a HUGE film...which I think it should have been. Instead..it ended up on a video store shelve somewhere and of course..offered for free on channels like SHOWTIME. Pity. I would have paid to see it on the big screen if it had been showcased as a blockbuster.
  • SnoopyStyle11 February 2016
    It's 1875 Texas. Mexican bandits are ravaging the land. John King Fisher (Alfred Molina) and his men steal cattle and massacre a town. Lincoln Rogers Dunnison (James Van Der Beek) survives but his family is killed. George Durham (Ashton Kutcher) is a fellow survivor. Leander McNelly (Dylan McDermott) and his sergeants Frank Bones (Randy Travis) and John Armstrong (Robert Patrick) arrive to recruit new Rangers. Randolph Douglas Scipio (Usher Raymond) joins. Fisher takes traveling circus performer Perdita (Leonor Varela) prisoner. Richard Dukes (Tom Skerritt) is a cattle baron and Caroline Dukes (Rachael Leigh Cook) is his daughter.

    Director Steve Miner started with Friday the 13th sequels, made a couple of worthwhile films but mostly weaker efforts like this movie. He has settled into TV shows. This is loud and bombastic. McDermott is gruff and trying a little too hard to be cool. The Beek is the sincere boyscout. Kutcher is the comic relief and really annoying. This is an inferior western but I've seen worst.
An error has occured. Please try again.