Texas Rangers (2001)

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.

Fmovies: Texas Rangers has hit controversy because of what it is I think. Is it a John Mullis film or a genre western. I would give a great deal to add the John Mullis orgainal script to my collection of screenplays, but I still don't hate this movie (desipite it's flaws). And boy are there some flaws (Rachel Leigh Cook, an actress I normally like's direction, tone and preformance are all wrong, it's too Lanny Boggs like to be in a historical drama..and she's a good actress, I don't blaim that entirely on her), the script is inbetween an intresting period film and a remake of Varsity Blues (which isn't entirely a bad thing, both would hold my attention, but there comes a point when it should chose. Bassicly this film suffers from a teen movie wana be complex- just look at the casting here (although Van Der Beek in his years and films to come, I think can pull off a masterful preformance somewhere, but not here). Then finally why was this movie (which is entertaining and decent) killed off, it doesn't deserve this treatment, it's not a bad movie, just one that feels like was killed off by a studio from the start. From what I've read John Mullis' script was baught my Miramax and they told him to change it. I've also heard other screen writter's names on this project as well, although two lesser knowns are credited. Let me say this..this isn't a bad movie but an undecided one, the direction is decent (although some scenes fail to work or add up) but not revolutionary. But it still held my attention. (6 out of 10)

The acting is great, the director did a great job and its a cool, typical cowboy film. If you like westerns watch it, if not i recommend watching it on a friday night if your plans have collapsed. You wont regret it...trust me

Texas Rangers fmovies. 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."

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

TEXAS RANGERS is a movie that has the production values of a direct-to-video release and a cast of TV stars that give incredibly weak performances. I remember hearing about this movie way back in 1999 when DAWSON'S CREEK [which stars James Van Der Beek who plays Lincoln Rogers Dunnison in this movie] was only in its second season. It came out in November of last year and although I didn't get to see it when it finally came to theaters, but I did see it this weekend when I saw it on the new releases shelf at Blockbuster. It wasn't an awful movie, though it's one that I think should have just gone straight to video in stead of having a theatrical release. Maybe in a few years if this movie starts being shown on cable or gets special DVD treatment, more people will see it and it will have a small cult following. I wouldn't recommend it, yet if you are a fan of shoot 'em up westerns, you'll probably enjoy this.