Texas Rangers | | Cast : | James Van Der Beek, Rachael Leigh Cook | | Director : | Steve Miner | | Studio : | Dimension Home Video | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned | | Released Date : | November 30, 2001 | | DVD Released Date : | February 04, 2003 | | Language : | English (Dubbed) | | Audience Rating : | PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | July 07, 2005 | | Summary | Distorting Texas Rangers History | Content
 | I've read quite a few books lately about the Texas Rangers, including 'Taming the Nueces Strip' by George Durham, on which this film is supposedly based, and 'Texas Ranger' by N A Jennings, on whom the character of Lincoln Rogers Dunnison is obviously based. Jennings' book, as he himself admitted, is not wholly truthful, yet his character (Dunnison) is made the hero of the film, while Durham's character (given his real name) is a foil to Dunnison. Jennings lasted two years in the Rangers before going back east and never rose above private (and secretary to McNelly), while Durham lasted a whole lot longer and fought alongside McNelly with distinction. Yet in the movie Durham is made to look an excitable idiot, while Dunnison becomes a Ranger captain. Why the scriptwriters should have chosen to do this is a mystery.
Dylan McDermott as Captain Leander McNelly gives a very good performance, as does Robert Patrick as Sergeant John Armstrong (who captured John Wesley Hardin in later years). Alfred Molina's performance as a grinning King Fisher is neither menacing or cruel - just inept. The real King Fisher was confronted by McNelly but always escaped justice at the time.
The young McNelly made his reputation as a leader in the Civil War and further enhanced his reputation as a Ranger captain in the Nueces Strip. He once led a daring (and illegal) raid into Mexico to retrieve stolen Texas cattle from bandits but his men were never massacred by bandits, despite a few close shaves in Mexico.
Jesus Sandoval was a vengeful sadist, whose wife had been killed by Mexican bandits, but this character hardly figured in the movie (his gruesome exploits could not have been shown anyway).
The true story of McNelly and his rangers in the strip of land between the Rio Grande and the Nueces River in Texas has all the ingredients for a great action movie, so why did the director and scriptwriters put together this distorted tale? I just don't get it. I enjoyed watching the movie and was stirred by the final scene, where the rangers ride out from the Dukes (King) ranch, but all too often I was annoyed by the tampering with history and King Fisher figuring far too large in the story. |
| Rating | | | Date | January 17, 2005 | | Summary | Texas Hot Sauce needed for this dry piece of meat! | Content
| 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 | | | Date | September 08, 2004 | | Summary | How the West Was...Politely Tamed | Content
| Talk about your bland movies. At times Texas Rangers exhibits some cool action scenes, a few epic camera angles, some decent acting, and a good storyline--at times. Mainly it resembles a period telenovela on Telemundo: bad acting, long pauses, hot chicks.
This movie looks and feels truncated. It was entertaining, but I would be very curious to see the original Director's Cut; and I can only hope it would be better as this movie was once on Sam Peckinpah's "to do" pile.
Now, while the movie is entertaining, it really, really screws up history (while looking very Canadian).
Spoilers below:
-McNelly's wife and kids were never taken by bandits
-Captain King was never killed
-King Fisher wasn't killed until years later, and not by a Texas Ranger
-The Rangers were not left in some young upstart's hands
All in all, the filmmakers seem to have compressed years of Ranger history into an 80 minute film, essentially creating a Texas Rangers: Greatest Hits. |
| Rating | | | Date | August 04, 2004 | | Summary | great movie!! | Content
| This fine movie stars a very well chosen cast of actors. Dylan Mcdermott is the captain of the Texas Rangers. With Usher Raymond, Ashton Kutcher, and James van Der Beek playing along side him as recruits. This movie is very short but well worth the 91 minutes of your time. This is a very good shoot em up movie to watch! A little harsh in some scenes but still tame. So if you like hot actors in comboys outfits, sarcastic attitudes, and them with guns this is the movie for you! |
| Rating | | | Date | December 30, 2003 | | Summary | It's better than a stick in the eye... | Content
| 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. |
|
