Quatre du Texas

It was great... for about 20 minutes.

What this movie lacks is about everything you want in a western. a few minutes action and a whole lot of crap.

A pampered cowboy and a thief who spent most of their time around two blond girls with skippy clothes and little brains...

..add to that a fat banker and a riverboat and you have your story.

Seriously that's about as interesting as it gets.

If your highest wish is to see Frank Sinatra get pedicure.. than this is probably the movie for you. But if you're looking for an action filled western... then I propose you look somewhere else.

I watched this recently as part of the Ultimate Rat Pack collection that I had purchased a while ago. I couldn't remember if I'd even seen it before although I grew up in the 60s when these flicks were on TV regularly. After viewing I realized why I couldn't remember it...it is singularly unmemorable, unlike Oceans 11 or Robin and the Seven Hoods featured in the same collection. It's a comedy-western that's not particularly funny or all that exciting. Frank and Dean breeze through this thing of course as only they can, mugging,joking almost winking at each other 'ain't we too much' during their scenes together. I'm assuming Robert Aldrich the director was merely there to corral the extras since neither of the main stars attempts to take any direction. This is not to say they are entirely un watchable but even for this kind of thing both have done better. Ursula Andress and Anita Ekberg look spectacular in various revealing outfits and Charles Bronson seems to be the only actor taking the whole thing seriously. The 3 Stooges show up and do a shtick that livens things up after the movie seems to slow to a crawl. Character actors Victor Buono(probably gives the best performance),Jack Elam,Richard Jaekel and a few other familiar faces round out the cast. The plot? Well, who cares really, you're watching this to see Frank and Dean do their thing and to some degree they do, but really it's all somewhat snooze inducing. The film of course is very much of its era when the Rat Pack ruled and smoking, drinking, gambling and womanizing were casually portrayed without any apologies. I do actually enjoy these kind of movies and have built up a collection on DVD over the last while that reflects my nostalgia for that time. I just wish this one was better.

Check out the cast of this Western: Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, a young (and STUNNING) Ursula Andress, and the Three Stooges. Sounds good, right? Well no... Unfortunately, it really isn't. Despite an eclectic cast and Ursula Andress' face, "4 for Texas" largely fails to entertain. This picture is just too boring and predictable to be worth much. Ursula Andress doesn't show up until the second half, and her sex appeal is greatly underutilized. Similarly, the Three Stooges only get 2-min of screen time, and it is easily the film's high point. For the majority of the movie, you are stuck with a visibly drunk Dean Martin, who is just going through the motions and generally not giving a damn. Frank Sinatra's performance is all right, even if he is just playing himself, but unfortunately, he isn't captivating enough to be an effective leading man. The story is contrived and predictable, but not terrible enough to crack jokes at. I didn't hate this movie, but it was a tedious, largely uneventful watch. This is the kind of picture where I kept waiting for good things to happen, but nothing ever panned out. When the dust settled, "4 for Texas" was a disappointment. Aside from an occasional gawk at Ursula, this was an entirely forgettable waste. Not recommended.

Meeting each other on a stagecoach full of money where they both defend it from Matson's attack, Zack Thomas and Joe Jarrett immediately get off to a bad start when Jarrett steals the money. When the two later come up against each other in the town where Zack is in charge under the control of the corrupt banker Harvey Burden. However while they plot against each other, bigger forces in the town have a much darker conspiracy.

I watched this as a reasonable fan of the rat pack and their cocky, wise-cracking sense of humour that they usually bring to their films. However here that is almost totally lacking. With the exception of the opening 15 minutes, the film is almost totally devoid of fun. The film opens with Jarrett and Thomas against each other in a simple robbery, however it later meanders through cat and mouse games (which don't work) until it gets to the obvious conclusion (which is so lazy that it even ends with Martin saying `and, oh yeah, this is the end').

None of the action or dialogue is even remotely funny or fun. The whole vehicle had the same kind of movement that Martin's steamer displays – heavy, sluggish and relentlessly moving forward no matter what, these things are not good qualities in a comedy western. I really wanted to like the film, but there was even too little of value for me. The two leads are OK but really have nothing to work with at all, they have one reasonable scene together at the start but from then they are just freewheeling along. Support from Charles Bronson, Jack Elam, Andrews, Buono and the Three Stooges is all pretty wasted and no one is really given very much to work with at all.

Overall this is an example of a poor film from the Rat Pack – lifeless, self indulgent and lacking in fun or wit, made solely on the basis of the two stars being famous and thus bringing an audience with them when the film plays. A bit more wit and sparky dialogue in the script and the loss of some running time could have vastly improved what is really a pretty poor film.

What, I wonder, would a director do on the set of a movie starring Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin? Light their cigarettes? Mix their drinks? Laugh at their jokes? One thing he certainly does not do is play "auteur." The director is present to say "Cut" and "Print," not to pursue his "vision" or any of that arty stuff. "Four for Texas" gave Robert Aldrich a pair of stars who, in terms of popularity, may have been the male equivalent of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford whom he had directed the previous year in "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" But whereas Davis and Crawford were passionate enemies, Ol' Blue Eyes and Ol' Dino were the best of buddies, and their movies treated as casually as any of their swingin' Vegas gigs. It was an opportunity to have some fun and get paid doing it. If that fun translated to the screen, fine, but in this movie the cast appears to be entertaining itself while putting the audience to sleep. If Aldrich had no control over Frank and Dino, he compensated by overdirecting Charles Bronson who is as animated--for him--as Bugs Bunny. The whole shebang is a comedy-western, but there are virtually no laughs, only snickers--from the cast, not the audience. In comparison, "Ocean's 11" is some kind of classic.