Texas Rangers: La revanche des justiciers

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.

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.

I sat in the theatre, watching the credits. It was nearly empty, the theatre i mean. As the other two people that had just seen this horrible train wreck of a film with me left the theatre, i hung my head and cried. I mourned the Western film genre. No not really, but that wouldnt sound too unlikely if you see this horrible nightmare. I did ask the question listed above, however. "Where have you gone Clint Eastwood?" The last good western i remember seeing was an Eastwood movie: Unforgiven. So after witnessing this "western" i begged that question. We need Eastwood, i don't care if he is 71 years old. All we need is one more good western, just one, and there will be hope left for the genre.

But, I know this will never happen. Because after viewing this...thing, and recalling American Outlaws, i have discovered the truth. It is simply this: Hollywood is attempting to kill the western. Don't deny it. Think about it. Just think about the cast of this movie. First there's James Vanderbeek (who's last name im sure i spelled wrong.) Does ANYONE out there buy Dawson as a Texas Ranger? I mean shouldn't this guy move off the creek before he tries to be a tough guy?

Next theres Ashton Kutcher: Dude Where's My Car? Enough said.

Then theres Usher: USHER?!?!? How the hell did that happen? Seriously, are you tellin me that just after the Civil War a confederate state is going to make a black guy a lawman?

So, add to the worst casting in the history of American cinema quite possibly the worst script Hollywood has puked up in the last fifty years and you have THE WORST WESTERN EVER. Where have you gone Clint, where o where have you gone?

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.