Texas Rangers

2001 "Count your bullets."
5.2| 1h50m| en
Details

Ten years after the Civil War has ended, the Governor of Texas asks Leander McNelly to form a company of Rangers to help uphold the law along the Mexican border. With a few veterans of the war, most of the recruits are young men who have little or no experience with guns or policing crime.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 7-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever
Cortechba Overrated
CommentsXp Best movie ever!
Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
stantims2 It's disappointing that a cast this extensive and strong couldn't be better used. I think I'd hold Director Steve Miner most accountable for this flop. He has done such a good job in the horror genre, but I think he tried to play way out of his league on this one.
FightingWesterner A decade after the Civil War, Texas is overrun by a virtual army of bandits and cattle-rustlers. Ex-Confederate/ex-preacher/ex-lawman Dylan McDermott is tasked with recruiting a new a new generation of Texas Rangers to take on vicious cattle rustler Alfred Molina.From the director of such classic westerns as Friday the 13th Part 2, House, Halloween H2O, and Warlock (nope, not the one with Henry Fonda and Anthony Quinn), and co-starring cowboy icons James Van Der Beek, Ashton Kutcher, and Usher, this failed history lesson makes the stars of Young Guns look like the The Wild Bunch!All kidding aside, it's not really THAT bad. Production values are good and action sequences are well-made. An economical 90-minute running (featuring eight-minutes of end credits!) may, or may not help. It's hard to tell.The main problem is that the characters are superficial and the youthful cast of very recognizable stars looks painfully out-of-place in 1875 Texas. I'm a bit surprised this actually made it to theaters, instead of straight-to-video or The Hallmark Channel.Though miscast, Molina does seem to be enjoying himself!
bkoganbing 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.
smpteguy 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...