Texas Rangers

2001 "Count your bullets."
Texas Rangers
5.2| 1h50m| en| More Info
Released: 30 November 2001 Released
Producted By: Dimension Films
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

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.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Dimension Films

Trailers & Images

Reviews

a_nelson_miles The question isn't why this movie wasn't released for two years it is, "why was it released at all"? I can't remember when I ever saw a movie this bad. In fact I watched it so I would learn how a bad movie is made. What a waste of money. This movie will make it difficult for Western movies to be made. It is a shame that so much money was spent making a bad movie. I guess the money did support jobs. I grew up watching Westerns and I would like to see them come back again. I hope that maybe the movie True Grit will help bring them back. But, certainly, there are going to have to be better script writers. Though not mentioning Texas Rangers by name, talk about a large numbers of guffaws it is unreal how the Rangers temporarily transferred to Mexico to work on catching outlaws, apparently alluding Mexican Army and thieving cattle and horses. I never saw so many people killed at one time how ridiculous it could have been a ten line script.
DiamondGirl427 I never heard of this film before seeing it listed on Showtime. I thought it was a fairly decent film...even when I saw "Dawson" and then "Kelso" come on the screen. Nevermind Usher being there too. I thought..Oh great...this will be so lame. Not so. It could have had less scenes where the good guys were riding hell-bent for leather across the plains...it was shown over and over..I wondered if the same areas were used for each of those scenes? It was some what predictable most of the time too...of course you knew the Mexican girl wasn't dead...the attraction between her and Lincoln was too obvious for her to die so soon. I was surprised that Aston could do serious acting..his stint as Kelso seemed to be the extent of his screen talents in my opinion...sorry..he isn't a big deal to me as far as Hollywood "stars" go. Being married to Demi means na-da..big deal. Anyway...I liked it..enjoyed it...and wished it had been a stronger movie all around. The characters needed more depth..we needed to know when, why and how they came to all be where they were. The director, producer and others cashed in on the two main stars being so hot at the moment when this film was made. With a little more effort it could have been a HUGE film...which I think it should have been. Instead..it ended up on a video store shelve somewhere and of course..offered for free on channels like SHOWTIME. Pity. I would have paid to see it on the big screen if it had been showcased as a blockbuster.
disdressed12 i'm afraid i have some bad news,this movie is not so good.it's not quite horrible,but it is all over the map and muddled.it's also slow and boring.there's little excitement,and no real climax.still,i have seen much worse.i guess i was just hoping for more.the acting wasn't necessarily horrible,but most of the actors didn't appear to be putting a lot of effort into it.it takes place about 10 years after the end of the American Civil War.the Texas rangers had been disbanded right around the time of the war.now,10 years later,they are about to be reformed.their mission:to protect Texas land and people from bandits roaming through the state.sounds like it has some potential,doesn't it.well,unfortunately it never reaches that potential.for me,Texas Rangers is a 4/10
den-barry1 The film was pretty entertaining, very noisy but ultimately fairly ridiculous. The acting was wooden, but fun (not sure it was meant to be so funny....but was nonetheless entertaining because of that!). I also firmly believe that the good guys SHOULD be better looking than the bad guys, so have no problem with the casting overall! Although most of the reviewers mention Kutcher, Van Der Beek et al, am I the only person in the world who believes the narrator who only introduces the story at the very start of the movie was none other than the late, great, legend that was James Coburn? I scanned the closing credits (yes I watched the WHOLE thing!) but the narrator wasn't mentioned at all....was Mr Coburn embarrassed by his contribution or involvement, or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely....can someone PLEASE put my mind at rest (and settle a dispute with my partner!)?