mvanhoore In the mid-thirties the Western genre was very much in decline. After the introduction of sound in the movies the big studios and the stars of Hollywood almost showed no interest in the genre leaving it up to the independent companies and the B-stars. In 1939 this would change dramatically with the release of Stagecoach and a handful other classics and for many years the Western would feature the big stars of the screen and all the great directors of Hollywood. The Texas Rangers is shot a couple of years before the revival of the genre. King Vidor decided it was a good idea to make a movie to celebrate the centennial of the state of Texas. And what other way to celebrate this fact than to concentrate on the Texas Rangers, the mix of army and police force that became legendary during the formation years of the state.The movie shows Texas as a modern Garden of Eden where hard working people tried to build up an ideal society and are impeded by the original residents (the Injuns) and villains. The solution is very simple: the Indians are tucked away in reservations (the least habitable regions) and the villains have the choice to became good citizens or been wiped out by the force of law. Sounds this a bit familiar? Wipe out all the undesirable elements in the society to create the ideal situation? Well it happened in a lot more countries in the period this movie was made. It wasn't till the seventies that another opinion on the treatment of the Indians penetrated Hollywood.The story concentrates around three outlaws. Two of them, Jim and Wahoo, are looking for the third one (Sam) in Texas. They have difficulties finding him and because they are hungry and without any money sign in with the Texas Rangers. There is also the thought to make profit of their assignment to acquire information which can be used for their criminal efforts. But before any of that plans can be worked out they have to face an Indian revolt. Jim and Wahoo play a vital role in defeating the Indians and Wahoo plans to settle with the Rangers. Jim is less sure and when he gets the order to bring back Sam (who has become a notorious villain in the meantime) dead or alive he resigns only to be jailed immediately. In his place Wahoo gets after Sam and he is murdered brutally. Jim finally convinces the mayor that he is the right man to catch Sam.The first half hour of the movie I found it very hard to enjoy it. There are a lot of scenes with studio backgrounds and a lot of wisecracks that belongs more in film noirs or screwball comedies. And there is Wahoo who rather plays a clown than an outlaw and is a very irritating character. Later there is the problem that the Indians are portrayed not as humans but as savage barbarians rather than as human beings. Their struggle for their rights and their suffering isn't mentioned and the only place they belong according to the heroic rangers is in their reservations. Also the struggle of Jim to become a good citizen isn't worked out well. He isn't a very believable outlaw in the first place. Furthermore he is put in jail because of his history after he played a heroic role in the battle with the Indians. And how are the "good citizens" beside the Rangers portrayed? As chicken-hearted cowards who don't dare to revolt against a villain who terrorize a county. So what's the reason for Jim to leave his past behind him? Love? Well, there is love story, but that is only a thin sideline in this movie.There are some pluses to this movie. Sam is a convincing outlaw who with his good looks and smile is still believable in his role as villain. He is even more sympathetic than Jim. He only murders Wahoo after he is betrayed by him and he gives Jim the chance to reunite with him. Also the scenery is beautiful. Besides some studio shots the movie was made on location (although it was New Mexico instead of Texas). The murder of Wahoo is very brutal and unexpected (I thought the sympathetic clown would survive) and filmed in the later tradition of Hawks, Aldrich and Fuller.So in the end I gave the film a meager six out of then because of the craftsmanship of King Vidor, the acting by Lloyd Nolan who plays Sam "Polka Dot' McGee and the scenery. Otherwise this movie is anything but a timeless masterpiece because of the one dimensional portrait of Indians, Rangers and most other roles.

mark.waltz Two Texas bandits (Fred MacMurray and Jack Oakie) join the Texas Rangers in order to avoid being caught and slowly reform. They take on raids by Native Americans and another bandit (Lloyd Nolan) while MacMurray further reforms thanks to a beautiful woman (Jean Parker). Exciting action sequences (particularly a scene with falling boulders)and humor by Oakie are among the highlights. MacMurray, then at the start of his lengthy career, is quite likable in spite of a tough facade. Benny Bartlett is excellent as the young boy MacMurray mentors initially against the law and later on its side. Parker gets some better material than most heroines do in westerns. This is a perfect old movie to introduce today's youth to the great westerns of yesteryear.

secondtake The Texas Rangers (1936)Routine. There are elements here of Westerns earlier (there were hundreds of obscure ones) and Westerns later (including some well known ones), with stagecoach holdups and cowboy and Indian battles (the Indians lose again) and with pioneer justice. All of the above, plus a man reluctant to see the love of a lonely and lovely woman out on the edge of nowhere.In a sense, it isn't worth watching if you have other Westerns up your sleeve. But--there has to be a but--the plot is interesting because it turns upside down more times than a tumbleweed, the filming (with Cronjager behind the camera) is straight up and strong, and we get an early look at unlikely Wild West hero, Fred MacMurray. For those who like Westerns, this is a decent mid-30s example, before the explosion of greater examples in 1939.The title is exactly what the movie is about on the surface--the ragtag but well supported Texas lawmen known as the Texas Rangers (legendary enough to not only have a more recent widely panned movie about them made starring Ashton Kushner but also a Baseball Team). It almost is a promo piece for the group, with a voice-over in the beginning like those FBI films of the 1950s. MacMurray is actually a bandit, teamed up with a kind of goofy second lead, Jack Oakey. In fact, it seems like a comedy at first, and the lightweight air never quite lets up.It does get more serious, though, not only about love (briefly) but about the honor and ability of the Rangers to fight not only Indians but outlaws. MacMurray gets in the middle of a major mess because he plays both sides of the game, as outlaw and newbie Texas Ranger. Lloyd Nolan enters the plot after awhile and is a great outlaw of his own. It's hard to take MacMurray seriously in this rough rough world, but the music pumps it up and the scenery is dramatic and he holds his own well enough for a middling movie.And it's a bit long. Even if the plot seems to demand two hours with more and more twists, it loses something of velocity as it goes. King Vidor directed a number of notable silents in the 20s, and a few great 30s films (including the black and white parts of the Wizard of Oz). This one shows the solidity of a great director, and the wobbly backbone of a so-so script.

bkoganbing I'm sure in casting The Texas Rangers Paramount had it in mind to broaden Fred MacMurray's appeal by putting him in a western. MacMurray had been a star at Paramount for two years and had appeared in mostly light comic parts as he did throughout his career. I mean Paramount could have cast Gary Cooper or Joel McCrea, both of whom were available at the studio. MacMurray did the film and gave a creditable performance, but as he remarked, "the horse and I were never as one." He never really did feel comfortable in westerns and ones he later appeared in were long after his Paramount studio days were over.The Texas Rangers film is based on stories derived from Walter Presscott Webb's authoritative history of the legendary law enforcement outfit which was only published a few years back. Fred MacMurray, Jack Oakie and Lloyd Nolan play three outlaws who drift into Texas and become separated. MacMurray and Oakie join the Texas Rangers and Nolan continues his outlaw ways.Lots of good action here folks. A really great Comanche Indian attack sequence is well staged by Director King Vidor. Lots of familiar western faces support the leads like Fred Kohler and Gabby Hayes. Edward Ellis as the commandant of the Texas Rangers comes off a lot like Lewis Stone and had MGM instead of Paramount had made this film, Lewis Stone definitely would have been cast in Ellis's role.Despite MacMurray's misgivings about westerns, The Texas Rangers is a pretty good action western with great character development for the three leads.