Texas Rangers: Critic Reviews

This is one bland and cheesy Tex-Mex burrito of a movie.

Enough horse-opera cliches to shame the makers of Gunsmoke.

Wish it had a few other things, you know, like an adult sensibility, a closer allegiance to the truth, and maybe a little concern for how the English of 1875 was spoken.

Although it's not the worst western ever made (The Terror of Tiny Town will forever hold that title), it is one of the most mediocre, falling prey to more cliches than you can shake a six-gun at.

The end result may not be a full-blown disaster, but it comes close.

Large cast is uniformly fine with tongue-twisting, pulpy dialogue, though pic presents only brief flashes of what look to be fully realized characterizations jettisoned at some point during production or post.

The expensive but soporific Texas Rangers is no Unforgiven, to put it mildly -- in fact, it's more like unforgivable.

That McDermott is second-billed behind prissy Dawson's Creek pretty boy James Van Der Beek tells you a little about how long this thing has been in the editing booth.

As dull as its title.

A soggy oater that gives the genre a bad rep, the Dimension Films dud combines anesthetized writing, uncertain direction and an out-of-its-depth cast of unmistakably urban cowboys for brain-draining effect.

A documentary on baseball's Texas Rangers and their last-place season would have been more interesting.

A dull show.

Just another bad Hollywood western farce with a cast of young Hollywood stars and a go nowhere script.

A real loser, lock, stock and barrel.

The film has very little energy and originality.

A bit of a mess, but it's not unenjoyable and it boasts a kind of absurd sincerity that's actually rather appealing.

The storyline is awfully thin...and even at a running time of around 81 minutes (without credits), the movie does tend to drag in certain sections.

Call it Dude, Where's My Horse?

[A] almost refreshing for its total lack of ambition.