Watch The Texas Rangers For Free

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The copy I watched courtesy of YouTube was clean and crisp, and the film itself was good by the standards of the mid-1930s.Unlike some other reviewers here on IMDb, I've always thought Fred MacMurray an acceptable Western actor, and I found Jack Okie irritating in the first part of the film - especially as he rode along with MacMurray anticipating a romantic encounter with a señorita. The back projection was reasonable enough, certainly compared with that in "The Plainsman", issued in the same year.With much of the film being set before Texas became a state (which happened in 1845), there were lots of anachronisms - relating to the Rangers' kit and weapons for example. And the telegraph system was very much in its infancy - I wonder if it had reached Texas?One might also mention the unrealistic death following the shot under the table.On the plus side, the fight between the Rangers and the Indians was excellent and Lloyd Nolan in his early scenes radiated charisma - before reverting to the sort of nasty character he was to portray in later films.

The Western genre was at a low ebb in the 1930s. It did not die out completely as has sometimes been claimed, but for the most part it was relegated to B-movie status (in fact B-Westerns were what John Wayne spent most of the 30s doing). It's also untrue that the genre was suddenly revived in 1939 by the arrival of Stagecoach. A-budget Westerns had been appearing for a few years before then, but they were odd affairs for the most part, born of a generation who had lost touch with the Old West.The Texas Rangers was perhaps the first of these bigger Westerns, and in many ways it plays like a recap of genre conventions, particularly the more farcical aspects. We have bandits who are good guys deep down, and Indians who might as well be hordes of zombies. Some of the more fun clichés, like an alcoholic judge, are briefly touched upon, but only briefly. The screenplay is on the whole a rather amateurish effort, riding roughshod over logic whenever a gap in the plot needs sewing up. I mean, are we really supposed to believe Jack Oakie is off in the hills counting out his loot by night, and yet is still consistently able to get his job as Stagecoach driver back each morning? Silly, even by the standards of the genre.And yet producer-director King Vidor was the kind of man to take such projects seriously. And he at least has a feel for the form. Too many of these 30s Westerns fail to make proper use of the open plains, which after all is what it's all supposed to be about. Not Vidor though – for him the seemingly endless vistas are an almost continual backdrop. Vidor's outdoor shots give you a real feeling of the emptiness, which is essential. You can't have a character singing "Bury Me Not on the Lone Prairie" unless the prairie looks appropriately lonesome. Vidor's direction of dialogue scenes is immaculate as always, generally holding the actors in long takes with occasional barely-perceptible camera shift, giving a real feeling of smoothness. His handling of action is the opposite, full of wild cuts and crazed angles to give a real feeling of frenzy. One of the most effective manoeuvres he pulls in The Texas Rangers is just before the heroes come face-to-face with the massive band of Indians. We begin with a tracking shot of them riding alongside a rock face, then the camera gradually turns, opening out the space, and eerily revealing the army of natives.Unfortunately not everyone is so suited to the genre. I don't buy MacFred as a Westerner, let alone a bandit. He just doesn't have the demeanour of a two-baths-a-year man. Leading lady Jean Parker is simply bland here, as is her character. Fortunately we do get to see a lot of Jack Oakie, who still doesn't quite look the part but is entertaining nevertheless. Oakie may be a comic but he can really act, as you will see in the one or two scenes where he has to play it straight. Lloyd Nolan is great too – his face says things that aren't in the script. And any picture that has Edward Ellis in is bound to be a treat. He is also the only player with a real bit of Western grit about him.The Texas Rangers may be the Western genre's reunion with big budgets and big stars, but it is really little more than a souped-up B-Western. It is directed with class, but the overall feel is one of shoddiness, mainly because the studios at the time weren't used to the form. They didn't have the stockpile of authentic performers or the ready-made frontier-towns at their disposal. We get the wide-open plains alright, but it takes more than chaps and Stetsons to conjure up the spirit of the Old West.

King Vidor brings his usual sincerity and visual austerity to this tale of the early years of the Texas Rangers, as seen through the eyes of a pair of lawbreakers (Fred MacMurray and Jack Oakie) who join the force planning to use inside information to make their robberies more effective. But gradually through the course of the film first Wahoo (Oakie) and finally Jim (MacMurray) face responsibility and turn in the direction of the law. Jim is influenced in this regard by his love for his commanding officer's daughter, Amanda (Jean Parker).This is one of those films that looks kind of important but ultimately feels like lazy film-making. For instance there are all these scenes with Jim and the Rangers on the top of a hill shooting Indians…. They're using pistols but somehow shooting them off their horses from hundreds of yards away. I know realism isn't always the requisite for Westerns, but at least in the matter of firearms that could be expected from a non-comedy film. It features put-you-to-sleep narration from the Ranger commander that feels like it was lifted out of a G-man film. Overall there's just a feeling of smallness, of a lack of aspiration surrounding this movie.MacMurray struggles to give his character dignity. He's a good actor but he's been given a pretty standard character here. In fact all 3 villains just feel a bit too goofy and affable for us to believe they are "badmen" or for the possibility of reformation to feel really dramatic. Oakie's character is interesting because he begins as basic comic relief and ends up becoming the moral voice of the film. Lloyd Nolan gives probably the film's best performance as the third man in their partnership who doesn't want to "go straight." Not too much to recommend but it's not horrible, so it's the type of film to watch when you're bored and feel like an oater, but not something worth seeking out or re-watching in particular.

"The Texas Rangers" tells the story of three pals (Fred MacMurray, Jack Oakie, Lloyd Nolan) who are living the lives of outlaws until they become separated when cornered by a posse. MacMurray and Oakie wind up joining the Texas Rangers while Nolan becomes the notorious "Polka Dot Bandit". Eventually you know that the two sides will have the inevitable showdown. Great action scenes involving an Indian attack highlight the film. A very young clean-shaven MacMurray is good in the lead and Jack Oakie is..well Jack Oakie as MacMurray's trusty sidekick. Nolan is fittingly evil as the grinning villain of the piece. Heroine Jean Parker plays MacMurray's love interest who convinces him of the error of his ways. In the courtroom scene, watch for "B" western favorites George "Gabby" Hayes as a judge, Fred Kohlor as the town boss and Charles (Ming the Merciless) Middleton as his lawyer. If the story seems familiar, it was remade as "The Streets of Laredo" in 1949 with William Holden, William Bendix and Macdonald Carey in the MacMurray, Oakie and Nolan roles respectively.