HotToastyRag
The best part of this movie is the five minutes of screen time given to The Three Stooges. It's hilarious, and a welcome relief from the rest of the boring, exhausting, confusing film. After the Stooges leave, unfortunately, the movie returns to the normal terrible pace.Dean Martin steals one hundred thousand dollars from Frank Sinatra in a stagecoach, but Frank steals it back, but then Dean steals it again and rides off into the sunset. The next we see, Frank Sinatra is prospering in Galveston, Texas, waited on hand and foot by scantily clad French maids, and doted on by Anita Ekberg. He's in cahoots with banker Victor Buono, but Buono has contracted Charles Bronson out to kill Frank. Dean Martin comes to town, and his stolen money attracts everyone's attention, including Ursula Andress. It's a very complex plot, and to explain the rest of it would take a lot of time, and it would bore you.I thought 4 for Texas was going to be a silly Rat Pack comedy, but besides the cameo by The Three Stooges, there weren't any jokes. Or if there were, they weren't funny. This movie is terribly boring, and the acting is as uninspired as the script. Even if you're a Rat Pack fan, watch Ocean's 11 instead. This one will grate on your nerves.
JasparLamarCrabb
Not really a rat pack movie, but close enough. Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin are rival gamblers vying for possession of a riverboat gambling joint. It's a funny, smörgåsbord type of comic western with Sinatra & Martin in top form, supported by the likes of Victor Buono, Mike Mazurki and Charles Bronson. They're all great and Bronson gets plenty of laughs sending up his steely tough-as-nails persona; he's a real thorn in Sinatra's side. Buono is fun as a thoroughly corrupt bank manager. The very large supporting cast also includes Jack Elam, Ellen Corby, Nick Dennis as Angel and Dave Willock (you'll likely recognize the voice). The Three Stooges pop up briefly for a reasonably funny bit. Ursula Andress and Anita Ekberg provide love interests for Martin & Sinatra respectively. The great music score is by Nelson Riddle. The unexpected director is Robert Aldrich, who sandwiched this film in between his two grand guignol masterpieces WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? and HUSH HUSH SWEET CHARLOTTE.
Asxetos
Plot: A $100.000 shipment and later a bid about opening a waterfront Casino are the objects of a tug-of-war between Zack Thomas and Joe Jarrett. Apart from having to deal with each other, they'll have to defend their selves against a Banker and the bad guy of the story, Matson.I'm not a fan of Westerns, especially not the comedy-oriented ones. However I'm one of these masochistic try-it-out-before-judging kind of morons
so
after trying out some of the more "serious" and classic ones I figured, eh! What the heck! Let me try this out too. Boy was I wrong. Why? Because this is one of these movies where EVERYTHING is wrong. From the pacing and acting to the directory and overall plot
it's rubbish.Four For Texas is obviously an attempt of selling a couple of million tickets with the use of the very popular Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin who suck big time. They don't just suck as western characters but also as comedians. The film is simply not funny and these guys are simply bad actors, (I smell fanboy\girl anger in the air). For example the first part of the film. Bullets are flying all around yet Sinatra has a stupid grin on his face as if he is posing for a Las Vegas Show. The same with Dean Martin, he is always cool no matter what and in a very unconvincing way.Not only is the movie way too slow for what it has to offer but there is also no real suspense or plot twists. Characters talk, talk and talk
sometimes they throw in a couple of supposedly funny lines and the main girls, (Ekberg and Andress), look like goddesses of love but they don't offer anything else but simplistic sex appeal with seducing slow walking, deep cleavages and stupid one liners that are supposed to be sexy.FINAL VERDICT: Only for Sinatra\Martin\Ekberg\Andress fanboys & fangirls (1/10)[+] Err
Ekberg's cleavage maybe??? [-] Boring plot. Slow and not funny at all. Mediocre acting.Also Check: Cat Ballou (1965) – Maverick (1994) – Ocean's Eleven (1960)
rich56
I watched this recently as part of the Ultimate Rat Pack collection that I had purchased a while ago. I couldn't remember if I'd even seen it before although I grew up in the 60s when these flicks were on TV regularly. After viewing I realized why I couldn't remember it...it is singularly unmemorable, unlike Oceans 11 or Robin and the Seven Hoods featured in the same collection. It's a comedy-western that's not particularly funny or all that exciting. Frank and Dean breeze through this thing of course as only they can, mugging,joking almost winking at each other 'ain't we too much' during their scenes together. I'm assuming Robert Aldrich the director was merely there to corral the extras since neither of the main stars attempts to take any direction. This is not to say they are entirely un watchable but even for this kind of thing both have done better. Ursula Andress and Anita Ekberg look spectacular in various revealing outfits and Charles Bronson seems to be the only actor taking the whole thing seriously. The 3 Stooges show up and do a shtick that livens things up after the movie seems to slow to a crawl. Character actors Victor Buono(probably gives the best performance),Jack Elam,Richard Jaekel and a few other familiar faces round out the cast. The plot? Well, who cares really, you're watching this to see Frank and Dean do their thing and to some degree they do, but really it's all somewhat snooze inducing. The film of course is very much of its era when the Rat Pack ruled and smoking, drinking, gambling and womanizing were casually portrayed without any apologies. I do actually enjoy these kind of movies and have built up a collection on DVD over the last while that reflects my nostalgia for that time. I just wish this one was better.
AD
