UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Comedy >

4 for Texas

4 for Texas (1963)

December. 25,1963
|
5.5
|
NR
| Comedy Western

In the 1870s, two rival businessmen, Zack Thomas and Joe Jarrett, on a stagecoach heading to Galveston, Texas, must pull together to protect $100,000 from an outlaw named Matson. Once in Galveston, however, their rivalry continues, as Thomas joins up with Elya Carlson and Jarret with Maxine Richter. But Matson is still on the loose, and a scheming banker threatens both Thomas and Jarrett.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

MartinHafer
1963/12/25

This film stars the two biggest members of the so-called 'Rat Pack'--Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. Oddly, the film is a western--and it's very strange to see either of these guys in a western. You'd expect to see them in a film like "Oceans Eleven"...not the old west. Even weirder, the European sex-pots Ursula Andress and Anita Ekberg are along for the ride...and a bumpy one at that considering how ill-cast the production seemed. And you KNOW it's got a bizarre choice of actors when the Three Stooges seem more appropriately cast! The only really appropriately cast guy was Charles Bronson--and he was pretty much wasted.The film begins with Zack (Sinatra) and Joe (Martin) happening on a stage coach that has been attacked. The passengers and crew are dead but the hidden gold is still there. Both men want it and Joe ends up with it after some interesting machinations. Much of the rest of the film consists of Joe and Zack trying to outsmart each other--all the while, Zack's partners are planning on double-crossing them.Sometimes, instead of writing a review, I wish I could simply write "Read so-and-so's review--they said it as good or better than I could...plus they wrote it first". This is exactly the case with the review for "4 For Texas" by Bob the Moo. Bob's analysis of the film is correct when he said it is '...lifeless, self indulgent and lacking in fun or wit, made solely on the basis of the two stars being famous and thus bringing an audience with them when the film plays'. This really sums it up very well! The film, despite a quirky and clever start, soon bogs down and all sense of fun soon diminishes. In fact, so does any sense that either of the leads even cared! It was like they were just going through the paces--assuming the Rat Pack lovers would show up in the theaters in droves regardless. My assumption is that, for the most part, they were correct. The writing was amateurish and often made no sense (especially the scenes where Martin and Andress meet), the acting uninspired, pacing listless and the film looked good but was very unsatisfying--much like the desserts you'd find at an all you can eat buffet. A cynical and forgettable film.

More
Asxetos
1963/12/26

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)

More
rich56
1963/12/27

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.

More
MARIO GAUCI
1963/12/28

Like SERGEANTS 3 (1962), the actual running time (115 minutes) of this 1963 Christmas attraction differs from the official one (124 minutes) – although, in this case, it could well be the result of the lopping off of the Prelude, Intermission, Entr’ Acte and Exit Music pieces. While still in essence an overblown and thinly-plotted ego-trip, it’s certainly more entertaining than the Rat Pack’s previous Western outing.Frank Sinatra’s pampered tycoon character is annoyingly narcissistic at times and Anita Ekberg is just there to abet him and as an added scenery attraction; by contrast, Dean Martin and a sultry Ursula Andress (a role originally intended for Gina Lollobrigida!!) thoroughly enjoy themselves. Director Aldrich also allows two of his previous collaborators free rein: a constantly burping banker (Victor Buono) and Martin’s diminutive bodyguard (Nick Dennis) ham it up mercilessly but result in being definite assets to the proceedings; Charles Bronson is the straight villain and other familiar faces appearing here include Mike Mazurki (as Sinatra’s own dim-witted bodyguard), Richard Jaeckel, Abraham Sofaer, Grady Sutton, etc. The guest appearance by The Three Stooges is cute but hardly outstanding (though Martin does get to slap all three at once!), emerging as a sure sign of the film’s anything-goes attitude! Again, Aldrich (who apparently intensely disliked Sinatra!) had tackled Westerns that were both terse and significant before – but, here, he seems to have purposely taken a back seat to the stars’ antics (albeit with the occasional inventive visual touch). By the way, none other than Bette Davis declined a part in the film in order to star in yet another horror piece (a phase in her career which, coincidentally, Aldrich himself had spearheaded) – DEAD RINGER (1964; which I own on DVD but have yet to watch) – though it’s hard to see now where she would have fitted in.All things considered, the film is a colorful and easy-going romp – culminating in a fistfight between the stars, which is followed by them burying the hatchet in order to rout Bronson (whose riverboat demise is a highlight) and Buono, and ending with a double wedding. The Warners DVD contains a short ‘making of” featurette which shows the cast and crew doing their stuff on the set.

More