Texas Lady (1955)

This was Claudette Colbert's second to last theatrical feature and if this was the quality of scripts she was being offered at that time it's no wonder she stayed away six years between this and Parrish. First of all she belongs in some urbane urban setting not the Old West and try though she might she is out of place there. Additionally she and Barry Sullivan, always a dull leading man no matter his costar, go together like oil and water sharing zero romantic chemistry. The script is ordinary and the direction not terribly exciting plus the film is soft and fuzzy with over-bright color. If you like Claudette or westerns it's okay but don't expect anything above the routine.

One of the contributors to IMDb has mentioned that it'd be OK to watch this film when the weather was awful and there was nothing better to do. Well, I've just watched it on a stunning October afternoon as the Friday afternoon movie on Channel 4. How could I not have done in view of the fact that, apparently, Ms. Colbert was a favourite of my grandfather's?I can see what S. H. Scheuer was getting at in his 'Movies On TV' when he said that C.C. was miscast in the lead role. Maybe Bette Davis or Barbara Stanwyck would have been better and given the character the edge that it needed.As one called Chris myself I felt - with all the mentions of the name 'Chris', as if I were watching a film version of one of those 'stories all about your child' books one sees advertised in mail-order leaflets. Was the script-writer being paid per 'Chris', or something?The Chris Mooney character was asked of his future plans. I thought, humorously, that a re-naming to Jake, or something one would ordinarily hear more often in the context of a Western, might not have come amiss. Alternatively, 'Texas Lady' could have the alternate title 'A Man Named Chris'!If your name's Chris you'll love this movie for all the unintentional humour. Otherwise it has little to commend it.One of the stars I have given it is for the 'Chrisses', BTW.

Horace McCoy, arguably best known for his Depression novel They Shoot Horses, Don't They, subsequently adapted into an Oscar-winning film, is credited with the story and screenplay here and clearly phoned it in. The only possible reason anyone would want to spend time with it is the presence of Claudette Colbert in the lead role. One can only speculate what made her get involved in something so cliché-ridden; money, a need to retain a career in front of the camera at what amounted to any price? Who knows. Barry Sullivan was a generally reliable support in A-movies (see, for example, Queen Bee) who just as often got to play a lead in pieces of cheese like this. See it if you must but don't say I didn't warn you.

>>Claudette Colbert looking far too old and matronly for the part of an ambitious small-town journalist and card sharp Colbert certainly doesn't look matronly in this film - she's just as slender and attractive as ever.I've just attended the WIllimasburg Film Festival, which showed this film. It has great meaning for Gregory Walcott- it was his "breakthrough" role, and his wife was pregnant with his first child, which she gave birth to a week after the movie finished filming.In Walcott's biography, Hollywood Adventures, he tells the story of how he first met Colbert, who was concerned that he was so much younger than she was. But if older leading men can be put in with actresses 20 years younger than them, than women should be able to get the same treatment.It is a bit episodic, but fun nevertheless.