tavm In a remarkable coincidence, this was the next film on my Netflix delivery list when Anita Ekberg died several days ago. So having just watched the movie, she was quite a presence in it though I thought Ursula Andress was more sexy with what was put on her. As for the male leads-Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin-well, Dean seemed to be more professional than Frank so was the more charismatic of the two. No wonder director Robert Aldrich wanted Sinatra sacked! Despite the long running time, I mostly enjoyed this western comedy especially when The Three Stooges-Moe, Larry, and Curly Joe-arrived. So on that note, 4 for Texas is worth a look. P.S. Since It's a Wonderful Life is my favorite movie, I feel the need to note of three connections here: Joseph Biroc-one of the directors of photography on that movie was one of three responsible for second unit photography here, Ellen Corby-who was the lady James Stewart kissed when she asked for less money than the other customers at the Bailey Building & Loan there-got to join in on hitting the Stooges, and the song "Buffalo Gals"-you know the song Jimmy and Donna Reed sing outside after falling in their former high school's swimming pool-is played instrumentally during the riverboat opening.

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)

Tim Kidner I like a good western and when this came up on TV and I read the reviews, I was wondering whether I should bother.Eventually the cast list swayed me to, though I'm generally not a fan of Dean Martin or Frank Sinatra. Charles Bronson, Anita Eckberg and Ursula Andress attracted me as well as wondering where and how the Three Stooges might make their mark. Robert Aldrich, director of the Dirty Dozen might at least add some pedigree in that department.As the other few reviews have pointed out in some detail, the opening sequence is a classic, quality suspenseful one, with Sinatra and Bronson sharing a shoot-out over the $100,000 haul. Unfortunately the film moves into the studio and outdoor scenes are both flimsy and rare, with the comedy generally sped-up punch-ups to quickened music. The blonde beauties are often accompanied by raunchy, strip-club type of music that both cheapens them and also the movie.There's a story about a paddle-steamer in there somewhere, but by that time I couldn't care what happened to it or to whoever was aboard. Frankly, I was on the verge of giving up on the film entirely at 90mins but I guess laziness forced me to let it play on.I cannot recommend this film. Even if you are a fan of any of its key actors it's just not worth the drudge to see them perform below par and with an even worse script.

Jay Raskin This movie has four stars, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Anita Ekberg and Ursula Andress, so I gave it four stars. Actually two stars are for Dean Martin's attempts to add humor. Anita and Ursula get one each, but Frank Sinatra gets no stars.When the movie opens a group of bandits are attacking a stage-coach. Frank Sinatra is shooting the bandits from the top of the coach, while Dean Martin is shooting them from out the window of the coach. Sinatra has a silly grin on his face as he shoots. There is no indication that he might die any moment or that he is actually killing human beings. He is smiling as if he is just playing a game. Dean Martin also looks totally relaxed and nonchalant, but he is not grinning the way Sinatra is. There is no acting going on here. It is as if the director said to Sinatra, "Smile and shoot the gun." Anybody above the age of ten could have played the scene more realistically.I understand that Aldrich was upset with Sinatra. He said that Sinatra worked a total of 80 hours over a 38 day period. In other words, he worked about two days a week, for five or six hours a day, over a seven week period. Nice work if you can get it. I wonder if Aldrich used the inappropriate footage in the opening scene as a way of getting revenge on Sinatra, actually purposefully making him look like a bad actor.While the Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra both have about twenty minutes of scene time in the first half of the movie, Sinatra only has a few quick scenes in the second half until he walks in at the end for the climatic fight scene. I'm also wondering if Aldrich cut down on Sinatra's scenes when he saw that Sinatra was just saying his lines and not acting.Anita Ekberg was paired with Sinatra, but there was no chemistry there. She is only on-screen for about ten minutes. I suspect that Aldrich cut scenes with her and Sinatra when he saw that they weren't working.On the other hand, Ursula Andress does connect with Martin and the scenes of him lusting over her may be sexist, but they are practically the only amusing scenes in the film. Just as in the first James Bond movie, "Dr. No." she appears only after the film is half over. Unlike the James Bond movie, she cannot save this film, but she does relieve some of the tedium.Aldridge is a fantastic director under the right circumstances. "Kiss Me Deadly," "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane," and "Emperor of the North Pole," are my favorites. I suspect that he really wanted to create tension between Sinatra's and Martin's characters, but Sinatra refused and only wanted the rivalry to be good-natured kidding between pals. Apparently, he sought to get Sinatra fired, but failed. The result is a movie that moves at glacier speed and has few surprises, unless you can call the pointless appearance of the Three Stooges, a surprise.I think only Ursula Andress fans will enjoy this one. She wears some great dresses and appears quite self assured, relaxed and sexy. If you are one, just watch the second half. You won't miss anything.