Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

William Brighenti This movie sucks. Frank Sinatra is pitiful. I tried to follow the plot and fell asleep: it was that boring.According to the recent series, "Feud", Robert Aldrich couldn't direct the movie. Sinatra did it his way; and his way came off as contrived and phony and flat. The fight scenes were so fake that they even were uneventful.I only wonder how the cast felt after making this bomb. I always felt Frank Sinatra was over-rated. This movie proves it beyond a doubt.I am relieved that Frank Sinatra cannot make any more of these bombs.

RanchoTuVu Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin compete for control over the lucrative gambling business in post-Civil War Galveston while crooked banker Victor Buono employs villainous killer Charles Bronson to eliminate both Frank and Dino in order to run the town himself. Buono is pretty fun to watch as he makes himself a sandwich and tries to contain Bronson. 4 For Texas qualifies as a western because the title includes the word "Texas", but it looks pretty southern with wharves and riverboats in a lot of the outdoor scenes that give the movie a certain amount of regional authenticity which is kind of interesting to watch just on its own merits. In fact you could pretty much dismiss the plot and focus on the film's cool imagery and one of its stars, Ursula Andress, of whom there is what looks like a nude portrait that hangs behind the bar in Dino's riverboat establishment. As a comedy this falls mostly flat. Even the Three Stooges part is not up to their usual high standards, but as entertainment, you could do worse.

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.

moonspinner55 Frank Sinatra plays Texas big-shot who teams up with saloon-owner Dean Martin to thwart an evil banker; Anita Ekberg and Ursula Andress play--what else?--the bosomy love-interests. Comedic western directed and co-written by the uneven Robert Aldrich, who doesn't seem to notice that Sinatra and the gang are running precariously low on steam. Sammy Davis, Jr. and Peter Lawford aren't around this time, but the supporting cast does include Charles Bronson, Richard Jaekel, Mike Mazurki and Victor Buono, as well as a cameo by The Three Stooges (!). Star-vehicle is curiously talky and slow on adventure, not to mention laughs. *1/2 from ****