While I did not hate "Eyes of Texas" like Dick-42 did, he did make an excellent point about how wildly illogical this film was at times. Too often I just found myself confused why certain plot elements were tossed into the film and they made my brain hurt!!Let's talk about the plot first--and then the more illogical stuff. The film is set at a camp for the children of dead WWII soldiers--a rather timely plot idea considering the war had only recently ended. Thad loves the kids and this is his life. However, his lawyer sends him a cable--saying that his own dead son is, in fact, alive! When Thad visits his lady lawyer (an interesting casting decision to make her a woman), she convinces him to sign a blank will form and 'she'll fill in the rest later' so they can include the son in the will. Why would anyone agree to sign a paper like this?! Didn't he KNOW that would mean he would die only minutes later?! And, of course it happens--as she sicks a pack of vicious dogs on him! This is actually kind of cool...and silly.The evil lawyer's plan is to create a will--giving the camp and all of Thad's money to the son--not just a portion like Thad had requested. Actually, the son really IS dead--so she has a guy who is going to pretend to be the son and collect the money AND toss all the orphans out of the camp! Can Marshall Roy save the day and expose this evil plot?Okay...here's some of the illogical stuff (apart from someone signing a blank will form): The locals all decide to beat up Roy and get him dismissed from his job because they think he is trying to toss out the orphans. So, because they love the kids so, they become lawless and a lynch-mob mentality develops. Of course you later learn SOME of these folks were paid by the lawyer to do this--but what about everyone else?! Why would you want to help orphans this way?!Why did Roy slug Doc (Andy Devine)?! This sure made the angry townsfolk seem reasonable (though this happened AFTER they became angry and kind of crazy). Later, Roy said he did this because he wanted to get fired so he could better investigate what was happening. Huh?! Roy...you HIT Doc! And he's your friend! Why exactly did you hit Doc?! Huh?! What?! Hitting one of the few people in town who LIKED you is an interesting strategy, I must say!The lawyer hates one of her vicious dogs, Lobo, because he isn't mean enough AND the dog really, really, really hates her. Later, she and her evil henchman steal this dog away from Roy. Several days later, they STILL have the dog and haven't killed it. Yet, earlier in the film they tried several times to kill the dog. Why would they keep the dog once they stole it-especially since they dog wants to kill you?! They wanted it dead, right?!? SO they kidnapped it and kept it alive! Good strategy!Overall, this is a mildly entertaining but ludicrously confusing Roy Rogers film. Turn off your brain and stop it from questioning the plot and you'll probably have a good time watching it. Otherwise, you might just want to skip this one.

Viewers and fans of Roy Rogers films will find a few unusual elements in "Eyes of Texas", making it somewhat out of the ordinary for a Rogers flick. For starters, Andy Devine is on board in a generally serious role as a country doctor, even though he's using the name Cookie Bullfincher. Devine's other portrayals using that name were usually done to comic effect. Instead, the comedy relief duties here were given to Pat Brady, Roy's eventual sidekick in his TV Western series of the early 1950's. Not only that, but Pat gets to strut his stuff in a musical number, with vocals on 'Killer Diller' while playing guitar. Later on, he strums a bass violin as the Sons of the Pioneers perform another number.Roy also shares heroics in the film with his animal co-stars - Trigger and Bullet. In fact they have a scene together where Trigger tries to calm down a wild dog left wounded when a pack of German Shepherds was dispatched to attack an elderly rancher. In the story, the shepherd is given the name Lobo, and Bullet himself isn't credited for the role. I guess he hadn't signed on with Trigger's agent yet.Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the story takes place when Roy takes a swing at Dr. Bullfincher, at which point he almost looked like a heel. The explanation offered involved Roy getting stripped of his Marshal's badge so he could investigate the outlaws as a civilian, but that didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. That was almost as much of a head scratcher as old Thad Cameron (Francis Ford) signing over a blank will to the crooked attorney Hattie Waters (Nana Bryant). Talk about asking for trouble! Hey, keep an eye on that scene when Roy gets into a scrap with henchman Vic (Roy Barcroft) and the rest of his rowdies. The tear on the back of Roy's shirt changes size and shape throughout the fight.Of course, Roy triumphs by the end of the story, exposing the crooked attorney and the phony heir she brought in to steal Camp Cameron out from under the orphan boys whose fathers were killed during the War. Given the historical setting of the story, it was unusual to observe the downtown street scenes populated about equally between men on horseback and those in automobiles.

I cannot believe that (Dick 47 and Snow Leopard) put their comments on this site blasting this movie. The film " Eyes of Texas " made way back in 1948 is one of the best of the Roy Rogers flicks. There were a few good ones. Several done with Penny Edwards were passable also. This film features Nana Bryant...and she is at her best as the crooked lawyer Hattie Waters. If you watch it again notice how well she attacks her lines. She had some experience on the Broadway stage and it shows here. Nana Bryant is a real serious actress and she is light-years ahead of the rest of the cast. Andy Devine is good as always . The plot was a bit shallow but it was written for a young audience. I think that the film can be appreciated by film historians as one of the best Roy Rogers movies.........John in Louisiana.....

A movie, obviously intended for the 10-year-olds at the kids' matinees, that looks as though it was written by a 10-year-old. (I guess there were still kids' matinees in 1948. I hadn't been to one in about 11 years.)The film depicts post-WW-II Texas (from the title, not from anything within the movie itself) in 1947 as the same as in the 1870's, with everyone wearing cowboy suits - popular with 10-year-olds - riding around on horses or buckboards, wearing guns, and engaging in shootouts on the streets, with no official accounting for the bodies. The estate settlement is inexplicably turned over to 'the insurance company', and although all the money has officially been stolen by the fake will, the crooks appeal to the townsfolk to throw the bad Government man out and 'save the children'! (How a petition from the people will accomplish this isn't clear.) In the end, all the crooks, who are the only ones who know of and can testify to the facts in the conspiracy, are dead, and the 'happy ending' leaves all the legal entanglements up in the air.If they had thrown out the wooden-sided Ford station wagon and the telephone, made the boys Civil War orphans, and assigned the estate settlement to a court instead of the insurance company, the film would almost pass for logical by Western flick standards.The only things close to a redeeming value in this picture are a couple of pretty good songs by the Sons of the Pioneers.The only reason this turkey doesn't make my list of 'The Ten Worst Films of All Time' (which currently contains about 35 titles) is that as a Cowboy flick, it isn't expected to be good.