I'm still convinced that Disney is
searching for another cash cow like Pirates of the Caribbean was. Prince
of Persia didn't quite cut it and John Carter was a flop. The
Lone Ranger (2013) is their latest attempt. The movie was dragged through
the mud by other critics, but I ended up seeing it anyway. Frankly, I think
it's a whole lot better than the media made it out to be.
In the 1930's, an elderly Tonto
(Johnny Depp) tells a young boy the tale of John Reid, The Lone Ranger (Armie
Hammer). An idealistic lawyer, he rides with his brother and fellow Texas
Ranger in pursuit of the notorious Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner). Ambushed
by the outlaw and left for dead, John Reid is rescued by the renegade Comanche,
Tonto, at the insistence of a mysterious white horse and offers to help him
bring Cavendish to justice. Becoming a reluctant masked rider with a seemingly
incomprehensible partner, Reid pursues the criminal against all obstacles.
However, John and Tonto learn that Cavendish is only part of a far greater
injustice, and the pair must fight it in an adventure that would make them
legend.
The Lone Ranger has a few things going for it that other Pirates of the
Caribbean-success attempts didn't have. First, it has Johnny Depp. Depp is
type cast a lot of the time, but still excels in comical roles like he did in Pirates
of the Caribbean. Second, The Lone Ranger has the same director as Pirates
did; Gore Verbinski. He did the first three Pirates movies, Rango,
and Mousehunt. He's a very visual director that has made some
outstanding family films. It's the fact that both of these Hollywood
personalities are present in The Lone Ranger. I'm certain it was the
decision of studio executives and film producers to have them involved in The
Lone Ranger in hopes that it would be as successful as Pirates was.
The Lone Ranger started out as a radio show way back in the 1930's. There
have been a number of television shows and movies based off of it. I've never
seen or heard any of these, but I am familiar with the cultural icons. All are
present in this movie and they are well incorporated. The catchphrases, well
known characters, Even the music from the William Tell Overture, which was used
as a theme song in the old radio show, is present.
A lot of the exterior shots were
filmed on desert locations in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. Gore has
captivated an excellent Old West feel with gorgeous widescreen spectacles that
owe a lot to classic “spaghetti westerns” of the 1960's. Even the action
heralds back to Buster Keaton-style stunts. As far as visuals and action goes,
this really is great movie to watch since it draws inspiration from a lot of
old successful western movies. There had to be at least as many stunt men as
there were digital effects artists working on this movie.
Depp and Hammer were great together.
Hammer is a ridged, comically straight laced, sheltered, naïve city boy who is
completely out of his element. It's kind of fun to watch him learn how the world
really is and how he decides to take a stand and make things as good as he
believes they should be. Depp is basically the same wacky character he often
plays. This rendition of Tonto is similar to Captain Jack Sparrow but with a
Native American motif. He's funny, weird, and serves up wacky humor.
The Lone Ranger is certainly not without it's faults. The most blaring of
which is having a very white guy portraying a Native American. I love Johnny
Depp, but it's so awkward when actors who are obviously of European decent, are
playing characters of other ethnicities. Why not just give an actor of the
character's ethnicity an opportunity to shine? I think that Tonto's character
acts so comically weird that he becomes a politically incorrect depiction of
Native Americans, and might offend some viewers. On the other hand, the Native
Americans in the movie (actually played by Native Americans) all agree that
Tonto is crazy and doesn't represent them. Still, the character makes me cringe
a little.
Another problem is the spiritualism
theme. It's repeatedly established that “nature is out of balance” and is
causing animals to behave strangely. This is occasionally funny such as the
scene when John's horse is found in a tree, and sometimes creepy. What causes
this is not really established. Is it all the corruption from the outlaws? The
western civilization taking over the American wilds? I have no idea. While the
idea is repeated several times, it's neither resolved nor explained. It seems
that it was haphazardly stuck into the movie here and there in an attempt to
create a sense of larger stakes than what was originally thought, or to
establish a sense of urgency. The story would have made more sense without it.
Finally, I thought the length of the
movie was too long. It's fun, but long. The first forty-five minutes of the
movie are excellent. It's easy to get lost in the second forty-five minutes.
There ends up being multiple groups of villains that take too much time to
explain. By the time it's all sorted out we've stopped caring and we're ready
to see our heroes duke it out with the baddies. I think the movie would have
been stronger with just one central villain.
The Lone Ranger is fun. Everyone told me it was crap, but I genuinely
enjoyed it. There's tons of deadpan comedy and witty humor, lots of exciting
action, some impressive visuals, and fun characters. It runs a bit long and
might lose its audience from time to time, but that train scene at the end
makes any confusion well worth enduring. I don't think it's quite as good as
the first Pirates of the Caribbean was, but it is by far much better
than critics were saying it is. I highly recommend renting The Lone Ranger,
you may even consider purchasing a copy if you enjoyed other Gore Verbinski
films.
Did you see The Lone Ranger? What did you think? Would you be up for watching a second installment? Comment below and tell me why or why not!
Did you see The Lone Ranger? What did you think? Would you be up for watching a second installment? Comment below and tell me why or why not!
No comments:
Post a Comment