The Lone Ranger Review

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!

John Carter Movie Review

Way back in the early 1900’s an author by the name of Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a series of pulp fiction stories. It was originally serialized as Under the Moons of Mars and was later published as a novel called A Princess of Mars. Ten sequels followed over the next three decades. Disney had bought the rights to make a film version of this book series back in the 1980’s. After being abandoned many times, Andrew Stanton (director of Pixar’s Finding Nemo and WALL-E) stepped up to the plate. Finally we received the John Carter movie in 2012, on the centennial anniversary of the first publication.

John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a world weary Civil War veteran who is tired of fighting other people’s wars and for their “noble” causes. While escaping being drafted into another battle for the military, he seeks refuge in a cave where he finds someone holding a strange medallion. When Carter touches it, he finds himself transported to a strange place where he can leap incredible heights and distances, as well as possessing amazing strength. Carter becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict among the inhabitants which include an alien leader Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and a human-like Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). Carter learns from Dejah that he is on the planet earthlings call Mars and that his superhuman strength is caused by the lower gravity on Mars. Their world is on the brink of collapse and only John Carter has the power to end the conflict.

Something to take into consideration is that the setting in John Carter is based on now-obsolete ideas that were popularized by astronomer Percival Lowell in the early 20^th Century. This is why there is life on Mars and a breathable atmosphere in this sci-fi/fantasy story. It’s also based on pulp fiction, which is known for its over-the-top ridiculous action sequences and unrealistic settings. If you take all of that into consideration, John Carter is a more enjoyable movie.

Even when taking that kind of source material into consideration, the physics were a bit silly. Carter leaps 20 stories into the air because of the low gravity on Mars, but he still falls at the same speed he would on Earth. You’d expect his legs to break once he hits the ground falling that fast, but of course that doesn’t happen. Furthermore, Carter and the tribal aliens he teams up with bring swords and spears to go into battle against flying ships with laser cannons, and they still somehow manage to put up a decent fight. I’m going to use the “pulp fiction source material” excuse for that, too. It’s just visually a bit hard to swallow.

I’ve now seen Taylor Kitsch take on three different characters; Gambit in X-MenOrigins: Wolverine, Lieutenant Alex Hopper in Battleship, and John Carter. Yes, they are all action movies, but he really does an impressive job portraying different personalities. He’s far from a favorite of mine; I haven’t always liked the roles he’s played (such as Gambit), but he is a pretty good actor and did a fine job as John Carter.

John Carter didn’t seem to know if it was for kids or adults. On the one hand it has plenty of humorous scenes. I liked the part where he’s trying to adjust to Mars’ gravity. But on the other hand, it’s also kind of violent; decapitation and heavy-duty sword play aren’t uncommon here. I suppose that since the alien’s blood is blue, Disney assumed it wouldn’t be off-putting for younger viewers. Really, it’s not too bad, but I don’t think I’d want anyone under the age of 8 to watch it.

John Carter is a fun movie. The editing is a bit choppy and the pacing is kind of slow. It’s exciting, funny, and its visual effects are not bad. It is pure, joyous, escapist adventure cinema. You really have to take it for what it is; a fun action movie that requires very little thought. Edgar Rice Burroughs is best known for writing the Tarzan stories, but you can see how this sort of material (circa 1912’s) influenced a lot of science fiction, fantasy, and superhero adventures. If you like those kinds of stories, you’ll probably enjoy John Carter on at least some level. You just have to take some of it with a grain of salt. I enjoyed it, but not enough to want my own copy to watch over and over again. I recommend seeing it, even if it is another attempt for Disney to strike gold like they did with Pirates of the Caribbean. It’s worth the cost of a RedBox rental, but not the cost of the Blu-Ray.

Do you have a favorite Sci-Fi/Fantasy movie? Like, where you're not sure if it's one or the other? What is it? Comment below and let me know!