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!

Movie Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Generally, when a non-movie media become popular some Einstein in Hollywood thinks there needs to be a movie based off of it. These have varying degrees of success. Movies based on books usually do okay; comic books tend to be hit or miss; and TV show movies tend to be pretty bad. They have yet to make a good movie based on a video game, with the worst probably being the Super Mario Bros. movie (1993). Disney had some success with making Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl(2003) which was based on the Disneyland attraction. Evidently, Disney thought that with the success thatPirates of the Caribbean brought them, a similar production based on a long running video game series would be good idea.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010) is set in a romanticized ancient Persia. In the prologue, King Sharaman (Ronald Pickup) adopts an orphaned street urchin, Dastan, to rear along with his other sons. King Sharaman thought Dastan was worthy of becoming nobility because Dastan defended another boy who was being beaten and then escaped by running around on rooftops. Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) grows to become a reputed warrior and prince. After receiving information that the Holy City of Alamut is supplying weapons to the enemies of Persia, Dastan’s adoptive brothers Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) and Tus (Richard Coyle) prepare to attack the city. While attacking the city, Dastan comes into possession of a strange dagger. King Sharaman stops the attack and arranged for the marriage of Tus to Alamut’s princess, Tamina (Gemma Arterton). Dastan is later framed for the mysterious murder of King Sharaman. Dastan escapes with Princess Tamina who tells him about the dagger’s power to send its wielder back in time by a few seconds. Dastan and Tamina set out to discover who is behind the false rumors about Alamut, the murder of King Sharaman, who is after the time-altering dagger and why.

Similar to Pirates of the Caribbean, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is full of silly characters, over the top action scenes, and special effects. The only Prince of Persia game I’ve ever played was in 1989 on an Apple II computer. The storyline there wasn’t any more complicated than that of Super Mario Bros. game in 1985: save the princess. Other Prince of Persia games have been released, but I don’t know how the movie compares, as I have never played the more recent ones.

Dastan is a painfully generic hero character. He’s inherently good and incorruptible; he isn’t challenged by moral dilemmas, he just does the right thing because he’s good. This makes him very uninteresting. He’s also a carbon copy of every Persian hero to ever grace the silver screen; Disney’sAladdin (1992) and The Thief of Bagdad (1940) come to mind. He’s really not any different at the end of the movie than he is at the beginning. He’s just boring.

Tamina drove me nuts! There’s hardly a single line that she speaks to Dastan that isn’t somehow insulting, demeaning, or challenging of his capabilities or competence. She was bratty, untrusting of anyone, and would stab Dastan in the back at her earliest convenience. Why on earth were they in love by the end of the movie!? I would have tied her to a cactus half way through the movie and left her for dead. The romantic interest between Dastan and Tamina had no basis or logic behind it. The meager romance was included for the sake of having romantic scenes in the movie. Towards the climax of the movie Dastan has Tamina by the arm over a cliff, keeping her from falling to her death. I actually shouted at Dastan to just let go and put her out of his misery. She is pretty, but I’d like to think there should be more requirements to being a princess than just being pretty. Tamina is one of the worst damsels in distresses I’ve ever seen.

The action scenes were rather confusing. A lot of the movie was filmed in front of a green screen. The backgrounds occasionally didn’t match up with the movements of the camera very well, which gave the viewer a vague sense of space. On top of this the camera was often doing close shots of the actors fighting. This gave you a good sense that something was happening, but not a good sense of what was happening. Yes they are fighting, but what is it they are doing and who is winning? I felt like I should be on the edge of my seat, but I wasn’t sure why since I couldn’t tell what was actually going on.

At one point, Dastan is sinking in huge sinkhole of sand. I’m not really sure how he got there and it certainly doesn’t show how he got out. One moment he’s in the sinkhole, the next moment he’s on this cascading waterfall of sand tumbling down towards a cliff. It doesn’t show Dastan falling through the sinkhole and onto the sand-waterfall; it doesn’t show him escaping the sinkhole only to fall again into the sand-waterfall. This is more an issue of bad editing than confusing action scenes.

Not only were the characters uninteresting and shallow, but I wasn’t really sure what they were fighting for. Sure, keep the Dagger of Time away from the evil Uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), but what happens if he gets it? They could just reset time they way they want it. No one has a risk of dying; they just go back in time a few seconds and prevent the death. They do this several times in the movie. So, if you can just correct anything with the dagger, who cares of Nazim becomes King of the Persian Empire? Who cares if anyone dies? It can just be corrected.

Disney seemed to be trying to make another swashbuckler action movie with Prince of Persia, but the movie just ended up being really underdeveloped and shoddily done. If you look at it in the context of being a very simple fairy tale with some over the top action scenes, it becomes slightly more palatable. The movie is also such light viewing that you could put it on as background noise while cleaning the house, catch glimpses once in a while, and still not miss anything. It’s a pretty clean movie, too. It would be alright for a family movie night with kids, but really there are much better movies you can watch as a family.