By Brett Blake For those of a certain generation, the character of the Lone Ranger must certainly be a beloved and nostalgic figure. Through the golden age of radio - and then television - the exploits of John Reid and his faithful companion, Tonto, enthralled the masses with tales of adventures in the Old West, and while there have been some attempts to bring the character to the big screen over the past decades, none have been given the kind of royal treatment that his newest installment has received - an almost inconceivably-large budget, a veteran (and highly successful) producer/director tandem, and one of the world’s last remaining movie stars in one of the leading roles. The questions then become these: is the Lone Ranger still relevant in the age of the mega-blockbuster, and in attempting to use the character as a springboard to launch a new franchise, have the filmmakers actually made a movie that’s any good? The answer to both of those questions is, “Well, sorta…” THE LONE RANGER is far from the disaster most in movie review circles have been attempting to label it as, and there are the seeds of a truly great movie buried somewhere inside it. There’s more about it that is good than bad, but only just barely. It’s a frustrating kind of movie, because you can see the potential, but the execution is hit-and-miss. Taking a page from John Ford’s classic, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, this new version of the Lone Ranger character sees Armie Hammer’s John Reid as a literal man of the law - a lawyer (from the “big city!”) who returns to his childhood home with the hope of bringing some law and order with him. Through various plot machinations, Reid finds himself a masked vigilante looking to bring those who wronged him to justice, a quest which brings him in contact with Johnny Depp’s eccentric version of Tonto. Mayhem of all kinds ensues. As the title character, Hammer does a fine job; the script presents Reid as fully out of his depth, a guy who needs Tonto’s help and guidance. Some have claimed to see the character as bumbling, but I disagree; the movie certainly has fun with his “squareness,” but I think it also presents him as an admirable man with the right ideas about what “justice” means. Tonto, as portrayed by Depp, is a somewhat more uneven character. As the primary driver of the movie’s humor, he’s actually more understated than one might believe (this is not just another Captain Jack Sparrow performance), and his little asides are humorous up to a point, but there does come a time when the shtick does start to become a little bit grating. On the other hand, when he’s called upon to actually impart some pathos (in the moments dealing with Tonto’s backstory, as well as a framing device involving Tonto that is set in the 1930s), Depp does a very good job. The movie needed more straight-laced Depp, less goofball Depp, if you will. The screenplay is at the heart of the film’s problems on a couple of different fronts, the first being that it presents a very simple story in a needlessly convoluted manner; boiled down, the central conflict involves the encroachment of civilization into the frontier, as embodied by the concept of the railroad and the corrupt magnate in charge of it (a favorite subject of westerns). That’s a solid basis for a story, but the screenwriters apparently don’t feel that’s enough, so they pile on crooked U.S. Cavalry officers, cannibalistic outlaws, secret silver mines, and “false flag” type raids designed to start a war with the local Native American tribes. All that PLUS Tonto’s tragic backstory, which is given no small amount of screentime devoted to it. The end result of all this is a movie that feels almost painfully overstuffed, which is compounded by the leisurely 150 minute running time. You’d think this would give all those elements room to breathe, but it doesn’t; they’re still all jumbled together… just moving forward slowly. This isn’t a story that honestly needs two-and-a-half hours to be told, but that’s what we get. The movie is also notable for its questionable level of violence, which is frequently quite grim and grisly. I have no problem with this, personally, but the kind of activity that’s on display in the movie is highly surprising coming from a studio with as family-friendly a reputation as Disney; whole Native American tribes are Gatling-gunned to death, dozens-upon-dozens of outlaws, lawmen, and soldiers alike are blown away in shootouts, there are some just-barely-off-camera scalpings, and - for the coup de grâce - a still-living man has his heart cut out and eaten by one of our villains (punctuated by an onlooker vomiting at the sight - how charming!). It’s some nasty, nasty business, particularly for a movie aimed, at least partially, at children. The violence also creates some pronounced issues for the movie’s tone; there are elements of goofy comic relief that don’t fit in at all with the dark portrayal of bloodshed. Again, it goes back to the screenplay; the writers should have pushed the tone further into either a serious or comedic direction. As it stands, the film exists straddling those moods in wildly uneven fashion. After all that hand-wringing, let’s get to the good stuff, shall we? As I alluded to, THE LONE RANGER’s budget - the exact specifics of which remain a closely guarded secret - amounted to somewhere north of $250 million. I’m happy to report that literally every penny of that is up on the screen; this is a movie that looks absolutely incredible, from a design level to a cinematography level, and credit must be given to director Gore Verbinski and producer Jerry Bruckheimer. The movie is almost worth seeing for its look alone; it’s a big film and it looks it. Obviously there’s CGI to be found, but the amount of practical locations (Monument Valley - the ultimate western landscape - has never looked so beautiful), horses, armies, and trains is truly impressive. There aren’t many movies made on this kind of scale anymore. But what really elevates (and, in my opinion, basically saves) the movie is the staging of its action sequences. With his work on the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN series, director Verbinski showed that he has a knack for inventive action, action that’s exciting and geographically-coherent, and that is certainly on display in this film. The final action sequence of THE LONE RANGER - encompassing a solid 15 minutes during the third act - is a truly ridiculous amount of fun, and packed to the gills with clever beats and bits of business. I was smiling throughout the scene, which involves two trains weaving in and around each other as characters jump and swing back and forth. I’m not being at all hyperbolic when I say that it could take its place amongst the very best setpieces of all time (certainly of recent memory) if only the rest of the movie was on the same level as its bravura and spectacular climax. On its own, though, it’s still a pretty remarkable piece of cinema, aided in no small part by composer Hans Zimmer’s strategic usage of the classic "William Tell Overture." THE LONE RANGER is flawed, to be sure, but it doesn’t deserve the daggers thrown its way, either. THE LONE RANGER is neither a great film, nor a bad one; there are good things about it, and some not-so-good things about it. But it’s never boring, it has personality, and it offers some genuine excitement at points. If that sounds like enough for you, give it a shot. If it doesn’t, don’t. The choice is yours.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|