While many of the fictional heroes who've infiltrated American pop culture over the last several decades have come from comic books, one cannot overlook the influence of radio dramas from the pre-television era during the 1930s and 1940s. Believe it or not, Superman's notorious weakness, Kryptonite, was a product of the radio shows based on the Man of Steel. But radio dramas also gave us one of pop culture's most famous cowboys, the Lone Ranger.
Created by George W. Trendle and Fran Striker, the creators of the Green Hornet, the Lone Ranger debuted in 1933 in a radio play broadcast on Detroit's WXYZ. The show proved so popular that it was soon being syndicated nationwide. The Lone Ranger himself has endured since then, having appeared in comic books, film serials and feature-length movies, novels, and a TV show that ran on ABC from 1949 to 1957.
But the Lone Ranger's popularity hasn't been what it used to be lately. While there are comics starring the character still in publication, the Ranger's become something of a cultural footnote who'd left the spotlight by the time the '60s started. And similar to his contemporary, the Green Hornet, Hollywood tried reviving the character with a big-budget blockbuster that ― like the Green Hornet movie ― could have been better.
Let's go back in time to the year 1869, where lawyer John Reid (Armie Hammer) is taking a train to his hometown of Colby, Texas. Unbeknownst to him, also on the train is notorious outlaw and cannibal Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), who is being transported to face his execution after being arrested by John's Texas Ranger brother Dan (James Badge Dale). Before they can make it to Colby, though, Cavandish's gang hijacks the train and ultimately derails the train as they break out their leader.
Barely having survived the train wreck, John is deputized as a Texas Ranger by Dan and recruited into his posse as they try to track down Cavandish and bring him to justice. Things end up taking a deadly turn when the posse is ambushed and killed. John, however, manages to barely cling onto life, seemingly revived by a mystical white horse that roams the desert. He is nursed to health by Tonto (Johnny Depp), a Comanche outcast who explains that the horse brought him back from the dead because he is to be a great warrior. Both of them holding a grudge against Cavandish for different reasons, John and Tonto hit the trail to bring their quarry to justice.
The history of this movie is a complicated one. It spent years in development, suffered from numerous production delays and problems with its budget, was met with overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics upon its release, and has been classified as a flop after underperforming at the box office. And while one can make an argument that The Lone Ranger is a flawed, imperfect movie, I still thought it was a fun, entertaining flick that I actually really liked, Rotten Tomatoes score be damned.
I've seen the movie described as what would happen if the Pirates of the Caribbean movies were Westerns, and I can't say that's an inaccurate description. The movie feels an awful lot like one of the Pirates movies, due in large part to the fact that producer Jerry Bruckheimer, director Gore Verbinski, the writers, and the star have all reunited for this particular adventure. From a directorial standpoint, Verbinski's work is much in the same vein as his efforts on the first three Pirates movies, with a stylistic flair and an exciting energy that keeps the viewer engaged in even the silliest moments. The movie's faults aside, Verbinski does a fine job holding it all together.
My biggest complaint is that I wish Verbinski had spent a little more time in the editing room, jettisoning some of the useless fluff that populates the movie. The Lone Ranger didn't need to be two and a half hours long, and getting rid of some of the filler could have streamlined things a bit.
Though to tell you the truth, I'd blame the script for that just as much as I would Verbinski. Writers Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott, and Terry Rossio have cobbled together a script that is bloated, unfocused, and overlong. Did we absolutely need that little subplot with a one-legged brothel madam played by Helena Bonham Carter? And was a cannibalistic outlaw not enough of a villain for them that they had to add some dumb conspiracy surrounding silver mines and the Transcontinental Railroad? Did they have to include a poorly-done love interest and a kid that don't contribute very much to the movie? If Haythe, Elliott, and Rossio had left out all this extraneous stuff, the movie might have been a little better. But all it does is show that Rossio and Elliott didn't learn their lesson after writing Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.
Another problem I had with the script is how the Lone Ranger is depicted. For the first two hours of the movie, he's an ineffectual ninny who constantly needs to be saved or at the very least pointed in the right direction by Tonto. It isn't until the climax that he finally comes into his own and acts like the hero the Lone Ranger is supposed to be. I understand that this is an origin story and John Reid isn't necessarily going to be the Ranger right away, but you'd think that he'd be less of a wimp. Then again, the writers seem to be somewhat aware of this, considering how often Tonto and other characters mock his seeming ineptitude. It still doesn't change the fact that Tonto has to practically drag him into heroism kicking and screaming, though.
But at least the cast contributes some decent performances despite the flaws with the material. William Fichtner makes for a great bad guy, even though I wish his role had been written stronger. I'd have liked to see him be the movie's sole bad guy, since that might have given him a little more room to work with, but I guess it's too late to go back and change that now. And I can say the same for Tom Wilkinson, who plays a corrupt railroad tycoon. The character is dull as dishwater for much of the movie, but that's no fault of Wilkinson's. He does as good a job as he can with what he's given, weak as it may be.
And even though I've complained about how the character was a wuss for much of the movie, I thought Armie Hammer was still great as the Lone Ranger. He's funny and charming, and when he finally gets to engage in some heroics, Hammer does a fine job. The choice to cast Hammer as such an iconic character has been hotly debated in some of the other reviews I've read online. Not everybody thought he was the right fit for the role, but I actually thought he did the absolute best he could. And had the character been written more genuinely heroic for a longer portion of the movie than just the climax, Hammer's portrayal of the Lone Ranger could have possibly gotten more acclaim.
Everyone in the cast, however, is overshadowed by Johnny Depp as Tonto. Going into the movie, I thought it was somewhat perplexing that Depp got top billing even over Hammer, despite Hammer being the movie's title character. I figured it was just because Depp is more famous, similar to how Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman were billed higher than Christopher Reeve in Superman. But after seeing the movie, I'm guessing it's also because Depp stole the movie and ran away with it. He's basically playing Captain Jack Sparrow if he were a Native American, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. It makes his scenes more fun, more engaging. And getting to see even a little bit of Captain Jack in a movie that doesn't totally suck (I'm looking at you, On Stranger Tides) is okay by me.
The fact that The Lone Ranger tanked is disappointing, but not surprising. The movie was marketed towards younger audiences, but how many people under the age of 30 have even heard of the Lone Ranger and Tonto? It's a shame too, because the movie actually left me wanting to see a sequel, one that will probably never happen now. I enjoyed the movie a lot, warts and all, and if there's never another Lone Ranger movie, then I'm satisfied with this one. Hi-yo, Silver, away!
Final Rating: ***½
No comments:
Post a Comment