The Lone Ranger: Hi-Ho Silver!

Jerry Bruckheimer is having a tough time these days.  He's picking movies that are supposed to be making billions worldwide on a grand scale that people enjoy, then immediately forget.  Now, he's in a bit of trouble.  Trying to recoup $800 million in expenses from a remake of a show that was on in the 40s and 50s.  Not exactly a summer winner by far.  I still remember when he was putting out great movies like Bad Boys, The Rock and Enemy of the State.  Fun, yet smart and very entertaining fare for moviegoers.  Now, it's him trying to find the next Pirates.  While The Lone Ranger is certainly no Pirates of the Caribbean, it definitely doesn't deserve the harshly negative reviews it has been getting.

Written by Pirates scribes Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, The Lone Ranger chronicles the life of John Reid, his origins in becoming said Lone Ranger, his meeting and eventual friendship with oddball indian Tonto and saving the town from a couple of baddies.  While the movie is obviously too long, the plot is a fun ride.  John, his brother Dan and a few Texas Rangers are sent out to capture known killer Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), Butch and his men kill everyone save for John.  Tonto discovers a wounded John, saves him and the two partner up to seek revenge on Butch.  There's a ton of subplots however that involve building a railroad through Cherokee land, broken white and indian treaties, etc. etc.  It can become a tad convoluted (like most of Elliot and Rossio's scripts are-- did you see the third Pirates??), but overall it's still pretty fun.  What the epic duo do best in their writing, along with collaborator and director Gore Verbinski, is know how to take a big budget action film, ripe with hardcore violent situations, and still make it fun.  There are a lot of funny moments in the film, some a little too silly to be appropriate, but it's in their humor a good script is derived.

I think what has happened here, however, is that The Lone Ranger just isn't a marketable movie.  Just as John Carter or Prince of Persia fell by the wayside, none of those films really appeal to the masses.  John Carter was about Mars starring people no one really liked.  Prince was a period piece that Jake Gyllenhaal wasn't strong enough to draw in the crowd.  Now, with Ranger you do have a big name attached in Johnny Depp, but as Tonto, he tends to draw back to his weird schticky Captain Jack Sparrow quirk a little too heavily and the majority of audiences are a mite tired of it.  I, personally, still enjoy watching Depp act weird and crazy, and I get a big kick out of it.  But, the masses are looking for something fresh, something new, something different from Depp.  I also believe that a big-budget western film is hard to sell in any market.  Westerns are a very niche genre and one that a lot of people aren't fans of.  So, to revive a story from the late 40s and market it towards audiences from ages 12-30 that most aren't even familiar with in the first place or have any clue who The Lone Ranger actually was... it was bound to fail from the beginning.  Back that with bad reviews and, my friends, you've got a flop on your hands.

Normally, this would be a movie I avoid altogether.  Much like Prince of Persia or John Carter, films like those aren't ones I rush out to see when Summer arrives.  However, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting William Fichtner (seriously one of the greatest character actors of our time) and he talked of how much fun he had shooting the film.  He also gave the film the Fichtner seal of approval.  This was good enough for me.  I've always been a fan of his work, and with him playing the villain, I was sold.  And while he probably is the best part of the movie (his talent far exceeds films like this) the rest of the cast wasn't terrible either.  Armie Hammer played the character a little too rigid and a lot of the silliness stems from him, but he's a decent Lone Ranger choice.  Johnny Depp is good for a few laughs.  Tom Wilkinson is always a joy to watch.  And Helena Bonham Carter serves her purpose, like everything else she's been in.  But, there was just something about the movie that didn't make it feel like a whole.  It's like the writers watched every episode of the TV series and tried to combine two or three seasons worth of plot into one overly long film.

But, trust me when I say this: it's not as bad as you keep hearing.  If you find yourself in a theater watching it, just know that you WILL be entertained.  Yes, you will laugh at some bad dialogue.  Yes, you will scoff at some ridiculously dumb moments.  But, on the whole you won't be leaving as angry as you think you might.  It's not as big of a bomb as Wild Wild West was back in '99, but it's not the summer's saving grace as Bruckheimer was hoping for.  It's the epitome of summer wrapped in a wet blanket.  It's big, it's loud, it's dumb, but it's also a lot of fun.

B-