There's a scene in The Lone Ranger that encapsulates much of what is wrong with the film. In it, Tonto and the Potential Lone Ranger (he hasn't accepted the job yet) are sitting in front of a campfire at night. A rabbit is roasting on the spit. Quietly, gently, a group of rabbits gently bobs into view. Tonto, making some remark about nature being out of whack, tears off a chunk of rabbit meat and throws it to the curious bunnies...who erupt into a carnivorous, cannibalistic feeding frenzy.
(Tim the Enchanter would cry, "See? See? I warned ya...")
That scene is completely insane. It doesn't make a lick of sense, doesn't have a thing to do with the story, and adds nothing to the story. It's only there because someone thought it would look cool.
The entire film is like that. It is stuffed full of crap that someone thought would look cool, with no consideration as to whether any of these cool things would contribute to a story.
The film made its first colossal mistake with casting Johnny Depp as Tonto. Depp as Tonto is, if you'll pardon the pun, beyond the pale. Racial connotations aside, it just annoys the living hell out of me that an early 60's television show could cast Jay Silverheels as Tonto, but a 21st century film couldn't be bothered to find a Native American actor.
After that, the film stumbles straight out of the gate with a pointless framing device. It begins in 1933 San Francisco, where a young boy stares at an exhibit, "The Noble Savage," and, voila, that noble savage comes to life and is Tonto as a wizened old man. Tonto the Ancient then tells the boy the story of the Lone Ranger.
Why? Why are we wasting time with this nonsense? The kid is cute and Depp's Tonto the Ancient make-up is pretty impressive, but this rambling cuteness serves no purpose whatsoever.
When we finally get into the story and meet John Reid (Armie Hammer), the man who will become the Lone Ranger, we discover he's an idiot. What is it with Hollywood that they've opted to take solid hero characters and turn them into buffoons? (For other examples: The Green Hornet and The Green Lantern. Don't see them, take my word for it, they're awful, even worse that The Lone Ranger.) John meets up with his brother Dan Reid (James Badge Dale) who is everything John is not: heroic, brave, able to know right from wrong, and immediately able to decide how to confront and deal with evil.
During this intro, John also meets up with Tonto, who is apparently insane. Or is he? He talks of spirit walkers and magical horses and nature out of balance and blah blah blather. When it becomes clear that Tonto has suffered a mental break from reality, this begins to make sense, and really might have been an intriguing spin on the character.
Except that there really does appear to be a spirit walker and the horse does do magical things and those damn rabbits are eating cooked rabbit flesh, etc., so maybe he's not crazy. Only he is, really. Maybe. Argh!
There's no point in really describing the plot other than to say that there's too much of it; it's ridiculously complicated, complex, and convoluted. The Lone Ranger never decides what sort of film it wants to be, so it is stuffed to overflowing with...stuff. It's as though there’s a Rolodex of plot points and ideas somewhere, and director Gore Verbinski simply rifled through it and never, ever decided what he didn't need. Instead he opted for answer Z, All the Above.
Despite all of that, there are some attractive elements to the film. William Fichtner is one of the key villains of villainy. He's a great actor who, as here, is often just wasted talent. Nonetheless, he puts his all into the part and, under a layer of really spectacular makeup (he's essentially unrecognizable) he doesn't so much chew scenery as swallow it whole. Saginaw Grant demonstrates that, yes, there are Native Americans perfectly capable of playing leading roles, even though here he's barely a sideshow. Indeed, I believe every other Indian in the film is played by an actual Native American actor, so why the hell did Johnny—
Wait, I’m supposed to be talking about the good things in the film. Sorry, back to that...
The cinematography is great and the visual effects work is flawless. The film is beautiful to look at, resurrecting the old west in fine and loving attention to detail. There's the sweeping majesty to those deserts and the action sequences are crisp, the sound detail marvelous, and entire film is assembled with care.
The music is by Hans Zimmer, who arranges the finest rendition of The William Tell Overture, the official music of the Lone Ranger since the dawn of time, that I've ever heard. This is when John finally becomes the Lone Ranger and a fantastic, if somewhat fantastical, action sequence unfolds. This is probably why I was willing to shell out $10 for the video disc.
If only the rest of the film had been made with the same verve and dynamic. Alas...
I've actually watched the film a couple of times. It's like a dreadful car, train, aircraft, and ship wreck. You know it's dreadful, you know it's horrible, and you can't tear your eyes away. I can't really recommend it, unless you can get it on the cheap like I did. Instead, buy the last two songs on the soundtrack. "Finale" will get you that excellent rendition of William Tell, and "Home" (played in the film over the closing credits) is simply one of the most moving pieces of music I've ever heard.
The film doesn't live up to either. It's not even "so bad it’s good" material. It's just dreadful. And I'm tempted to watch it again.
Oh no, I've become Tonto! Am I insane, or...?
Comments