The Lone Ranger (2013)

It seems like it’s been ages since I read an article describing Disney’s recent acquisition of a new Lone Ranger project. I remember looking at an early production photo of Johnny Depp drenched in makeup, wearing a bird hat, and I remember chuckling and thinking, “This will never get finished.” Now it is years later and The Lone Ranger movie was completed after all. Here it is and there it goes.

You know a movie that takes six years to get from point A to point B has something wrong with it. I haven’t heard much about the production of The Lone Ranger, except that it was extremely troubled throughout, but I can see the results. It appears that all of Disney’s costly efforts to modernize an entertainment icon that is known to be extremely old-fashioned were in vain. Long before the movie was ever released this Independence Day, general public disinterest was already brewing. The opening weekend did horrendous business as critics tore the movie apart and families opted to see the bright and cheery Despicable Me 2 rather than submit themselves to yet another two and a half hours of gravelly-voiced superheroes leaping over things. Yes, not even heroes of the Old West have been spared from the trend of turning classic adventure characters in brooding action stars. Ironically, this very approach that is supposed to make things more interesting makes everything just more boring. Still, as far as failures go, this is probably one of the easiest to watch.

I think director Gore Verbinski did his homework. This is a beautifully filmed movie, reminiscent in style of classic westerns, particularly those of Sergio Leone. What the movie lacks has nothing to do with looks, but what to do with them. The story of this film is no more complex than the half-hour radio shows that inspired it. Then why on Earth is it so doggone long? No child and only brain-dead adults will be able to sit still through the entire thing. There just isn’t enough going on and what is going on is uninspired. The big action sequences, which probably make up about half of the movie, involve trains. I have written before about my feelings on trains, mainly that they are very dull things that provide little opportunity for good action. The movies that I’ve seen that did make trains exciting did so by placing the action either inside the train (The Lady Vanishes) or around it (The French Connection). The movies, like this one and the abysmal Unstoppable, that try to place action on top of the train always fail because there’s just nothing unpredictable one can do while atop a train. These movies usually resort to silly or downright unbelievable antics to keep things moving and it just doesn’t work.

Anyway, The Lone Ranger suffers from more than unexciting action scenes. A bizarre narrative decision is made in which the entire story of the movie is told by Tonto, the Lone Ranger’s Indian sidekick, years after the events of the picture occur. Tonto is very old now and apparently a sideshow attraction at a circus. A young boy dressed as the Lone Ranger wanders into the tent and inspires the old man to tell his story. This is a terrible set-up for many reasons. First, it doesn’t make much sense since Tonto goes into his act for almost no reason and surely the boy has parents or something that are wondering where he ran off to for hours. Also, it adds unnecessary length to an already unnecessarily long movie. The main action of the movie is repeatedly interrupted to cut back to the old man telling the story, just in case we forgot that that was the movie’s angle. Most importantly, one wonders why anyone thought this angle was needed in the first place. It adds no depth, interest or excitement to the actual story, so why not just tell the story? It could have used some editing as is.

Finally, I must address the movie’s most absurd flaw: the casting of Johnny Depp. Why there hasn’t been an uproar about his appearance here is beyond me, especially after how much bad publicity last year’s excellent Cloud Atlas received because of this very issue. Whereas that movie had a very good, thematically essential reason for actors of one race playing characters of another, The Lone Ranger could have actually benefited from a Native American playing Tonto. Depp has lost a lot of popularity in the last few years after starring in such awful movies as The Tourist and Dark Shadows. He is never actually bad in his roles, but they are bad roles nonetheless. People are starting to catch on to his shtick and are tired of it. As Tonto, Depp is appropriately wacky, but rarely entertaining. He is just one miscalculation in a movie made up of almost nothing but.

Don’t worry, I’m done. The list of things The Lone Ranger does wrong is so lengthy because it does so few things right. It’s far from unwatchable, even very pleasing to look at on occasion, but I’m glad it’s not doing well. Maybe audiences are finally wising up to the uselessness of movies like this.  They don’t do anything new, offering more or less the same movie you just saw last month. They aren’t really enjoyable (Although families should enjoy the sight of the villain cutting open a man’s chest and eating his heart. Not.). Worst of all, they have an almost abrasive disrespect for the people who see them. Despicable Me 2 may not be a masterpiece, but families can at least find some fun there. I now speak to all Americans equally when I advise recognition of the Lone Ranger boycott. You all deserve better.

4/10