The Lone Ranger (2013)

[MmzHrrdb]

When one walks into a film directed by Gore Verbinski and starring Johnny Depp, one has to be prepared to suspend their disbelief once in a while during outrageous action scenes. The Lone Ranger is no exception, but this movie pushes the boundaries of ignorance even farther than the Pirates of the Caribbean films. The number of ridiculous coincidences, miraculous death escapes, and dumb luck in this picture is too large to count. It falls past the mark of forgiveness and into the vast unknown of sheer absurdity. For that reason (among others), The Lone Ranger can be easily enjoyed as an embarrassment to the names of everyone involved. But there's just enough legitimately good stuff in this movie to make one yearn for the fun film it could have been.

So, I'm not quite sure what the film was all about; the whole affair just seemed like a blur of dull conversations, sporadic weird-ness, and the occasional (and preposterous) action scene. As far as I can tell, this movie is about John Reid, a lawyer who is out to find the men that killed his brother. And also, there's Johnny Depp talking to a horse now and then. That's more or less, the gist of this film.

The Pirates of the Caribbean films, while mindless and often remarkably stupid, still manage to be decent fun most of the time, providing colorful characters are impressive action sequences. Some of this is still true of The Lone Ranger, but in considerably smaller increments- with the exception being the stupidity, which has been massively inflated, resulting in a treasure trove of unintentional comedy.

The extent of the stupidity knows no bound. The script- which contains more than its fare share of bad dialogue- is all over the place. It never keeps the tone consistent, and the same goes for the character personalities (the exception being Tonto, though his personality is no more elaborate than Jack Sparrow with a dead bird on his head). There are various needlessly convoluted conversations (which are therefore, needlessly dull), and the attempts at comedy are often embarrassingly juvenile. In other words, there are poop jokes.

What's more, the script is terribly lazy. Many, many incidents are left unexplained. Example: During one scene, John Reid wakes up, and finds himself on a small platform that is several hundred feet high (you've likely seen this bit in the trailer). The next scene, he is no longer on the platform, but speaking with Tonto. It is never explained how he got off of the platform, and for that matter, it's never explained why he was there to begin with. This is only a single example, but there are numerous.

Furthermore, the script has the bizarre idea to have the entire story narrated by Tonto over 60 years in the future to a young boy. The film will randomly cut back to Tonto and the young boy, and these cuts back never feel natural, and they always take one completely out of the story (or at least what passes for a story in this film).

As I briefly touched upon before, this film is everywhere tonally. While it's often a fun, light-hearted adventure, it randomly cavorts into the dark and oddly depressing. One extensive massacre of seemingly hundreds of Native Americans is an unfortunate example of this.

And did I mention that the love interest of the title character is actually his sister-in-law, whom his brother married? What?!

There are action sequences in this film, but they're not as large in number as one might hope. Most of the film is devoted to tedious conversations and hit-or-miss comedy. What action scenes are there tend to be fairly forgettable. The highlight of these sequences (and the of the film) is one extensive train/horse chase/fight near the end. It's still preposterous, but it is undeniably fun.

If more of the film had focused on this care-free, high-energy mood, this could have been as fun as the best of the Pirates films. Unfortunately, too much of this film is focused on convoluted plot details, and weird Depp antics.

The acting in this film is often embarrassing. Armie Hammer as John Reid never hits the right note. He always feels out of place in this film, and never gets into the role. Of course, considering the script he had to work with, it's unlikely even the best of actors could have made this look good. Johnny Depp as Tonto is sporadically entertaining, but occasionally terrible. Some of his comedic bits work, and others are cringe-worthy. Scenes that involve him talking to horses are especially bad. The other performances are generally lifeless.

The score, composed by Hans Zimmer, is fun at times. But it's constantly quoting his score from Inception (and more infrequently, Sherlock Holmes and Rango). It's frustrating, and distracting. However, the extensive use of the William Tell Overture during the action sequence at the end is clever, and very entertaining.

As much as I'm tearing The Lone Ranger apart, I didn't hate it. Because of its preposterous nature and numerous unintentional laughs, The Lone Ranger is reasonably entertaining. Unfortunately, the comic nature of some scenes and sequences aren't fully embraced consistently. The film often gets too caught up in uninteresting plot threads and tedious dialogue to focus on just having a good time. The key to getting the most out of The Lone Ranger, is to see it with friends. You'll all laugh aloud at the film's absurdity, and hopefully get a kick out of the end. If you're watching on your own, expect to doze off, zone out, or wonder aloud why Johnny Depp would allow himself to be humiliated in this way.

Score: 5/10

[PeaceAnarchy]

The number of ridiculous coincidences, miraculous death escapes, and dumb luck in this picture is too large to count. It falls past the mark of forgiveness and into the vast unknown of sheer absurdity.

What's more, the script is terribly lazy. Many, many incidents are left unexplained. Example: During one scene, John Reid wakes up, and finds himself on a small platform that is several hundred feet high (you've likely seen this bit in the trailer). The next scene, he is no longer on the platform, but speaking with Tonto. It is never explained how he got off of the platform, and for that matter, it's never explained why he was there to begin with. This is only a single example, but there are numerous.

Furthermore, the script has the bizarre idea to have the entire story narrated by Tonto over 60 years in the future to a young boy. The film will randomly cut back to Tonto and the young boy, and these cuts back never feel natural, and they always take one completely out of the story (or at least what passes for a story in this film).

The whole film is playing on the idea of an unreliable narrator and critiquing the mythologizing and aggrandizing of the old west that is a standard of not just the Lone Ranger character but the entire Western genre.

You can argue that it fails, or that it's not interesting or whatever else, but the film stretching credulity beyond the breaking point, having little reasonable continuity and leaving key points unexplained is undoubtedly intentional, and I would argue effective.

[ShogunRua]

The number of ridiculous coincidences, miraculous death escapes, and dumb luck in this picture is too large to count. It falls past the mark of forgiveness and into the vast unknown of sheer absurdity. For that reason (among others), The Lone Ranger can be easily enjoyed as an embarrassment to the names of everyone involved.

I take it you hated the Indiana Jones films?

[mattorama12]

The whole film is playing on the idea of an unreliable narrator and critiquing the mythologizing and aggrandizing of the old west that is a standard of not just the Lone Ranger character but the entire Western genre.

You can argue that it fails, or that it's not interesting or whatever else, but the film stretching credulity beyond the breaking point, having little reasonable continuity and leaving key points unexplained is undoubtedly intentional, and I would argue effective.

Interesting. I did not make that connection at all. I guess it deserves a bit more credit than I was giving it, though I'll still say it's not effective at all.

I take it you hated the Indiana Jones films?

Ahhh, the old "too fake" debate. People always criticize movies for being too fake or for having plot holes, despite the fact that they'll love other movies, despite the fact that the same critiques could be leveled against them.

I think the too fake argument always really comes back to other more basic flaws, and the audience's notice of things seeming fake is just a symptom of that. In The Lone Ranger, the film's tone shifts are brutal. The climatic railway scene at the end simply does not belong in the same movie as that Native American massacre scene. That's not to say that fun and drama can't exist in the same film (see, e.g., almost all of my favorite movies), but it's done horribly here. Indiana Jones is successful because, despite its stretching of reality, it sets out to entertain, it sets an early tone for stretching believability, and it plays by its own rules.

The point is, I agree that it's unfair to criticize The Lone Ranger for being unrealistic. That said, the fact that one is drawn to that criticism in the first place is indicative of other, more fundamental failings in the movie.

[MmzHrrdb]

The number of ridiculous coincidences, miraculous death escapes, and dumb luck in this picture is too large to count. It falls past the mark of forgiveness and into the vast unknown of sheer absurdity. For that reason (among others), The Lone Ranger can be easily enjoyed as an embarrassment to the names of everyone involved.

I take it you hated the Indiana Jones films?

Actually, your comment made me chuckle.

I do, in fact, enjoy the Indiana Jones films, as well as most of the Pirates films. For me, this one pushes the boundary even farther, and it seems totally unaware that it's doing so. In films like Indiana Jones and Pirates, it's clear to the audience how ridiculous everything is, but the film is clearly reveling in its absurdity that it all works. I don't even think The Lone Ranger realized how ridiculous its own movie was.

That's really the best way I can explain it.

[ShogunRua]

Ahhh, the old "too fake" debate. People always criticize movies for being too fake or for having plot holes, despite the fact that they'll love other movies, despite the fact that the same critiques could be leveled against them.

I think the too fake argument always really comes back to other more basic flaws, and the audience's notice of things seeming fake is just a symptom of that. In The Lone Ranger, the film's tone shifts are brutal. The climatic railway scene at the end simply does not belong in the same movie as that Native American massacre scene. That's not to say that fun and drama can't exist in the same film (see, e.g., almost all of my favorite movies), but it's done horribly here. Indiana Jones is successful because, despite its stretching of reality, it sets out to entertain, it sets an early tone for stretching believability, and it plays by its own rules.

The point is, I agree that it's unfair to criticize The Lone Ranger for being unrealistic. That said, the fact that one is drawn to that criticism in the first place is indicative of other, more fundamental failings in the movie.

Completely agree, and couldn't have stated it better myself. Films can't mix and match absurd, escapist entertainment with brutal scenes meant to draw the viewer's sympathy willy-nilly. But of course, that's a different criticism than "too fake"!

I do, in fact, enjoy the Indiana Jones films, as well as most of the Pirates films. For me, this one pushes the boundary even farther, and it seems totally unaware that it's doing so. In films like Indiana Jones and Pirates, it's clear to the audience how ridiculous everything is, but the film is clearly reveling in its absurdity that it all works. I don't even think The Lone Ranger realized how ridiculous its own movie was.

Now this is a legitimate criticism. One of the main things I take movies to task for is taking themselves dead-seriously when they're utterly unrealistic and contrived.

There is a long, long tradition of "ridiculous coincidences, miraculous death escapes, and dumb luck" in action/adventure films as well as earlier comics/radio serials and the like. Media mainly tarted towards young boys.

I was thinking about this yesterday, and an excellent early example would be the Tin-Tin comics. First gaining popularity in the 30s, they are almost nothing BUT skin-of-the-teeth, miraculous escapes, most born of utterly ridiculous coincidences. Of course, I loved them as a kid.

[mattorama12]

For me, this one pushes the boundary even farther, and it seems totally unaware that it's doing so. In films like Indiana Jones and Pirates, it's clear to the audience how ridiculous everything is, but the film is clearly reveling in its absurdity that it all works. I don't even think The Lone Ranger realized how ridiculous its own movie was.

Yeah, that's exactly right. You, me, and Shogun are all saying the same thing--I just think it's good to explain why the lack of realism can bring down a film, since stretching reality is not in and of itself a death knell for a film.

Anyway, good review. It's made me think more about this movie than I thought I'd ever care to do again, but I'm glad I did (I still think the movie was shit though.)