The Lone Ranger
The Lone Ranger
The Lone Ranger
Directed by:
Gore VerbinskiCinematography:
Bojan BazelliComposer:
Hans ZimmerCast:
Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, Tom Wilkinson, William Fichtner, Ruth Wilson, Helena Bonham Carter, James Badge Dale, Barry Pepper, James Frain, Leon Rippy (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
Native American Tonto (Johnny Depp) tells the story of how lawman John Reid (Armie Hammer) became the legendary, masked figure known as the Lone Ranger. Tonto first encounters Reid when captured outlaw Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) escapes custody, aided by his gang. Joining a group of Texas Rangers that include his brother Dan (James Badge Dale), Reid chases the wanted men but becomes the sole survivor of an ambush attack. Disguising himself from his enemies, who believe him to be dead, the Lone Ranger forms an unlikely partnership with Tonto and together they fight for justice against Cavendish and power-hungry railroad tycoon Latham Cole (Tom Wilkinson). (Disney / Buena Vista)
(more)Reviews (14)
The most underrated blockbuster of the year. Admittedly uneven in pace, with occasional dullness in the middle passage and some forced humour courtesy of a goofy Depp, but otherwise full of playfulness, likeable exuberance, unprecedented production design and top-notch choreography in several action passages. And please, screw the fact that Depp is just recycling Jack Sparrow, I’m not going to deny excellent craftsmanship because of that.
()
Great summer entertainment. It’s just a shame about those two unentertaining hours that precede it. Gore Verbinski is capable of building a more or less clear, gag-laden action scene, but he is incapable of combining the individual attractions into a sensibly cohesive whole. The entire film oscillates between paying tribute to and ridiculing classic westerns (from Ford to Leone, from whom the screenwriters stole the most), which leads to jarringly sharp transitions between affected heroism and infantile humour along the lines of Mel Brooks’s weaker parodies. The film doesn’t manage to find a balance between sentimental and grotesque; no idea taken from any distant genre is too bizarre (the eating of a heart, bloodthirsty rabbits) and no joke is too cheap (horse dung). The stringing together of various western motifs, which are derived either from individual films or from the conventions of the genre in general, lacks any higher order and comes across as being rather random. The film thus seems tediously long, or rather seems like it’s long only for the sake of being long. Because it lacks a coherent narrative that constantly refers to something, The Lone Ranger fails to draw the viewer into the story. It also isn’t helped by the fact that it follows a four-act structure with a gradual piling-up of obstacles to overcome and goals to be achieved (hunt down Butch; capture Butch and save Rebecca; catch Butch, save Rebecca and bring the other villain to justice). The protagonists do not undergo any character transformation, the motifs are either repeated so frequently that they lose their comedic value (e.g. the running gags with the mask and feeding a bird), or they serve solely for momentary amusement, and you don’t have to have the tracking skills of an Indian scout to figure out far in advance what “twist” is coming at any time in the course of the film. Though the climax is excellent in and of itself and recalls Buster Keaton’s best moments, it snuffs out all of the storylines with pointless action that doesn’t resolve anything and that could have been placed anywhere else in the film (ideally right at the beginning, so you could leave the cinema feeling that you had already seen the best part of the film). The film establishes an alibi for its excessive ambition and capricious disjointedness by constructing a flimsy retrospective narrative framework (whose benefit to the narrative is best expressed with the word “gimmick”). The type of listener (a young boy fascinated by western legends) and the narrator’s inability to sustain an idea correspond to the film’s flitting between humility and belittling of the genre. Due to the infrequent and unoriginal inclusion of metatextual remarks, I don’t believe this was a premeditated plan, but rather a desperate attempt to retroactively build a cohesive a story that didn’t really hold together. Tonto’s cleaning up among the other fairground attractions at least captures how the once-revered western genre is perceived today. The western legend has become a relic recalling the Wild West era. The fairground-attraction nature of Tonto’s new role logically requires that what he had experienced be reduced to the most distinctive features of the given period. Tonto’s story can thus be understood as a "best of" compilation of what makes a western a western, but that was previously covered by the story of Little Big Man, which had a much better screenplay and a protagonist who underwent much greater development, and whose narrative was motivated by the revision of certain western myths. Conversely, The Lone Ranger is a regressive (the woman as a beautiful, passive and defenceless object) and incoherent exhibition of what some people in Hollywood think of when they hear the word “western”. 55%
()
(less)
(more)
An alternative to the Pirates of the Caribbean. Same director, same music, same Depp and, surprisingly, also same Helena… on the other hand the setting is different, which is good. I’m really glad that Johnny Depp agreed to play the Indian in this movie. He’ll probably play weirdoes to the end of his life, because from what I see, he’s really found himself in these characters. I went to see this movie to have fun, relax and enjoy a nice adventurous movie that will make me laugh but also put me in awe over some of its action scenes. The actions scenes here are a bit on the weaker side, because they reek of CGI something terrible, but I guess it couldn’t have been any other way. Despite this flaw, the action is good and the movie is enjoyable. As a Disney product, this movie met my expectations to the fullest. The 151 minutes flew by as a one-day trip around the country. And I must say that it was a joy to spend time watching this movie, turning my brain off and enjoying some decent fun.
()
A small big man smokes a hallucinogenic peace pipe with Pirates of the Caribbean and a mute grotesque. A movie that looks like it's being told by a senile crazy Indian... because it's being told by a senile crazy Indian who also likes to listen to himself talk. The middle passage is a little weak, but otherwise I had a great time. Verbinski sometimes drowns in beloved references, but his "meta-westerns" are smarter than most genre competitors. That guy is not Tonto.
()
Cowboys and Indians for the twenty-first century pulling out all the stops; the bad ones and the good ones. And the dozens (dozens!) of neat, not immediately obvious allusions (the cicadas and the birds in the bush, the umbrella in the desert etc.), paradoxically more than in Rango, prove better than anything else that the creating team didn’t treat this as just another product. And, yes, this is unarguably “just" the Pirates of the Caribbean in Western garb. However, it should be said that, along with the first Pirates, this is the best to come out of that “series".
()
The Bruckheimer filters rather spoil the otherwise convincing western atmosphere served up to us so successfully by Verbinski. The struggle with this childish, sometimes infantile and senile (the narrator forgets to tell us all the details because he’s an old, crazy grampa) story is uphill. Good ideas here and there and the absolutely amazing train chase save the reputation of this movie. Hammer doesn’t stand out, Depp doesn’t disappoint and the only performance rally worth remembering is William Fichtner as an unscrupulous bad guy who laughs through his teeth. Zimmer’s music is again the tops and you can tell that he really enjoyed doing this movie.
()
A multi-genre homage to a century of cinema? The purest western with the most classic vaudeville gags? Indeed. A big train robbery and easy girls that even Méliès couldn't make up. Or Hell on Wheels through the lens of a comic book hero and progress that you can't stop, even in 1933 (that's when they could play with labels to make Tonto a notorious savage). General Custer keeps his narcissist in check at all times, the ugliest Jane Eyre Ruth Wilson has grown up a bit, Armie Hammer is a worthy successor to the Lone Rangers (ever since the 1933 radio series, novels, comics, and more) and of course, Tom Wilkinson and Helena Bonham Carter are absolute classics. And Hans Zimmer isn't ashamed to cram the entire "William Tell Overture" and its finale into the soundtrack!
()
It looked it’d be a real dud, but it’s watchable. Those who were thrilled by Pirates of the Caribbean or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull will certainly not be bored, as this film is similar both formally and aesthetically and in terms of the plot. It certainly has a unique mix of traditional Western elements (set design, costumes) perfectly matched in an excellent visual package (great effects, dynamic action scenes). The middle part of the film has are several redundant funny scenes and boring stretches, but William Fichtner and Tom Wilkinson are very entertaining, and the main duo of heroes is a classic. So, it’s fun though not impressive, and everyone knows how it will end from the beginning. Still a likable thing, though.
()
I can't remember the last time I had such a great time in the movie theatre. Gore Verbinski lived up to his reputation as a megalomaniac with a sense of humor, for which I am truly grateful. As well as for all the metric tons of references (not even Tarantino could squeeze that many tasteful quotes from Leone's films, from Once Upon a Time in the West to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to A Fistful of Dynamite, into all his films combined, not to mention the allusions to The Wild Bunch and many other classics of the genre)! The story has everything it should have and is very easily accessible even to people who don't know the Lone Ranger at all. The villains are extra negative, the two main positive heroes are likable, their (not only) verbal shootouts are excellent, Johnny Depp's every grimace is priceless (say what you will, critics). The finale of "Tonto on the Machine" is thrilling, extremely imaginative, funny and suspenseful, but I cannot agree with those who say that it is preceded by two hours of boredom. Bah! I'd much rather see a second installment of The Lone Ranger than a fifth Pirates, which has already burned out once without Verbinski. So, perhaps...
()
Exotic and beautifully shot summer bollocks. Depp is a lot of fun and Hammer is alright, but neither of them, nor the cookie-cutter script are enough to keep us interested for almost two and a half hours. It's a breezy and brilliantly scored adventure for the whole family, but it's cold as a penguin’s butt inside and relies too heavily on the fact that we're still interested in Depp's peculiar pirate character – very little from Verbinski. A better 3*
()
The story is not bad, but it is a little too drawn-out. However, all elements that defined the Wild West are well depicted - beautiful landscapes, wooden towns, railways, Native Americans, Chinese people, the relationship between white people and these minorities, the desire for gold, I mean, silver, etc. In this aspect, the film cannot be criticized much. It is also entertaining, which is good, but it is all very straightforward, the film tries too hard to please, it literally forces itself on you, so in the end, it will be one of those that you watch, have some fun, and forget about. It's a bit of a shame because the story has potential, just like the main character, but it would need to be approached differently for today's time. More: http://www.comics-blog.cz/2013/07/174-osamely-jezdec-2013-60.html
()
A strange mix of the grandiose and the grotesque, but one that works quite well. Johnny Depp is already a bit in "Sandler" mode here, but he basically fits his character's template to a tee. Gore Verbinski is a well-practiced megalomaniac, but compared to the likes of Michael Bay, he can actually be quite original and I don't get a sense of annoying repetitiveness in his work (which I often do with Bay). [75%]
()
This worked out pretty much as expected. The film may look nice, but it would have looked exactly the same with a $100 million less budget if there hadn’t been any filming complications ranging from bad weather to Verbinski's profligacy. For the first two hours there’s not much fun, the occasional jokes are mostly stupid without an idea, the plot has no unexpected twists, and overall there is an excessive elementalness everywhere. It's only in the last half hour that it picks up momentum to match the good old Pirates. Like the naval battles, the train scene has an intensity that the rest of the film is sorely lacking in all respects. Even with Zimmer, it seemed to me that the film slacked off the whole time and only at the end with the "Finale" from Willem Tell did things heat up.
()
Verbinski has officially lost his sense of proportion, and, honestly, who can blame him? Disney provided him with a budget the size of Somalia's annual budget, and Verbinski splurged it all on digital effects that are beyond saving. And if there was anything left, he transferred it to Depp's bank account, which means everyone is happy. Depp is an excellent actor. His astonished look, straight out of the Pirates of the Caribbean, is just awesome and some of his lines (especially in connection with the horse) are good. But his overall performance (actually, the whole movie) felt terribly artificial. Anyway, 151 minutes? You’ve gotta be kidding me. The first hour was the most boring hour of the entire 2013 film year and the rest of the movie was below average. Some scenes were downright embarrassing (bloodthirsty rabbits, oh, come on!). All the scenes with Bonham Carter were the most tedious moments of the whole movie, only confirming that I’m really not fond of this actress). Plus, it is obvious that the movie purposely didn’t reveal certain things to keep the door open for the second installment, but that was a gross miscalculation on the part of Verbinski and the Disney studios. And if it wasn't intentional, it was some seriously sloppy directing. Either way, I’m afraid we have the winner of the biggest flop of the year.
()