Feels like we've been here before haven't we?
About a year ago, I wrote a defense of "Legend of the Lone Ranger," the infamous Klinton Splisbury-starring misfire that derailed any hopes of further Lone Ranger movies for a good three decades.
So here we are again. Another Ranger film. Another defense. Usually, I defend older films whose reputations have taken a serious beating. Here's my first defense of a contemporary film whose reputation is only beginning to suffer — somewhat unjustly I might add.
I began hearing buzz about a new Ranger film at least ten years ago, but the project kept getting stalled and seemed to permanently reside in "Development Hell," until it was rescued by the interest of megastar Johnny Depp, who expressed a desire to play Tonto, and tell the story from his point of view.
Apparently, that was good enough for Disney, who was reaping untold billions thanks to his portrayal of Jack Sparrow in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films. Still, even after Depp was attached it took another five years from script to screen. And at the eleventh hour, the plug was entirely pulled with Disney execs claiming the production was way over budget. Filmmakers promised to cut about $35 million, and the project was finally greenlit.
I had high hopes for the film, primarily because the Ranger is my Dad's favorite childhood hero. He grew up loving the western, the dominant genre of the 1950s, and the heroes it spawned, like the Ranger, the Cisco Kid and Hopalong Cassidy. He also has a soft spot for swashbucklers like Robin Hood and Zorro. So my love of heroes doesn't fall far from the tree.
After the initial disappointment of the Spilsbury feature, over the years both my Dad and I came to regard it as a flawed, yet decent effort. Once superhero films started being produced with reckless abandon, it was only a matter of time before there would be renewed interest in the Ranger (as there had been with Zorro).
I kept my Dad updated with any morsel I could find about the film, and to say he was a bit dismayed when he saw the first pic of Depp in full dead-crow headdress would be an understatement, but we still held out hope the film would not be a complete farce.
The trailers arrived to much fanfare, emphasizing the film's action and humor. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is well known for his loud, overblown set pieces and this looked like no exception. Armie Hammer was cast as the Ranger after his big splash in "The Social Network," and he proved himself appropriately square jawed and dashing, a stark counterpoint to Depp's bizarrely attired faithful Indian companion.
Upon its release earlier this month, critics leapt on the film with the same zeal they did the 1981 feature, heralding it as equally disastrous. Any hopes of a Lone Ranger franchise were dashed as the box office tally rolled in, and there was a sense we had to act quickly to see it before it disappeared from the multiplex.
Was it an unbridled disaster? Far from it. I found it to be a much stronger effort than the 1981 version, but I certainly had my issues with it.
It was definitely too long. Some judicious cutting here and there would've improved the pacing and trimmed the fat. I don't know why Bruckheimer films need to be so long and bloated, but I could've done without some of the sillier set pieces, like the scorpion burial scene.
I like Johnny Depp, but his increasingly bizarre choices as an actor leave me wondering: is he all about the satire now? Admittedly, he does it well, but there's still a great actor buried underneath all the quizzical glances, facial tics and wacky makeup.
The film straddles the line between satire and homage, and never seems sure what it wants to be. As a fan of the superhero genre, I'm always deeply interested in the transformation from common man to hero. This film is completely faithful to the Ranger's origins and Armie Hammer's performance is believable, yet too often he comes off as an ignorant buffoon to the smarter, shrewder Tonto.
Critics have come down on the film's plot as incoherent. I didn't find that to be the case at all. While Butch Cavendish (a deliciously evil William Fichtner) is still the man responsible for the Ranger massacre he is the puppet of Latham Cole (Tom Wilkinson), a megalomaniac who seeks to assert his control over the United States through the burgeoning railroad system. Both men are appropriately wicked in their respective roles.
The action, while at times over the top and straining the laws of physics, is thrilling, especially when the William Tell Overture finally starts blaring near the climax. And it's at that moment you feel as though Hammer has finally embodied the heroism and courage of the Ranger. It takes him a while to realize that true justice doesn't necessarily reside in his precious law books. Yet, he never breaks the Ranger's code and remains true to the roots of the character created by George W. Trendle.
A perfect example of a complete and utter tonal misfire would be Seth Rogan's recent "Green Hornet" which was a totally wasted effort that made the character radioactive for at least a decade. Interestingly, the Hornet is another Trendle creation (and the nephew of the Lone Ranger) and that version starred Tom Wilkinson as well (he also appeared in Batman Begins as a more contemporary version of Latham Cole).
Unfortunately, the Ranger is probably radioactive now too, which is sad as there is so much potential in the character and the western genre. Despite the reception, I'm glad the film happened, and that this generation has a chance to discover the masked rider of the plains. Hopefully it finds an audience and another producer takes up the mantle in the not-too-distant future.
Comments