The Lone Ranger (2013) /// A Movie Review

You probably know by now that I'm a fan of the underdogs in media, such as The LEGO Ninjago Movie and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. They aren't critically acclaimed or have experienced a falling out, but I love them wholeheartedly. I consider it my duty to share my enthusiasm for them so that others might come to appreciate them as well.

That's where the 2013 film The Lone Ranger comes in.

source

Now, I've got three historical periods that I love in books, movies, and games: the feudal era of Japan, the Golden Age of Piracy, and the Wild West. When I saw the trailers for The Lone Ranger (which I'll probably be abbreviating to TLR for simplicity's sake), I was pumped. I hadn't really seen any movies about gunslingers facing off with train chases and epic shootouts. Western movies generally seem to be a thing of the past, so I anticipated a more modern film.

Then I heard that it bombed in the box office and was hated by many, many people. (I also heard some joke about it, but I can't recall it at the moment. Something about it being free on Black Friday and it not even being worth that? I don't quite remember.) I still wanted to watch it, but now I was a bit apprehensive. Was it as bad as people said? The only way to find out was by seeing it for myself.

Warning: potential spoilers ahead!

Plot

John Reid is a lawyer who's coming home. He's joining his brother, Dan, in a group of Texas Rangers, upholding the law on the untamed front. It's not his forte; he prefers to fight in a courtroom, not in the wild desert. But when a search for the infamous Butch Cavendish goes south, John is the only one who comes out alive.

Presumed dead, he must don a mask and become the Lone Ranger, a warrior for justice who operates outside of the Rangers' jurisdiction. With the help of Tonto and the spirit horse, Silver, he goes after Butch and his gang. But there's more going on here than meets the eye, and soon the duo uncover a plot bigger than both of them. They're the only ones who can stop it, but will they when both the law and the outlaws are against them?

Pros

Oh, where to begin? I'm predicting it now: I'm going to be all over the place in praising this film, so please bear with me. Let's start with the plot itself. Is it necessarily new and original? No, not really. But that doesn't mean using the tried-and-true is a bad thing. Sometimes we can get all up in arms because a movie or book doesn't do something we haven't seen yet. Falling back on what's worked before, while still adding your own elements to that, is okay. In fact, media like that can become a comfort movie/book.

What I'm trying to say is that it's fine for the movie to not try something extremely bold or daring. The plot still worked well for the movie, which means it's A-Okay with me. Speaking of the plot, I've heard it said that the runtime felt a little padded. I disagree. I never felt that any one scene was unimportant or too long. They each did what they were supposed to do, so again, no complaints from me. And to be honest, the story-within-a-story got me off-guard, so good for them.

What about the characters? Considering that Armie Hammer hadn't played in many movies beforehand, and this was supposed to be his big break, I think he excelled in his role. He captured the essence of the Lone Ranger perfectly: a man who follows the law without being in it, who refuses the mindset of "shoot to kill." Indeed, neither he nor Tonto directly kill foes, even when given the opportunity. You have to understand, this is coming from a guy who didn't grow up on the radio series and doesn't suffer from what I'd like to call the negative nostalgia syndrome. (In short, that's when fans of something old are always complaining about the new version and talking about how the old one was the best.) So I think Hammer nailed his character and brought some fresh life to him.

The casting of Tonto, however, was quite controversial. People wanted someone who fit that role in the racial sense. Meanwhile, I'm of the opinion that if the actor is good, the race doesn't make that much of a difference to me. I don't know why people don't get that. Take Black Panther, for example. Was it a great movie? Sure, but I wouldn't say it's Marvel's best film. But you see everyone praising it for having such a huge black cast, and I have to wonder how successful the movie would've been had the cast been white. It probably would have made less. That's not me saying I can't have other ethnicities play in movies, but my first question always is, "Can they act well?" not "What race are they?"

A rabbit trail, to be sure, so let's get back to Johnny Depp playing Tonto. I thought it was a perfectly acceptable decision. He's aced every role I've seen him play, and Tonto was no exception. Plus, he's got the best facial expressions, and you can't argue with that unless you're blind, in which case you can't see his face . . . Ahem. Anyway. With his tan and face paint, it didn't matter that he wasn't the proper ethnicity for the part. He still succeeded.

source

Other actors and actresses also did well. William Fichtner got the vibe of the cannibalistic Butch right; while I wouldn't say he was as creepy as, say, Heath Ledger's Joker, being a consumer of human flesh makes you pretty darn spooky in my books. Tom Wilkinson was the perfect greedy tycoon. I'm not going to mention everyone else, but I never felt like anyone's acting was sub-par.

Plot and characters are arguably the most vital elements, but you still need a great score. Hans Zimmer delivered, as he always does. Do yourself a favor and listen to TLR soundtrack. Not only does Zimmer keep his signature epic style, but he also gives it a delightful Western flavor. I'd have to say that the ten-minute track, "Finale," takes the cake, as he gives the "William Tell Overture" his treatment. I've read that he apparently used a sledgehammer and an old train engine near his house to create the forward momentum feeling for some of the songs. Basically, Zimmer is always a win.

Everything else, from CGI to the scenery to the cinematography, was wonderful. I never felt pulled out of my immersion by any of the elements in the film. And while I can't recall any really unique camera shots, that doesn't mean the camerawork was bad. I was hooked from the first second to the last.

Cons

How about the fact that it failed so miserably? That's definitely a negative. My cousin explained to me that Disney tends to put a lot of money into marketing select movies they hope will make it big, which are usually the ones that rake in the least amount of cash. TLR was one such film. He also told me that Westerns just aren't popular anymore, and so it was a bad time for it to release.

Hammer also said in an interview (which I read in this article) that critics had been attacking the movie for quite some time, as if determined to see it fail. And seeing as how the masses can have (not always) a general tendency to view critics as the be-all, end-all when it comes to cinematic opinions, the film crashed and burned. Which is completely unfair to me. Critics, who have never made a piece of art in their life, should not determine how well a movie/show/book/game does. Just saying.

As for actual content concerns, there is some swearing, but nothing out of the ordinary for your typical PG-13 film or TV-PG show. John and Tonto visit a brothel to get some information; nothing inappropriate is shown. The only thing we really see is a man try to force a woman to stay seated on his lap; some of the girls' outfits reveal cleavage; and Red, who runs the place, occasionally hikes up her dress on her fake leg so she can use the built-in gun. Rebecca Reid had a previous relationship with John before marrying Dan, but she clearly likes John more, so it's a bit strange until Dan dies and removes any further weirdness. Butch pees into a bucket, and we see him (and the stream) from behind.

Some violence occurs, like two outlaws having their heads crushed (it sounds worse than it looked), and a lot of people being mowed down by machine guns. Comeuppance is served in most spectacular fashions. I don't recall every single death, but there wasn't anything too bad. The worst was--obviously--Butch himself with his cannibalistic tendencies. He licks a knife with blood on it and has taken body parts from others. We see one example of this, when he takes out Dan's heart and bites into it. However, due to the fact that we're watching via a reflection in John's eyes, it's not as uncomfortable as it could've been.

source

There's also a general Native American spiritual aspect that comes into play, with John being a supposed spirit walker who can't die in battle, and Silver being a spirit horse. Some more sensitive people might not like this, but I took as just part of the storyworld. Some people might also argue that soldiers are portrayed as being evil, but I never got that sense. It was more of just one corrupt captain trying to save his hide and his men showing loyalty to him. This isn't a fully detailed review, and you can look one up at PluggedIn if you want. I thought it was fairly good all-around, and I certainly had no issues story- or character-wise.

Conclusion

If I were to describe The Lone Ranger in one sentence, I'd say this: it's a Western take on a Pirates of the Caribbean film with characters who have stronger moral backbones. It's got the crazy action, goofy humor, and occasionally over-the-top violence of the Pirates films, while giving our heroes solid morals. John despises guns, but he still wishes to uphold the law. So when he wears the mask of the Lone Ranger, he shoots to wound or disarm. And yes, while some of his actions do result in the death of villains, I never felt that he was doing it for fun or with vengeance in mind. He was simply trying to do the right thing.

This is where I think a lot of old fans--with a lot of negative nostalgia syndrome--have issues. In the old shows, one of the Lone Ranger's codes was to never kill. His bullets were made of silver to keep in the forefront of his mind how valuable life is, and how taking it is not something to be done lightly. So when they watched the 2013 film, they think that the creators have taken that aspect away from him.

I don't see it that way. Life is complex, and not everything can be boiled down to black and white. Should our heroes always be perfect? Are they not allowed to make mistakes? Have we never wished that the justice system was improved? Sometimes we want to take matters into our own hands, which is what John does when he becomes a vigilante. But like Batman, he doesn't want to kill. At the end of the day, he simply wants his loved ones to be protected and the innocent kept safe.

So yes, much of this movie can seem like a fun, summer blockbuster on the surface. But examine it closer, and I think you'll begin to appreciate how Gore Verbinski approached the character that is John Reid and his transformation into the masked man. I hope you'll give The Lone Ranger a chance, because it has a lot to offer you: two and a half hours of enjoyment and laughs with a side of thought-provoking questions if you're willing to do some contemplation.

Well, do you agree or disagree? Have you seen the movie, and if not, why? Have I improved in my movie-reviewing skills since I did Justice League back in December? Do share any and all thoughts!