The Lone Ranger Movie Review – Underrated or Box Office Bomb?

The Lone Ranger and Tonto

 

Despite getting scathing reviews, I have to get one thing out of the way first: I enjoyed

This post will not be about the story — I’ll leave that to you when you watch the movie. Being that I’m not a child of the 1950s who grew up with the iconic “Hi Ho Silver, away!”, I come from a vastly different viewpoint. I didn’t watch many reruns because by the time I was old enough, the show had been off the air for at least 20 years. I was weaned on gritty revisionist Westerns like Unforgiven, High Plains Drifter, and Pale Rider.

So what’s my reaction to a traditional “white hat” Western? It was a fun movie. Both Johnny Depp as Tonto and Armie Hammer as the Lone Ranger turned in very good performances.

The Good:

• The pacing was just about right and never felt like it was dragging.
• Special effects were mostly strong, with only one noticeable instance.
• The soundtrack was excellent. Of course no Lone Ranger movie would be complete without the William Tell Overture, which they used skillfully early on and then during the finale.
• Clever reason for the naming of Silver.
• Shootouts were gripping.
• The finale was awesome.

The Bad:

• At one point I was going to bring my kids, but the Captain Dan Reid scene involving Butch Cavendish changed my mind. I read about it beforehand and decided to keep my young kids away. This partly explains the demographic issues the movie faced.
• The Lone Ranger as played by Hammer comes across as somewhat “wimpy,” especially when contrasted with Depp’s Tonto. Hammer is somewhat overshadowed, but I actually thought his awkwardness was well acted. Some called it wooden and lacking charisma, that’s personal preference.

I can see where The Lone Ranger ran into problems finding the right audience, but I’m not entirely convinced it was entirely the movie’s fault. Hollywood seems fixated on producing mega-hits to maximize returns on every film. I get the business reality, but it’s myopic. Not every movie can be Avatar. Studios would rather swing for the fences every time instead of taking solid singles and doubles. The question becomes: Is it better to clear $50 million on a movie or lose $150 million? This is made worse by the ever-spiraling cost of film making. It’s getting to the point where only $1 billion returns are considered acceptable.

Another interesting point: The last two times The Lone Ranger has been on the big screen (1981’s The Legend of the Lone Ranger- and this one), critics savaged both. I get that the 1981 version was bad, but this time it felt like many critics decided they hated it before it even came out. I fully expect the "box office bomb” label will stick.

In a way it might end up like Heavens Gate, another Western that did poorly against high production costs but whose director’s cut has been reevaluated more positively over time. Of course its hard to mess up on the true story source material: The Johnson County War yet it happened.

I don’t think Westerns as a genre are “dead,” but they do have an image problem. In a world increasingly wary of anything distinctly American, uniquely American-focused movies have a tougher sell overseas. Hollywood now makes films with a global audience in mind, which is smart for returns, but trying to be everything to everyone rarely works.

In closing, I can think of many movies where I wanted my money back after seeing them in theaters. This wasn’t one of them. I’d give it 3.5 out of 5 stars. It’s not perfect by any means, but it’s far from Mars needs Moms.

How about you? Bomb or underrated gem?