It has been a long time since I've walked into a film with this much trepidation. But despite the film getting monumentally bad critical responses, so bad that showings here in the UK have been virtually deserted, I didn't find the film that bad.
Seen from the perspective of his Native American sidekick Tonto, the film shows the origin of The Lone Ranger and his transformation from zero to hero. The construction of a railroad brings unrest between the settlers and native Indian tribes, while a bloodthirsty outlaw becomes a vengeful obsession for our two heroes.
It is very easy to see why people dislike the film, and I must agree that there are some pretty strange decisions made here (not just casting Johnny Depp, as many critics argue). The film is far, far, far too long; an hour could have been cut clean out of it and more fun could have been had. The Lone Ranger began its life as short serials, I doubt it had any desire to become so bloated and overcomplicated.
In true Jerry Bruckheimer style, this film has a lot of needless padding and abundance of characters that plagued the Pirates sequels. Heck, one of William Fichtner's villain's lackeys is a replica of the glass-eye pirate from those films, parasol and all! Helena Bonham Carter's character was unnecessary too and could have been easily written out.
There are some pretty weird little things too... Tonto acting insane and feeding the dead bird on his head, flesh-eating rabbits (yes, you read that right) a horse standing in a tree, and a strangely unnecessary narrative framing device that has circus-performing Tonto as an old man telling the story to a little boy in 1933.
Add to all of this that the film has a lot of cliche Western visuals. It is almost every Western you have ever seen crunched into one film.
So wait, wait, wait. I told you I didn't find the film bad, but it sounds like I did? Well, I am explaining how it can easily be seen as bad, it is vulnerable to being beaten up.
There are some very good characters here, despite some of them being unnecessary. Depp as Tonto is NOT (I repeat, not) as bad as people are exclaiming. While we live in a very Politically Correct environment and I admit casting a lesser known but more fitting actor would have been more compelling, he isn't unbearable. In fact he very rarely goes full "Jack Sparrow".
The visuals are impressive, a lot of the comedic moments are genuinely funny, but what I loved most was the last 25 to 30 minutes. While it takes the film forever to get there the finale is amazing! Mostly because that all too familiar Lone Ranger "theme" comes booming heroically out at us, you cannot help but be swept up in it. Oh, and Silver the horse is great. But that's hardly surprising.
There are little silver nuggets of greatness in this rather tedious pile of obscurity. Unfortunately it is easier to focus on the things wrong with it as a film rather than the individual parts that make it unique, this is mostly because it spends way too long focusing on these unnecessary elements.
Too long, too complicated, too confused, this film is more like Prince of Persia than Pirates of the Caribbean from Disney. But it has its moments, and they are genuinely good moments! I just wish and wish the film was ninety minutes long rather than a mind numbing one-hundred and fifty.
Additional Marshmallows: It should be mentioned that this film has some surprisingly graphic scenes in it. People are shot through the head with arrows, a man has his heart cut out of his chest, people are liberally shot and maimed throughout! Even Disney is pushing the boundaries of what 12A can likely provide.
Starts out promising, but quickly becomes a drive-less, uninspiring and confused journey through mediocrity.
The film is In Memory of Hunter S. Thompson, who in film circles is most famous for writing the novel that inspired the trippy Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Johnny Depp, when preparing for his role in that film, found the unpublished manuscript for The Rum Diary in Thompson's basement.
Let's get one thing straight: this is nothing like Fear and Loathing.
The film follows Paul Kemp, a journalist and alcoholic who finds work for a Newspaper in Puerto Rico. His previous work gets the attention of less-than-honourable businessmen who are intent on using his talents to promote a new hotel complex. What follows is a wannabe crusader's attempts to sort his life out while alcohol and one of the businessmen's beautiful women beckon to him.
I don't... know what this film wants to be. It is called a comedy, but there's very little humour in it (except the very occasional quip from Depp or surreal moment, harking back to Fear and Loathing) and the lead characters motivations are often unclear. He appears against the construction of housing and hotels in such a beautiful part of the world, yet shows very little turmoil when he is asked to work for the business. This makes Arron Eckheart's antagonist surprisingly un-antagonistic.
The story telling itself is choppy, as is the editing, and it feels like parts have been left out or sidelined, perhaps for the more tasteful content. The film just sort of "happens", and by the third act you will probably lose all interest in whatever's being said.
Unfortunate it has to be the film "in memory" of Thompson, I imagine Fear and Loathing is a far, far more faithful adaptation. If not that, then certainly more memorable!
Additional Marshmallows: "Why's the Rum gone?"
Despite all of the criticism On Stranger Tides received, I found it particularly lukewarm, neither great or terrible!
Here Captain Jack Sparrow pursues his quest for the Fountain of Youth, but becomes snared by an old flame and the cursed Captain Blackbeard. He must evade and deceive enemies with the help of old friends, the only way he can, to unlock the powers of the Fountain.
The Pirates trilogy was already quite flawed; the original film was a spontaneous and exciting movie about pirates based entirely upon a Disney fairground attraction. But the sequels bigged up the story and felt overly clustered with characters and plotting.
On the one hand, On Stranger Tides feels a little more like the original movie; taking itself more like a treasure hunt or a chase movie, which I welcomed. There's less CGI monstrosities here too with more subtle magical undertones.
On the other hand though, it is hard having Captain Jack Sparrow carry a story on his own; his remarkableness is lost when he has less characters to contrast with (I am referring to Will and Elizabeth, obviously). He definitely feels a little misguided at times, and not in the charming sense.
While it is based off the Tim Powers novel On Stranger Tides, I doubt there is much consistency, the film is little more than a goofball action film about pirates. Not as memorable as Curse of the Black Pearl, but certainly not the disaster everyone claims it to be.
