Review: The Lone Ranger

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.  


 
 
 

Review: Django Unchained

After seeing Django Unchained it is a wonder why it took Quintin Tarantino so long to make a Western!

Set in 1858, “two years before the Civil War” we follow the slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) when he is freed by a German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) who needs him in identifying some of his bounties who work as slavers. Django, with Dr Schultz's help, seeks to liberate his wife who has become the property of a sadistic and ruthless slave owner.

Watching a Tarantino film is always a mesmerising experience; you never quite know what he is going to do next, and they are always delicately balanced between lengthy dialogue scenes and intense violence. Django is absolutely no exception, perhaps being one of his best paced and... dare I say “traditional” film, yet. Foxx and Waltz carry the first half of the film themselves, Tarantino's witty, sly writing coming strongest from Waltz's performance as the unorthodox bounty hunter; he is instantly likable.

The heroes are given so much screen time that their chemistry grows perfectly as they travel across country and Django shows his skills as a gunslinger. The villains are held back until the end, but the heavyweight performances from Dicaprio and Samuel L. Jackson are awesome and they clearly relish playing real antagonists for once.

The film's use of language gives Tarantino all the controversial weight he could ask for, Django is a film that immerses itself in the time and culture without pulling its punches. Some people may be shocked by the use of language, but it only adds to Tarantino's unrestrained style. Despite the film having the usual trappings of its director, it does have some very sincere, quiet moments, and so it should with such a weighty subject as slavery.

Django Unchained is a great success from Tarantino, the man is only improving with age and experience; showing excellent film making abilities and know-how! I would say it is better than Inglorious Basterds. It is enjoyable, it is bloody and violent and it is surprisingly thought-provoking. Oh, and it has a rocking soundtrack!

Review: Cowboys and Aliens

Cowboys and Aliens has a crazy premise, yet was hyped with a star filled cast and crew; Jon Favreau directs, Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Sam Rockwell and Olivia Wilde star, while even Steven Spielberg provided assistance as Exec Producer.
So is it any wonder its reception was lukewarm at best?

Craig plays the Western cliché Man with No Name, but his character finds himself with amnesia and a strange device locked to his wrist. When he is brought to a nearby town, the ragtag people of the West must band together to fight off invasion from aliens!
What is most obvious here is that the film plays itself out like a Western with sci-fi elements, rather than sci-fi with Western settings. What I mean is the film is remarkably slow paced (for... you know, alien invasion) but when the action kicks in it does prove to be bloody and eye catching. I love science fiction mixing with other genres.
However, there does seem to be a lack of characterisation here, and precise storytelling around the characters. It is a fun blockbuster for sure, but the characters often feel uninteresting or disassociated with one another. I believe this could be due to the film having seven writers. Seven people worked on this screenplay. I mean... seriously what the hell?
It does exactly what it says: Cowboys versus Aliens with an all star cast and bang-for-your-buck, but it might lack some of Warrior's Way's "cowboys versus ninjas" fun self-awareness.