Review of The Lone Ranger (2003) by Omar L — 06 Jul 2014

Gore Verbinski is an accomplished director whose expertise in effects and pacing leads to polished products, and The Lone Ranger is indeed a polished-looking movie. But the movie suffers from a number of flaws, one of which isn't necessarily the fault of the movie. The first is the weak characterization of the Lone Ranger himself. Armie Hammer delivers an underwhelming performance to an underwhelming character, leaving most of the protagonist job to the sidekick role of Tonto. Depp immerses himself in his characters as always, but all of his most memorable characters are one-dimensional.

And then there's the movie itself. Westerns just don't work in the 21st Century. The United States is too self-aware of its brutality of manifest destiny, and it's expected that white characters in this movie would be villainous against the Comanches. As a result, the predictability looks like the easy one-trick pony of white guilt playing out on screen.

Additionally, the joy of westerns comes from a simpler time from simpler people, when kids who listened to the adventures of the Lone Ranger and Tonto didn't have to worry about the nuances of the plight of the American Indians. All they had to do was concentrate on the romanticism of the Old West. Children today don't care about the Old West; in fact, when it's taught in schools, it's never romanticized. The demographic that this movie would have appealed to 50 years ago as aged out of wanting to go to the movies and seeing bridges blow up and watching the Lone Ranger yelling "Hi ho, Silver, away!" to the William Tell Overture. Westerns had their time, and another time may come again, but not today, and not anytime soon, I think.