Another is an inability to find footing with major characters and their true roles in this particular story. There are a few big problems with The Lone Ranger. The ratio between ideas and cohesion is one. (Said outlaw is played with standout verve by William Fichtner.) The same guy wiped out most of Tonto's clan, so he and the newly masked Ranger set off in search of vengeance, or to stop the march of progress, or something. Armie Hammer plays the title role, a lawyer who becomes a masked avenger after a cannibalistic outlaw sinks his choppers into some of the Ranger's family. With the outcast Native American character Tonto, Verbinski and Bruckheimer give Pirates mainstay Johnny Depp another turn as the leading man who isn't quite the hero. More interesting to talk about than it is to watch in the moment, The Lone Ranger is still a dud in the end.
In all cases, it does so without any significant unifying principle to weave the ideas into a movie of any compelling merit. The Lone Ranger, masterminded by the Pirates of the Caribbean team of Gore Verbinski (director) and Jerry Bruckheimer (producer), throws out one weird idea after another - fanged rabbits factor in - almost as distractions for the fact that it wants to batter the very myth of the American west. Why is a film in which a magic horse eats scorpions off Armie Hammer's face so insufferably fractured and dull? Now that I've got your attention, consider the unfortunate fate of a film, one eager to subvert Western tradition, which becomes deeply lost in the wilderness between the arthouse and multiplex.
0 kommentar(er)
