The Lone Ranger

It is a character who's name is instantly recognizable, the Lone Ranger. First appearing in radio serials in 1933, the Lone Ranger has seen has his own very successful TV show in the 1950s, a brief run as an animated star in the 1960s, a disastrously bad (so I've heard) film version in 1981, and most recently, a reboot of the character of sorts, 2013's The Lone Ranger. Where does it stand? Well, it was one of the biggest financial disappointments of the year. Give it a try though, keep an open mind and I think you'll like it. I did.

It's 1869 in Colby, Texas and a young, naive, idealistic new district attorney, John Reid (Armie Hammer) arrives in town ready to clean up the area. The country is expanding, the railroad racing across the state, and Reid wants to be a part of it, to bring some civilization to the area. A problem has arisen though, a sadistic outlaw, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), escaping from custody. Reid heads out with a posse of Texas Rangers to catch Cavendish, but they're ambushed and Reid is the only one to survive, albeit getting shot in the process. He awakes to find a Comanche warrior, Tonto (Johnny Depp), looking out for him, claiming that Reid is now a Spirit Warrior, a man who passed to the other side and come back to normal life. Tonto too is searching for Cavendish with his own reasons for revenge. Forming an unlikely partnership, Reid -- disguising himself because Cavendish believes he's dead -- and Tonto decide to work together to find Cavendish, all amidst the railroad issues and cavalry intervening with a possible Comanche uprising.

Released last summer in theaters, 'Lone' had quite the checkered history in actually getting to theaters. When it did reach audiences, it flopped. Odd to think of any movie that earned $260 million internationally being a flop, but when a film had a budget somewhere between $225-250 million and another $100-plus on promotion, well, it's a flop. Well.....I liked it. For me, my enjoyment started because it is an entertaining movie. Plain and simple, it's entertaining. More than that though as a western, it knows where the genre has come from. Hans Zimmer's musical score is solid if not up there with his best, but it samples spaghetti western master composer Ennio Morricone's scores from Once Upon a Time in the West and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in some nice nods to genre classics.  'Lone' was also filmed in Monument Valley, made famous by director John Ford, and even some of the shots are reminiscent of iconic Ford shots. It's nice little touches that this that start 'Lone' off on the right foot.

With a film directed by Gore Verbinski and starring Johnny Depp, my worry was that I would be watching a western version of Pirates of the Caribbean: Western Style. The end result is a positive and negative. Yes, it is in the same vein of the Pirates movies. It's big and loud and colorful and schizophrenic at times. There's a lot of characters, a lot going on, blending in the drama with some laughs and some action. In other words, 'Lone' tries to be that perfect summer blockbuster, succeeding for the most parts. What then are the biggest issues? A framing device in the story department comes up short, an aged, wrinkly Tonto in 1933 San Francisco telling the Lone Ranger's story to a little boy, is forced and tries to lighten the mood too much. The elements of the mystical and spiritual are overdone as well, Tonto's insistence that John is a Spirit Warrior good but just used too much. Also, is Tonto a spirit himself? Just have fun with the story. Don't overdo it like that.

One of the original hero/sidekick duos, the Lone Ranger and Tonto are two pretty cool characters no matter what Ranger incarnation we're talking. I wasn't sold on Hammer (The Social Network) as John Reid, but he grew on me with each passing scene. The same for Depp, the casting looking like he'd play Capt. Jack Sparrow in the west. His Tonto is quirky, a little off in the Capt. Jack vein, but it is most definitely a fun part. He definitely doesn't deserve the flak he's received, including a Razzie nomination for Worst Actor. I also don't think it's fair to criticize Depp for being cast as a Native American. Is it in poor taste? It's a movie. Cool your jets. Above all else, I liked the chemistry between Hammer and Depp. Hammer's John is somewhat suspicious of Tonto, wanting to do things his way. Depp's Tonto thinks John is a little off himself, his idealistic motivations having no place in the wild west. They're funny together, both given some background to humanize them a bit, Tonto's background providing some of the emotional background.

Who else to look out for? Fichtner is very creepy as the infamous outlaw Butch Cavendish who enjoys eating his victims' hearts as they die. Look for James Frain and Leon Rippy in small parts as members of Butch's gang. Tom Wilkinson plays Latham Cole, the railroad executive placed in charge of advancing the rails as fast and far as possible. It's Wilkinson so you know he's up to something. Otherwise, why would he be here? Ruth Wilson is solid too as John's sister-in-law, a past love, who married John's brother, a Texas Ranger, played in a nice supporting part for James Badge Dale. Also having some fun is Helena Bonham Carter as Red, a brothel owner with an ivory leg, siding with John and Tonto in their troubles while Barry Pepper plays a God-fearing, gung-ho cavalry officer working with Cole to control the Comanches. Even Stephen Root makes an appearance late as a higher-up in the railroad company who's checking on the progress his company is making.

Again in the vein of the Pirates series is the rollover in the action department. What's there is surprisingly gruesome in terms of on-screen violence, if not particularly graphic. So be forewarned, this may not be the movie for younger kids. Mostly though, the action is flashy and fun, big and entertaining, gigantic action sequences full of CGI, crazy stunts and scenarios that no real-life human being could accomplish. The opening sequence where John and Tonto meet is pretty cool, the duo chained together and trying to stop a runaway train. The same for the finale, a train packed with silver lode being chased by another train, anyone and everyone jumping on and off one train and then the next, one ridiculous thing after another. It's goofy and fun right from the start, keeping things entertaining throughout the 149-minute running time.

Fans of the Lone Ranger will hopefully enjoy this one. I didn't come in as a huge fan with high expectations, just looking for a fun movie. It is, doing the Lone Ranger justice from his capable, maybe super-horse, Silver (his "Hi-yo, Silver, away! providing a good laugh), and of course, the Lone Ranger theme -- listen HERE -- from the William Tell overture, all those touches you're looking for in a movie with this iconic character. It's a reboot, but because of the financial struggles, this will probably be it for the series/franchise. So what are we left with? A movie that is overindulgent, goofy, schizophrenic and a whole lot of fun with some great characters, good laughs and lots of entertaining moments.

The Lone Ranger (2013): ***/****

The King's Speech

There the movie sat in my Netflix queue for well over a year. I wanted to see it. It had claimed several Oscars and had been nominated for that many more. I knew it was a good movie. Some people I talked to and some reviews I read said it was a great movie. I couldn't quite bring myself to put it up at the No. 1 spot, well, until now. Safe to say 2010's The King's Speech was worth the wait.

Since he was a young boy, Prince Albert, the Duke of York (Colin Firth), has had to deal with an at times crippling stammer whenever he speaks. He fears addressing more than a few people at a time, always knowing at any moment the stammer could kick in, and he will freeze up. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), has helped him as much as he can, going to any and all speech therapists and experts. Their latest is Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an Aussie with some out-of-the-box ideas. As Albert and Logue start to work together though, England is hurtling toward World War II where Prince Albert may be thrust into a power position he wants nothing to do with.

Big action movies, raunchy comedies, and schmaltzy romance stories. And then there are historical dramas like this where the focus is.....acting. Go figure. The focus is on the actors and actresses as they develop these characters that just happen to be real-life people. All three lead performances were nominated for an Oscar -- Firth winning, with Carter losing to Melissa Leo in The Fighter, Rush to Christian Bale in the same movie -- and this will sound simple, but it's fun to watch the actors act, especially actors as talented as these. Even the supporting performances (however small) ring true. It's always a good start when the acting is as memorable as this.

How come? Because as was the case here in director Tom Hooper's film, everything else falls into place behind it. Hooper joined Firth in the Oscar-winning department for his job behind the camera, and he deserves it. At just under two hours, the story covers a lot of ground, beginning in 1925 and running all the way to the start of World War II as Albert -- now George, 'Albert' sounds so Germanic according to Churchill -- rises to the throne of England. Hooper does a subtle but effective job with his camera, turning ordinary shots into interesting shots, making so many scenes look like paintings. From the costuming to the locations, the look of the movie helps make this period piece something special. Like period pieces that work, you feel like you're in 1930s England. It's easy to mess that up -- the audience realizing they're watching a movie -- but it is handled very effectively here.

Oh, right, back to the acting. In a performance that saw him win his second straight Oscar, Firth delivers a very human part. For all his Royal upbringing, Prince Albert has struggled through life for as long as he can remember. The opening scene where he crumbles giving a speech is heartbreaking as are several others as we see him battle his stammer while speaking. He wants to speak, to be a strong leader, but his personal make-up just won't allow it. While Firth is very good, I thought the best performance was from Rush. It's not a showy part, but it could have been. This is a supporting part that in the wrong hands would have been very obvious and even annoying. Rush never lets it get there. As Lionel, he sees all of Albert's potential and through all his unique, even odd ideas, genuinely wants to help him. In the smallest of the three parts, Carter still manages to leave a positive impression. Her Elizabeth is a loving wife who tirelessly wants to help her husband.

The period piece, where movie fans get to see some always solid character actors do their damnedest to upstage the stars. Well, sort of. 'Speech' has a handful of those parts, starting with Guy Pearce as Prince Edward, Albert's older brother who causes a stir when he becomes king because of his relationship with a twice-divorced American woman, Wallis Simpson (Eve Best). Also look for Michael Gambon as King George, Albert's dying father, Derek Jacobi as the Archbishop, Jennifer Ehle as Myrtle, Lionel's wife, and Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill, the soon-to-be Prime Minister of England.

I don't know what I was expecting going into this Best Picture-winning film. I didn't love it as much as appreciate it, but I think that was the objective. The acting is great as is the visual look of the movie, but it's never anything Earth-shattering in its execution. Sit back and enjoy the natural drama and even some humor of the situation. I especially enjoyed the relationship and friendship that develops between Albert and Logue as they work together. An actor's got to act, and that's on display here.

The King's Speech <---trailer (2010): ***/****

Planet of the Apes (2001)

So within the last few weeks I reviewed Rise of the Planet of the Apes, this summer's movie that is attempting to reboot the Planet of the Apes series/franchise.  As I reviewed, it was a surprisingly good effort, taking a concept that didn't need to be remade and finding something new and interesting about it.  What the 2011 film confirms is how truly bad 2001's Planet of the Apes was, a straight remake of the original 1968 classic.

My curiosity got the best of me on this one. The original five 'Apes' movies are some of my favorites, and the newest entry was highly enjoyable. I've avoided director Tim Burton's addition to the series for years for a couple reasons. The biggest reason? I thought it looked like a pile of awfulness. More than that though, it looked like a dumbed-down, mindless remake that didn't need to be remade. I was in the right frame of mind though to watch it, hoping my enjoyment from 'Rise' might boost the 2001 version. Long story short? It didn't. The 2001 version is everything I was afraid it would be and more...or less I guess depending on how you look at it.

An astronaut/scientist on a U.S. space station in 2029, Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) is working with a large staff, exploring all space has to offer, including studies with chimps. As the station moves through space, an electromagnetic storm is discovered in front of them, Leo following one of his test chimps into the storm which turns out to be a wormhole. His pod crash lands on a strange planet full of jungle and deserts. Just minutes after crash landing though, he makes a bizarre discovery. The planet is ruled by a war-like tribe of apes, and the humans are slaves. Leo is caught almost immediately so what can he do? An ape general, Thade (Tim Roth), is suspicious of this more intelligent human, leaving Leo to come up with a plan. Can he get free and then get off this planet? 

This next part is going to sound stupid, but I can't come up with a smart, semi-intelligent way to say it. You're watching a movie called 'Planet of the Apes,' right? It's clear at some point a human main character will discover he's on a planet ruled by intelligent apes, right? With the 1968 original, there's a sense of mystery, and when the apes are revealed in the human-hunting scene, there is a genuine shock and surprise...even knowing it's coming. That is a fundamental problem of Burton's 2001 remake. Wahlberg's Leo crash lands, runs, sees intelligent apes and never seems to question what's going on. He just goes along with it. To a point, Burton and the script seem to take that element for granted, assuming the audience just isn't going to be shocked/surprised and throwing that chance aside.

As I brought up in the 'Rise' review, there was a cheese-ball charm to the original, humans dressed up as apes. 'Rise' went the other route with computer-generated apes (<---that sounds cool). 2001's 'Planet' is somewhere in between, but the effort falls short. The apes, gorillas and chimps are both too human and too simian-based. At times, they are like skittish cats, and other times are far too much like humans. Also, monkeys apparently can leap hundreds of feet into the air from a stand-still. Who knew? Roth's Thade is too over the top as a villain, finding a way to be both unintentionally funny and not intimidating at the same time. Helena Bonham Carter is Ari, a sympathetic monkey, Michael Clarke Duncan is the angry army ape, Paul Giamatti is a finnicky slave-trading monkey, David Warner is a monkey senator, and even Charlton Heston himself -- star of the original Apes movie -- makes a quick appearance.

Now as much as I like Mark Wahlberg, I think he is not the right choice here to play the lead, U.S. astronaut Leo Davidson.  Some of it is his fault as he doesn't bring a whole lot of charisma to the part, brooding and growling through his situation. He also never seems to question anything. If it's me, and I crash land on a planet ruled by apes....I don't know...maybe I ask some questions. In the matter of hours, Leo becomes this heroic human who all the slaves are drawn to, and I'm thinking....really? That's all it took? Punch an ape and lead a poorly planned escape? The script gives him absolutely nothing to do though so it's not entirely on Wahlberg. Also wasted in human parts is Kris Kristofferson as Karubi, a chief of a fleeing tribe, and supermodel Estella Warren as Daena, a young, babely human girl. I imagine at some point the script called for a random hot girl who had to do nothing except look good. She nails the part in that sense.

There is something missing in this movie that I can't put my finger on.  The look of the movie isn't quite right, appearing like it was shot on a poorly-built studio set. The ape village/town certainly looks pretty clean as does the whole movie. Jungle, village, expansive desert, it feels faked.  The whole movie is boring though on top of that. There is a certain B-movie campiness to it, but basically nothing happens, Leo becomes a hero, leads a revolution, and then there is a brief ape vs. human fight. The original explored in some depth the idea of what was happening, animal mistreatment, fate and destiny, bigger issues. Not so much here. Dumbed-down was pretty spot on, the final product a mindless two hours that doesn't even touch its predecessors.

And how about that ending? The 1968 original was a gem, one that still is remembered for its shock value. How about this one? Shock value, yes, but it makes absolutely no FREAKING sense. Burton has said in interviews he left it up to the audience to make up their mind, and that a possible sequel would have explained things clearly. That's a weak excuse on the part of a director. It certainly goes for a surprise, and it is that...surprising. But nothing is explained, and no logical, reasonable explanation comes to mind. You've got to watch it yourself though, and revel in the badness.

Planet of the Apes <---trailer (2001): */****

Terminator Salvation

Completely out of the blue this week, I went and saw Terminator Salvation with a bunch of family. Actually we bought tickets for Star Trek, but that's a different story. I've seen the first 3 Terminator movies so I knew the story and the background, and maybe most importantly, I've listened to star Christian Bale's on-set rant. That will always be entertaining. I'm kind of in the middle when it comes to Bale. I think he's a really good actor, loved him in 3:10 to Yuma, The Machinist, and Rescue Dawn, but I don't necessarily like him.

And as you look at the previews, trailers, posters and commercials, this movie is presented as Bale's movie, the beginning of the next round of Terminator moves. Bale plays John Connor, the rising leader of the resistance battling Skynet in the post-apocalyptic 2018 United States. For three movies, all we heard about was how John was this great, charismatic leader who must survive to lead the resistance. I hated Edward Furlong in T2, and Nick Stahl was all right in T3 so the precedent isn't that great. We're supposed to believe this character is the savior of mankind, but been given nothing to believe why. John Connor, initials J.C., get it?

It's odd then so much of this movie is spent on other storylines. My guess? Bale's only in about half of the movie's 115 minute running time. As John, he's okay, but it's not his best part. By far, this movie belongs to scene-stealing Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright, maybe the coolest character I've seen in a movie since Tyler Durden. A brief opening scene in 2003 shows Marcus on Death Row, signing a waiver for Dr. Serena Kogan (Helena Bonham Carter, great in a small part) to donate his body to science. Flash forward to 2018 where after a disastrous patrol where only John survives, a man, Marcus, walks out of the rubble. He has a mission, an objective, but even he himself doesn't quite know what it is.

If you've seen the trailer or any number of previews, you know Marcus' secret, but I won't blow it here. I will say his character's turmoil gives the movie some heart, even some depth. As the series looks ahead, and yes, the ending leaves a big opening for more movies, I certainly hope Marcus Wright is included somehow, even more so than John Connor. That's what surprised me about the movie in general, the supporting cast steals the movie. Also worth mentioning are Moon Bloodgood as Blair Williams, a resistance pilot who meets Marcus and believes he can help the effort, Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese, a young man who will one day become John's father, Bryce Dallas Howard as Kate, John's pregnant wife (formerly played by Claire Danes) and Jadagrace as Star, Kyle's mute traveling partner. And just cause they're cool and generally badasses, Michael Ironside plays a resistance general and rapper Common as Barnes, one of John's men.

Now by this point maybe you're wondering why I even saw the movie. The movie is just there without a lot of reason to get involved. It's not bland, but it's close with some to all of the blame going to director McG. All other things aside, the action scenes are top-notch as John, Marcus, Kyle and Co. battle any number of Terminators. The post-apocalyptic setting in California gives the movie quite a unique look too, like a lot of westerns with the lone gunfighter trying to survive.

Maybe because this story has only been talked about in the previous three movies, with an occasional flashback or flashforward I guess, but T-Salvation didn't quite feel like a Terminator movie. It's a good action movie, but other than the names and some nods to fans of the series, it could have been a stand-alone movie. The Terminators are nameless, just metal robots trying to kill John and Kyle. The Governator himself, Arnold, makes a quasi-appearance but it's so badly done CGI that it's distracting. Other touches gone horribly wrong, the delivery midway through the movie of Arnold's famous line "I'll be back." SSsssssssssssssoooooo bad, so cheesy. I would recommend seeing the first 3 movies before Salvation though. It will definitely help you understand and clear up the storyline here. You might be lost otherwise.

Still, I liked the movie despite its flaws. As I said, the action and chase scenes are good on a big and little level, you care for most of the characters on the small level and the epicness of some of the attacks is cool to watch. Here's an official trailer for T-Salvation that hopefully convinces you to go see the movie, it's one of the more effective trailers I've watched in awhile. And one more push to get you to go see this one...Transformers 2 trailer runs in front of it. If Megan Fox sprawled across another car doesn't convince you to go, I'm out of ideas. You're on your own.