MovieChat Forums > The Legend of the Lone Ranger (1981) Discussion > Good film, but I can see why it was wide...

Good film, but I can see why it was widely critcized...


I remember seeing this film when I was about 8 years old and used to watch the old Saturday morning cartoons prior to that so that pretty much was the extent of my knowledge of the Lone Ranger. I enjoyed the film, made some comparisons to Raiders of the Lost Ark which came out at the same time particularly with the stage coach sequence that was also used in Raiders. I didn't care much for the narration which in another post was described as "Dukes of Hazzard like" which I think is an excellent comparison. I also didn"t like the "flared" cinematography even as a child watching this kinda gave me a headache and pulled me out of the film sometimes. In addition to that, I felt that the film, being an origin of sorts, should have been longer. You don't even see him become the Lone Ranger until an hour into the movie and by that point theres thirty-eight minutes left. Christopher Lloyd was a good choice to play the villian, he did a very convincing job of that but once again there wasn't enough time to develop his character. The voice overs was another thing that upset me, I wanted to hear their actual speaking voices regardless of how good or bad they sounded. The last thing on my gripe list was the use of the theme song. The use of the William Tell overture should have been used only during his revelation and at the end of the film during the credits. It can become very campy sounding if over used.

reply

I think Micheal Horse' performance was the problem for me; he was not a very good actor, not very natural.

reply

As a boy growing up in the early 1950s, I was a big fan of the Lone Ranger, and had the toy marketing tie-in products to prove it. Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels were perfect in their roles, and the series was good, but hampered by its low-budget 30-minute TV plots. The 1958 theatrical film version of the TV series, THE LONE RANGER AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD was much better, especially since it was made in color, and I really enjoyed seeing that when it first came out. Unfortunately, it was the last time Clayton Moore would appear onscreen as The Lone Ranger.
Fast-forward to 1981: The same month we had the release of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK featuring Indiana Jones, and DRAGONSLAYER, we see LEGEND OF THE LONE RANGER advertised on TV. At first, I didn't know whether it was a serious Western tribute or a comedy satire, so I went to the theater to see it.
This film is a fine tribute to the classic iconic heroes, in beautiful wide-screen Stereo and Technicolor, handsomely filmed on locations both familiar (Bronson Canyon, Vasquez Rocks) and unfamiliar (Moab, Utah and Monument Valley locations). And I loved hearing the William Tell Overture, which of course was the original Main Title theme for The Lone Ranger on both radio in the 1940s and TV in the 1950s.
However, the film's weaknesses and shortcomings sabotaged its virtues as a tribute to the glory days of yesteryear. The two lead actors, Klinton Spilsbury and Michael Horse, as the Lone Ranger and Tonto respectively, left much to be desired dramatically, although they certainly looked the parts in their carefully tailored costume attire. Neither of them had any depth whatsoever as actors, and their acting skills could have saved this otherwise forgettable campy, mediocre feature film.
I understand that Spilsbury kept blowing his lines on the set, so his dialog was all overdubbed in looping/ADR by James Keach, Stacy Keach's younger brother. And native American Michael Horse was clearly out of his depth as a young aspiring TV actor. It all comes down to good casting.
That being said, we come to the other lead characters in the story: Only Christopher Lloyd, as the dastardly villain Butch Cavendish, and Jason Robards, as President Ulysses S. Grant, shine in the balance, as actors of astute dramatic abilities. The other actors are either lost as ephemeral supporting characters, or appear as western actors at a costume party: Richard Farnsworth as Wild Bill Hickok, Lincoln Tate as Gen. George Armstrong Custer, and Ted Flicker as Buffalo Bill Cody are all laughable one-dimensional cardboard cutouts rather than being the real flesh-and-blood men of the Old West we all know and love or hate from history and movies.
Now to the script: The story is good, but the screenplay is a standard TV script
out of place in a wide-screen theatrical film. This adds to the lackluster performance of this movie at the box office.
The music score by John Barry is first-rate, as are practically everything else I haven't already mentioned, which give the film a very professional Hollywood look.
Thus, if we had a better real theatrical script to tell the story of how the Lone Ranger lost his comrades in a horrible gun battle, resulting in the reason why he becomes the legendary masked avenger, and how his native American friend became his loyal sidekick, and we had realistic characters of famous American Western figures played by actors of theatrical depth and range, in realistic costumes and makeup, then I think this movie would have been a huge hit. This would have been to Western movies what Indiana Jones was to Fantasy Adventures.

However, even with its flaws, I enjoyed this movie immensely, most likely due to my boyhood nostalgia with the characters. Others who had not grown up with the Lone Ranger and Tonto would not be so kind to it. It's one thing to make a movie for the fans, but it's another thing to satisfy a mainstream public audience with a wide range of cultural backgrounds.

So when is the wide-screen DVD to be released? I'll still buy a copy!

Dejael

reply

I remember getting the LR action figure from this movie, and not seeing it until it was aired on TV in the late 80's. I surprisingly like it more now than then. I remember thinking everything was rushed once Reid put on the duds, and that 'Ranger as a priest' scene was a blantant rip-off of Zorro.

Nostalgia keeps it watchable for me. All the 'cliches' ("Hi Ho Silver", William Tell) feel well presented enough to be taken seriously. I am still bewildered why Spilsbury has this as his only filmography entry, seeing how George Lazenby still got work after "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." I can understand if his articulation wasn't working, and do like Keach's delivery. I wouldn't say his performance was something to sing about, I thought his emotions still went in the right direction. And when it comes right down to it, I'll be bold enough to say that we get nothing worse from him/Keach in this LR origin story than we got from Clayton Moore in his 1949 pilot. As much as I revere Moore for his embracing the character with his entire soul, he started out phoning in his dialogue.

Horse's performance, as Tonto, will probably be swallowed whole by Depp's come the next movie, but actually feels much in line with a Native American's straight forward/no nonsense demeanor that I'm familiar with. We get more emotion from Jay Silverheels, but I enjoy it enough.

Putting Pres. Grant in peril was a gutsy move. At least they didn't shy away from acknowledging what made not very popular. The movie still portrays him as a good man, which arguably he was, notwithstanding the heavy baggage that his cabinet became. I do like Robards' portrayal here.

I'll have to look up Christopher Lloyd again here, and see if he has taken any other villain roles, because I think he showed he had the chops for that here. I think we saw more complexity in how he was characterized than we saw in LR. His intolerence for self serving troops who want to take time out to commit rape during a robbery. His scheme to gain ownership of the entire state of Texas shined more light on him then merely as a leader of a gang of wild west terrorists.

The whole deal had to go much further in the arena of the box office, but I'll be bold again and say that, overall, this is thus far the best portrayal of LR's origin. Mainly because the Cavendish ambush was far more intense, and with more emotion than in 1949, admittedly because of the peanut gallery audience and TV budget. Furthermore it had just a tad more a stake in the climax. Again, that ain't saying enough. The next movie has to have the same cast/crew firepower for a western as "True Grit" for it to do the Masked Man justice in today's cinema world. Until then I take 'Legend' and Clayton Moore for all their worth, which is sustainable given what's on the horizon.

reply

Really good assessment of the whole viewing experience cwell510. I vaguely recall reading about how bad the film was at the time of it's release and so avoided seeing it. After just finishing watching it, I can't say it was a great film but it certainly wasn't as bad as they made it out to be. It will be interesting to see how the new Jerry Bruckheimer re-boot will fare in time.






Live Full & Die Empty. Tap Your Potential and Realise Your Dreams!

reply