The Wolverine

3.5 Stars (Out of four)

The Wolverine is loosely based on one of the finest stories in the X-Men canon, the Frank Miller-penned, John Byrne-illustrated Wolverine miniseries that kicked off the eventual monthly comic of the same name.  While not the same watershed moment in graphical storytelling as Frank Miller/Lynn Varley's magnum opus, The Dark Knight Returns or Alan Moore/David Gibbon's Watchmen, it is one of the 80s best-told stories in comics.  The movie is almost as good, very entertaining, and at times, even thought-provoking.

The Wolverine starts with Wolverine, or Logan, walking the Earth, trying to bring closure to the fact he had to kill a woman he dearly loved (Jean Gray, as seen in X-Men, The Last Stand).  He is a homeless man in the North Country of Canada, scratching out a day-to-day existence in a cave.  One day, while in town, a mysterious, magenta-haired Japanese woman finds him and asks him to accompany her to Tokyo, where a dying man Logan once saved wants to thank Logan for saving his life in WWII.  Logan agrees and sees the man.  Logan is a mutant with healing powers.  His body can cope with any wound or poison, which makes him virtually indestructible and apparently, immortal as he can't die.  The old man offers Logan a proposition, to take away his mutant power so he can eventually live a normal life, grow old and die.  Logan is momentarily tempted, but refuses.  After the man dies, he wills his company to his granddaughter Mariko, bypassing her father.  This sets off a chain of events involving the Yakuza (the Japanese mob) and shadowy agents of Mariko's father's company to kill her.  Logan saves her and protects her and they eventually fall in love.  This leads to a climatic showdown at the end with the Silver Samurai, a huge robot made of the same unbreakable adamantium metal that Logan's bones and claws are made of.

The movie, for the most part, is an extended chase sequence, including a fantastic fight between Logan and a Yakuza man on top of a speeding bullet train.  But, as with the best of most of the superhero movies that have come out over the past 10-20 years, there are deeper themes at work here.  The best question in this movie is what if immortality is a curse, rather than a gift?  If you could not die, if you had to outlive all you loved and knew, would you welcome everlasting life?  It is also about being able to let go of the past so you can continue on into the future.  The movie is an entertaining mishmash of Japanese gangster dramas, superhero films, and a more-than-usual mature love story.  The only two negatives I have are the film appears to suffer from some post-production cutting and requires you to know a lot of backstory going in.  While it is not a requirement that you see X-Men 1-3 and Wolverine: Origins, it does help or you may be a little lost.  For those of us geeks who have seen them, it's a lot of fun, but others may be a bit confused.  There are several references to earlier events that are not fully explained and will leave the uninitiated mostly in the dark.  Also, there does appear to have been some post-production cutting, because some of the finer plot points don't make a lot of sense or are under-explained.  Either way, I hope the DVD will have an extended release because this movie is very plot-heavy, a welcome change to many of the superhero movies as of late.  Also, the Silver Samurai scene at the end, while exciting, has a feel that it was tacked on almost as an afterthought.  Again, I hope the DVD delves into this more.  Those are the only reasons I took some points off.  Otherwise, it is taut, exciting and exotic.  For some reason, some of the best Wolverine stories take place in Japan.  The character lends itself well to the culture.

And by the way, stick around in the credits for the final stinger.  The next X-story will be Days of Future Past, which, for those of you who read the X-Men comic, is arguably the second best story next to the Dark Phoenix saga (whose events were portrayed in X-Men 3, whose stinger will finally make sense when you see this film).

Return Of The Jedi - A 30th Anniversary Retrospective

2 Stars (Out of four)

Wednesday, May 25th, 1983.  30 years ago, Return of the Jedi hit the screens like a wave.  It's probably not a stretch to say this was one of the most anticipated sequels ever made.  Those of us who remember seeing it for the first time on the big screen, we were left with a very down ending from The Empire Strikes Back.  The Empire was roaring back, the Rebellion was on its heels, Han Solo was taken away by Boba Fett to Jabba the Hutt, and Darth Vader was revealed to Luke Skywalker that he was his father.  So much was riding on this movie.  I still remember sitting in the movie theater with my brother at a 1 AM show on Friday May 27th.  My brother (to my eternal shame) had already seen it before he had come home from college.  And now he was taking me to see it.  I was 13, but already traumatized that my hero, Han Solo, may be dead.  I couldn't wait to see what would happen.  By the film's end, I was elated more than I had every been in a film since I saw the original Star Wars for the first time.  Now it is 30 years, one restoration and three new versions (The Special Edition, DVD Edition and Blu-Ray Edition) later and I am about to betray all of my childhood fandom by really taking this film to task.  I will be considering the newest version, the Blu-Ray version just released last year for this review as it is now the official canon in the Star Wars mythos.

So before I start slamming the film, let's examine what is right with it.  First and foremost, it is a very satisfying ending to a great set of films.  The good guys win, the bad guys lose, key bad guy is redeemed and they all live happily ever after.  Like a fine wine, it goes down smooth, leaves a warm feeling in your gut and is very satisfying.  The story of redemption, of a son helping his father from the darkness back into the light is very iconic and never gets old.  For me personally, I like the fact that Luke finally grows up in the film as well.  In Star Wars and Empire, he is a whiny little brat through much of the films, headstrong and stupid, but in the end wants to do the right thing.  But in Jedi, he is finally a real warrior.  He is tough and not to be trifled with.  This is what I expect a Jedi to be. Also, I like the resolution of Han and Leia's relationship, although Luke and Leia's brother/sister thing raises some troubling issues in previous flicks.  From a technical standpoint, the ending is great.  It keeps three very taut, tense storylines moving at a brisk pace, each as interesting as the other.  It is well paced and well edited.  I applaud the fact that Lucas did not try to make Yoda a CGI character in this one, but rather kept him "real," that is to say, the practical puppet effect.  Because Hamill is interacting with something that is actually there and that the puppet moves things, it makes the overall effect more real and believable.  This is very important if we are to accept a small, green thing is really there.  Most of the digital cleanups n the newest version really do make the movie look better.  This is subtle, but was something that always bothered me, especially in Jedi.  When you see old digital composites, you can see the black line where the fake object ends (in this case, the rancor in Jabba's palace) and the real scene begins.  It looks almost like a sandwich.  The special effects guys did a great job in erasing these lines so that the scene blends well.  The rancor looks like it is there.  Very well done.

Now, that said, there is a LOT wrong with the film as well.  Jedi is the beginning of the end when it comes to quality in the Star Wars franchise.  To start, there are a LOT of inconsistencies in the plot, both within the context of the first three movies, and then later with the other three crapola prequels.  I will not list an exhaustive account, but here are a few more of the glaring ones:

1.  The deaths of Obi Wan, Yoda, the Emperor and Vader:  So, every Jedi that dies disappears, leaving nothing behind but the clothes they wore.  As Yoda said in Empire, "Luminous beings are we.  Not this crude matter."  So why doesn't Vader disappear?  We see Luke give him this Viking funeral at the end, burning him on top of a bier with his old armor.  We can clearly see there s a body there.  Now, while the armored chest plate and helmet will hold their shapes, Vader also wore just plain clothes which wouldn't hold their shape if there was not a body inside. It's a neat shot, but inconsistent.  Also, how come Vader gets an age makeover at the end?  Whenever we have seen one of the spirits of the Jedi, they always appear as they were when they died.  Obi Wan is old, Yoda is old.  In the original version, Vader was old.  But with the prequels, we now have a better known actor who played Anakin, so Sebastian Shaw is out and Hayden Christensen is in.  Unfortunately for Ewan MacGregor, he is not as cool or famous as Alec Guiness, so Obi Wan remains old.

2. The nature of the Force:  First, and most irritating, we find the Force in the prequels is NOT a mystical force, but rather anyone with midichlorians in their blood can manipulate the very bonds of the universe, both physically and mystically.  So Force sensitivity is a genetic thing, passed through bloodlines.  In the prequels, the Jedi Council identifies young people who are strong with the Force, tell the parents and then spirit the children away like some ogre in the night to train them at the Jedi Academy.  They teach the children not to have any ties stronger than that of the Force or those ties can be used to seduce them to the Dark Side.  Any tie, but especially romantic and familial ones.  Now, in Empire and Jedi, Yoda tells Luke the Force runs strong in his family and for him to pass on what he learned.  But if Luke is not to have children, how is he supposed to pass on these bloodlines?  In the greater scheme of things, if the Jedi Council kept separating gene pools, how were these midichlorians reproduced over time?  Wouldn't the gene pool of Force sensitives keep shrinking over the millennia the Jedi were said to have existed?  I realize the galaxy is a big place, but sooner or later, if you keep isolating bloodlines, traits will disappear.  So my question stands, how do Jedi Knights reproduce and keep the Force sensitives coming generation after generation?  Therefore, according to the prequels, the Jedi are hastening their own extinction.  Or are there some officially sanctioned concubines for the Jedi meant solely for reproduction?  Yoda makes no mention of any of this to Luke.  In fact, he says the exact opposite.  So was Yoda lying, or is there an emergency plan to repopulate the Jedi if their numbers get too low?  Now this is not nickpicking.  This is fundamental to the story.  It turns everything upside down.  Next, is the Dark Side stronger?  Yoda is very emphatic on this point that it isn't when Luke asks during his training.  Yet in the prequels, we see two Jedi Masters (Yoda and Mace) discussing privately that there are ONLY two Siths at any one time, a Master and Apprentice.  On the other side, we have THOUSANDS of Light Side Jedi (Padawans, Knights and Masters).  Yet TWO, count them, TWO Sith took down the entire Jedi Order, and were able to keep their Sith presence hidden from them, even in the Jedi's actual presence.  We see Jedi Masters, Council Masters mind you, meet with the most powerful Sith Lord face-to-face on several occasions, and none of them know who he is.  Yet Vader can feel Luke's presence from miles away.  Sith can raise people from the dead, can shoot lightning, AND do everything else the Jedi do.  And wipe them out with one Master and one newly-minted apprentice.  HOW is the Dark Side not more powerful than the Light?  Or was Yoda lying about this, too?

3.  The Combat Effectiveness of the Empire:  Now, while those at the top of the Empire seem very capable, what is going on with the rank and file?  Even Obi Wan says that Imperial stormtroopers are very precise marksmen.  As many have joked over the years, this does not really hold up to scrutiny.  The new philosophical quandary is who would win in a fight: Stormtroopers or Red-Shirted Ensigns from Star Trek?  Stormtroopers can't hit anything they shoot at while red-shirted ensigns always die no matter what.  But Jedi takes this to an insulting level.  When the Emperor is discussing Luke's plight in his monologing, he mentions "An entire LEGION of my best troops awaits [the rebels on Endor]!"  The way the Emperor describes them, the final battle should have elapsed like a fully equipped battalion of Navy Seals fighting a bunch of Boy Scouts with pocket knives.  Yet the Ewoks manage to prevail in a pitched battle using spears and arrows against fully trained, battle-hardened troops using lasers and wearing armor (which apparently does nothing to stop anything).  The Empire not only loses, it loses big.  Now I realize that Lucas was trying to say you don't have to always be the biggest to win, but this is ridiculous.

4. Nitpicking:  Okay, those were some of the more glaring inconsistencies.  Here are some geeky, nitpicking smaller ones.  3PO in Star Wars mentions that he is "...merely an interpreter, and not very good at telling stories.  At least not making them interesting, anyway" when Luke asks him if he and Artoo were in any battles.  Yet in Jedi, he is relating to the Ewoks the entire backstory to this point, complete with sound effects to the Ewoks.  He is including descriptions of battles, technology, etc.  Now Artoo may have been doing the sound effects (it's not clear), but 3PO is obviously relating a history here.  So was he lying to Luke (which droids cannot do), or did he just not feel like telling Luke his story?  Next, Lucas paraphrased Paul Velery once by saying "Movies are never finished, only abandoned."  But he is breaking his own rule.  He makes some very dumb fixes to conversation that make the movies just a little less clever in their repartee.  The most glaring is at the end of Jedi when Vader sees the Emperor killing his son and utters NO! twice and then throws the Emperor down the shaft to his death.  In the original version, this inner conflict is more than obvious (I understood it at 13) when Vader keeps looking back and forth to Luke on the ground pleading for his life and the Emperor continuing the attack to kill Luke.  When Vader chooses to kill the Emperor, then, it is VERY dramatic.  With these added nos, it cheapens the impact of Vader's decision and makes the scene much less satisfying.  The other annoyance for me is when Han is about to shoot the tentacle off Lando's leg from the Sarlaac on Tatooine.  He originally says "It's all right, trust me" when he is pointing the gun at Lando.  A very funny, in-character moment.  But in the new version, he says, "It's all right.  I can see a lot better."  [I throw my hands up in disgust and frustration. there is nothing else to say.]  Also, why does Vader revert to King James English when he is speaking to the Emperor?  Thees and thys.  I don't get it.

Okay, so much for inconsistencies.  Let's look at a few more issues with the movie.  First, from a structural point of view, the movie doesn't make a lot of sense.  It is actually two movies, not a cohesive 3-act whole.  It is the story to save Han and then the story to kill the Empire.  It feels like it was thrown together at the last minute.  Now that we have the incredibly awful, George Lucas-penned stories of the newprequels, we can finally clear co-screenwriter Lawrence Kasden's name from shame and eternal damnation for maligning such a great story.  The blame lies entirely at Lucas' feet.  I actually feel that the ONLY reason why this movie isn't an entire waste is because of Kasden's script doctoring, which Lucas continues to degrade with each new tinkering of the film.  Lucas seems determined to make this movie suck as much as possible by tweaking good pieces out, one at a time.  [Advertisement-Check out Red Letter Media's fantastic deconstruction of the prequels and original trilogy on You Tube.  It is hilarious and inciteful.  I have never laughed harder.]  The movie is a collection of hackneyed events and dumb jokes.  There are two, count them, TWO belch jokes. One of which adds even more to the ignominious end of Boba Fett, the coolest character next to Solo, when he falls in the Sarlacc's mouth.  Chewie and company are caught in a snare with raw meat.  3PO is a god?!?  Chewie becomes Tarzan, complete with Tarzan roar?  Oh, so much dumbness!  I can actually feel my IQ going down.

Next, the rebels are, tactically, one of the stupidest organizations in the galaxy.  It is a wonder they were not killed by the Empire before this.  The final battle of Endor is looming.  The rebel planners realize they have a shot to knock out not only the new Death Star, but also the Emperor himself.  Yet they commit ALL their resources, including all their leadership and capital ships to the final assault?  Did the planners not once consider this may be a trap or consider the sagacity of putting all your eggs in one basket?  They are the luckiest doofuses ever to trip through a battle to win.

The languages seem to have dumbed down, as well.  3PO keeps bragging that he is fluent in over six million forms of communication, but the only real languages he ever has to translate is Artoo (Beep, bip, boop) and Ewokese (Yub! Yub!)  Otherwise, a sampling of the other languages includes saying "oa" or elongating every vowel at the end of a word ("Artoo Day Toa. Bo Say Thray Pay-oa") or Bossh's language which seems to consist of two syllables.  Thus, "I want fifty thousand, no less" becomes "Yo toe.  Yo toe."  It must be in the inflection.

A technical issue with the effects.  While the effects team cleaned up the rancor very well, the speeder bike chase shows its age.  This is an area where some digital manipulation might have been called for.  First, the superimposed images of the riders and bikes is very different from the background plate, so they almost look like washed-out ghosts in places.  They could have used some color fixes.  Also, since this was superimposed on a background, there is not actual interaction with the background.  As the bike whiz by hundreds of miles per hour, you never see grass or branches being disturbed.  A few digitally inserted moving pieces of foliage would have helped the scene immensely and made the interaction between principles and background so much more convincing.  However, it is still exciting.

Muppets!  Lucas valiantly has maintained over the years that the Ewoks were supposed to be Wookies, like Chewbacca, but they didn't have enough money to film them.  So therefore, he made them cute, kid-marketing friendly, little teddy bears.  So what could have been intimidating opponents as seven-foot tall wookies, can now be sold as cute teddy bears as three-foot Ewoks.  But are we really to believe that there was not enough money?  This movie was literally the sequel to two of the highest-grossing movies, EVER, at the time.  Not one, but TWO of the highest grossing films.  Are we really to believe that the studio would not have ponied up a few extra million to make this, or was the marketing whore taking over, hmmmm?  This is indicative where the artistic flame was extinguished to feed the commercial beast, and quality began to leave the Star Wars universe forever.  One can only hope with the upcoming trilogy under the helm of JJ Abrams, that the new films will be better and we fans will not be treated to the same humiliation of being force-fed crap  while we see our childhood memories being systematically ravaged by a money-mad doofus at the helm as we did with the Prequels.  Disney, please, for the love of God and man, PLEASE do not let Lucas write these next films or be anywhere near them.  JJ has made it clear both in his time with your company and after that he can deliver quality product.  Please let him make the films as he sees fit.  My prayer to the dying.

The Conjuring

3 Stars (Out of four)

The Conjuring is a surprisingly good, tense horror film, better than one might suspect at first glance.  While it is a standard "Boo!" film, it is far from typical.  More on that in a moment.  The story is about a married pair of paranormal researchers in 1971 named Ed and Lorraine Warren.  Ed is the only demonologist recognized by the Catholic Church who is not a member of the clergy and Lorraine is a gifted clairvoyant. It is ostensively a true story about their investigation into a series of increasingly dangerous supernatural disturbances plaguing a family in the New Jersey countryside.  What starts off as a formulaic Poltergeist movie turns into an increasingly escalating set of events that threaten a very nice family of seven (mom, dad and five girls).

This movie is refreshingly honest in its approach.  This is not a comical farce with superficial characters and hackneyed events.  The Warrens are not strange kooks and the family is not a stereotypical troubled mess of cardboard cutouts that usually inhabit this type of film.  Everyone and everything feels real in this film.  The family are is sympathetic and you feel empathy for their plight.  The Warrens are deeply religious but not overly sensationalized Bible beaters like Hollywood tends to portray people who are religious.  Rather, they are methodical researchers and spiritual warriors.  Also atypical for this type of Hollywood film, it takes a stand. It portrays the events as a real conflict between good and evil and that good and evil are real entities, not some banal, philosophical conundrum. The movie ends with a quote from Ed Warren that warns us that good and evil do exist and one must choose a side. There is no neutrality in this struggle and their are only two sides, God and the Devil. We all eventually will have to make a choice between one or the other. While good does triumph here, this film is sending a warning that it can go horribly the other way if one chooses the wrong side. I was a little surprised by this because the film is making a conscious choice, a judgement that is not normally present.  And unlike recent films like The Last Exorcism and End of Days, it portrays these choices with real consequences, not just a bunch of scary events that happen to people for no reason.

The film's tone is surprisingly honest as well. Like most good horror films it does not simply rely on cheap thrills for its impact. The film's atmosphere and pacing become more tense and more chaotic as the film progresses, culminating in the good versus evil showdown at the end.  Beyond that, however, the film is still what I like to refer to as a "Boo!" film.  That is, instead of primarily relying on mood and atmosphere to create an impending and continual sense of dread and unease, it has something jump out and say "Boo!" for its ultimate impact. The movie was punctuated by those boo moments that don't really explain something important to move the story along.  They are there simple to startle or shock.  By the time we get to the final showdown at the end, complete with spitting blood and levitation, it feels like a copout, like they didn't have anywhere else to go, nothing else to say.  Therefore instead, they throw in a noisy struggle.  So while this film valiantly reaches for its more superior kin like Se7en, Silence of the Lambs, or The Sixth Sense, it ultimately falls short of the mark.  And for me, that is disappointing because the movie is so good otherwise.  So, in the end, I would recommend it.  It is much better than I expected.  It is a lot of fun, very scary at times, and fairly satisfying for an above average horror film.  It is not quite great, but makes a good attempt to be so, and is therefore worth the watch.  At the very least, the director has atoned somewhat for that stupid earlier disappointment of his, the torture-porn monstrosity known as Saw.

Pacific Rim 3D IMAX

3.5 Stars (out of four). (No change)

Wow.  This movie is...

Big.

In case that didn't get it across, the movie is...

REALLY big.

Under the definition of BIG, summertime popcorn blockbuster movies, there should be two entries:  the granddaddy of them all, Jaws, and this one.  This is why we go to movies, entertainment on a big scale.  This movie has that it spades and more.  There has been an interesting phenomenon happening recently with movies.  Less people are going.  With movie tickets skyrocketing and home theater systems that are almost as good as a theater itself, people just would rather wait than fight the crowds, the prices and the hassle.  The funny thing is, historically, this trend has happened twice before.  Once with the invention of radio/the Great Depression and the invention of television.  Both times, people were leaving the theaters and staying home.  So, the studios adapted, which means they had to offer an experience you couldn't get at home, and that was spectacle.  In the 30s, it was huge Busby Berkely/Fred Astaire-type musicals.  In the 50s with the advent of TV, it was epic films like Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments.  HUGE entertainment that was meant to be seen on a movie theater screen, not on a tiny box.  Now the studios face the same problem, and if this kind of film is their answer, the future is indeed so bright, we gotta wear shades.

The danger of films like this, though, is the studios will inevitably get lazy and pump out a bunch of crap later.  That is how Godzilla becomes Gamera and Son of Godzilla.  You start with a great director and team and the idea get systematically squeezed until you have Ed Wood films.  This particular film was written and directed by Guillermo Del Toro, the amazing talent behind Hellboy 1 and 2, Blade II, and Pan's Labyrinth.  But in the past, he has always been fighting with one arm tied behind his back, with meager budgets that he makes look like a million bucks.  We now get to see for the first time what happens when that big brain of inspiration gets a real Hollywood budget behind it.  And it is amazing.  And big.

The movie is about a war between the world and an alien invasion of huge monsters.  We conveniently put aside our petty squabbles and band together to form the Jaeger Program, which are huge robots run by a pair of pilots who use them to fight the monsters hand to hand.  Mayhem ensues.  The movie opens with a big fight where in the end, one of the two brother pilots dies in combat.  The other brother can't continue because you need two pilots in each Jaeger who can synch together telepathically, which is a rare combo.  Most of the teams tend to be related.  Suddenly, for some reason (which is not explained), the world cancels this successful program in favor of building large walls to keep the monsters out.  Promptly, the monsters break through the wall and suddenly the Jaeger Program is back up again and they go back to fight with our hero...oh, never mind.  The story doesn't really matter here, and, quite frankly, doesn't make a lot of sense in a lot of parts.  This is probably because of post-production editing, but again, it doesn't matter.  What matters is huge-ass monsters and huge-ass robots beating the crap out of each other and demolishing a major metropolitan center or three.  The incomprehensible plot is the only reason why this movie doesn't have four stars.  Just turn your brain off and go along for the ride.  Savor the spectacle, drink in the fun.  This movie is a visual and auditory assault on all your senses.  I think I may try to see it again in 3D to see if it's any more fun.  It's raucous, loud and over-the-top, but in the end, a big ol' honkin' mess of fun and worth the price of admission.

Oh, and did I mention it's REALLY BIG?

BONUS!!!  3D IMAX UPDATE!!!  BONUS!!!

Now, for the first time, a BONUS update to this most BIG film of films.  Now, I'm sure the question on ALL of your minds (it certainly was on mine), is the IMAX 3D version worth the extra price of admission.  The answer is...(drum roll-imagine a bunch of drums.  Think the ending scene to Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves when they are hanging everybody)...an unqualified...



no.



Just kidding.  Yes, yes and YES!  A big old honkin' YES, just like everything else in this big damn movie.  Twice the spectacle!  Twice the lights!  Twice the sound and thunder!  Twice the big, twice the fun, and yes, twice the dumb.  Did you really expect it to be any different?  But I will digress into serious geek mode here for a moment.  Guillermo Del Toro is an excellent director.  And like James Cameron's Avatar and Martin Scorsese's Hugo, Del Toro properly uses the 3D palate, that is, not to make stuff jump out, but to give depth, to emphasize the hugeness of the story even more dramatically, visually.  While some have complained the action is hard to follow with the 3D, I respectfully disagree.  I was perfectly able to follow everything that was happening.  My one complaint was that it was REALLY loud, as loud as some rock concerts I've been to.  The bass was so loud you could feel it.  Also, the high end spectrum was so loud that it drowned out the mid-range a lot.  The problem is that dialog resides in the mid-range spectrum, so you could not understand what characters were saying at times.  And while I state earlier that knowing the story wasn't necessarily a prerequisite for watching this film, it does help to know what everyone is saying.  Otherwise, the movie was still a lot of fun and worth the extra money if you are so inclined to see it in 3D.

And did I forget to mention that it's really, REALLY big?

 

The Lone Ranger

2 Stars (Out of 4)

The Lone Ranger is, frankly, a Lone Ranger movie.  It is fun, pretty dumb, but not horrible.  This movie is a retelling of the lone ranger's origin story.  All the elements are there.  The idealistic John Reid (played by Armie Hammer), whose brother Dan, who is the town marshal, is gunned down by the dastardly Butch Cavendish and his gang in a bushwhacking ambush.  This prompts our hero to don a mask made from his brother's vest and become an outlaw for justice who wears a badge.  We have his sidekick, Tonto (played surprisingly low-key by the film's executive producer Johnny Depp for those of you who have been living under a rock).  We have Silver.  We even have The William Tell Overture.  After that, it becomes a convoluted mess. The story holds together if you don't think about it too much.  Exposition was apparently verboten in this film, with characters and events flitting in and out of the story with little or no motivation or explanation.

Apparently, the trans-continental railroad is being built and finished somewhere in the mountainous, butte-filled flatlands of west Texas.  The movie flits from the desert of West Texas, to the mesas of New Mexico, to the Rockies in Wyoming in a flash. The railroad's man from Colby, Texas, a Mr. Colby (played by Tom Wilkinson, the go-to British bad guy in films today), who is planning to start a war with the restless Comanches using an unwitting cavalry officer, so he can send the railroad through Comanche land.  Apparently, the dearly departed Dan Reid knew about this and was trying to stop it, which led to his death.  Then there is Dan Reid's widow and orphaned son, whom our hero loves (we think, but can never tell, the movie won't tell us), whose principle roles in this film are to continually be in danger for our hero to save. There is the whorehouse madam (Helena Bonham Carter), whose ivory leg has the power to drive every man into a fetishist frenzy when they see it, who hates Butch, but we don't know why because the movie doesn't tell us, who becomes an important part of the final scene.  Again, we don't know why or when this happened because the movie won't tell us. Tonto hates the railroad man and Butch (at least we think so, the movie won't tell us.  But in this case, it hints at it through a really long flashback scene), and decides to help the Lone Ranger.  We have the obligatory cavalry slaughtering the Indians scene, of course.  We have to show that horrible things happened in the West.  This is the only scene a little out of place.  Up to this point, the movie was a Disneyized version of the West.  Hookers don't hook.  People who have been in love for years only kiss.  There is no dirt, little blood, and the good guy only shoots the guns out of the bad guys' hands.  Perfectly acceptable children's fare.  Then we have an extended scene of Indians being gunned down in a fruitless attack.  An odd choice.  The movie gets real for just a moment, then it's back to stupid CGI stunt work. If this is reading like a convoluted mess, you are beginning to get the idea of the experience of watching the film.

A quick word on Depp's playing Tonto.  Why?  Obviously, it's because he's the producer and can play what he wants.  And if there is any illusion as to who is the star of this movie, just check the attached movie poster, with the Lone Ranger cut half out of the picture and Tonto almost in the center.  Despite the protestations on the press junket that Depp is one eight Cherokee on his mother's side by marriage second cousin twice removed, there are REAL native-Americans who CAN act who would probably have killed for such a juicy role.  We know this because there ARE Indians in the picture.  And while Tonto's tribe affiliation as always been a tad murky, in this movie he is Comanche.  We still have real Comanches alive today and have a pretty good idea what they looked like and what they wore in 1873.  Depp looks like an Indian who came out of the Amazon and not the Southwest.  (Oops, West Texas).  I say all this because I think it is a tad insulting to cast a white man in one of the seminal roles for native-Americans.

In the end, the movie is perfectly acceptable family entertainment.  I like the new look of The Lone Ranger.  The movie is trying to update this very American hero while keeping as much of the original appeal intact.  It's fine for kids who want a sugar-rush of adrenaline, but not much else.