A Lenda do Cavaleiro Solitário

"The Legend of the Lone Ranger" will always be one of my favorite movies. I am really tired of people bashing this movie. I will take "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" over a lot of the pretentious and overrated snoozers that have won Best Picture at the Academy Awards year after year. The movie is fast paced, entertaining and a great re-telling of the Lone Ranger story. Great cinematography! A wonderful and scenic film to look at. Klinton Spilsbury takes a lot of unwarranted criticism for his performance but I see nothing wrong with it considering his entire performance was dubbed by the less than stellar James Keach. Blaming Spilsbury for the acting makes no sense since Keach seems to phone his performance in. All in all, a fun movie deserving of a little more respect.

The well-deserved negative comments about this beautifully-filmed fiasco have all but obscured one important good deed: the attempt to update the Lone Ranger on the wide screen, in all his majestic conservatism. Where the studio, in my mind, failed, was in treating the Ranger as "someone we know." For anyone who grew up in the late '40's or early '50's, and remembers Brace Beemer's voice [one God would have envied], or even his predecessor's [Earle Graser], or remembers how naturally Clayton Moore assumed the role for television, the expensive exposure of Klinton Spilsbury was cruelly unnecessary. Why trifle with the Masked Man's origins? He was perfect as we knew him! The Ranger, for all you out there in cyberspace, was NEVER named John; that his last name was Reid was well-known, but to give him a first name [and an unremarkable one at that], was to snatch away some of the mystery and aura surrounding the character. The Wrather Corporation, which bought the rights to the Lone Ranger from George W. Trendle, made this foolish mistake, and they robbed the Masked Man of any heroic pretense by making him, in essence, one of us. If someone bought the rights to the Superman character, changed his planet from Krypton to some other location, and did away with his earthly name of Clark Kent, can you imagine the reaction? The Wrather Corporation robbed themselves of a valuable property by re-tooling the Lone Ranger, and the result was this cinematic fiasco. It could have worked well, even without a "name" actor. The film was shot through with admirable creative strokes. Two come to mind. First, the racist attack on the young Tonto, second, the planned gang-rape of Amy Striker on the hijacked stagecoach, neither of which could have been broadcast nor televised in the '40's or '50's. Even the scene in the confessional could have proved a brilliant stroke [indeed, we saw it imitated in the 1998 "The Mask of Zorro" to wonderful effect]. The point is that it all could have worked! The sadistic ambush of the Texas Rangers at Bryant's Gap was realistic and moving, but could have been dealt with far more effectively by means of flashbacks. The film failed because the studio didn't care enough to probe the reasons for the Ranger's motivation [the superficial one of revenge for the massacre at Bryant's Gap wasn't enough] and Tonto's reasons for his remarkable and deeply humane devotion to his friend. A re-orchestration of the Republic and classical overtures would have heightened the film [as expensive as this might have been] from an ordinary Western into something else; a retelling of a classic myth and cultural icon. We Ranger fanatics are much the poorer because a rich corporation bought the rights to a character without understanding [or caring] about the emotional underpinnings of the legend. American audiences were ready for a "modern" Lone Ranger in 1981; I'm not certain that anyone cares anymore, and that's the tragedy.

Orphaned at a young age by outlaws, John Reid (Klinton Spilsbury) returns to Texas after having spent time becoming a lawyer to reunite with his Texas Ranger brother Dan (John Bennett Perry) in the frontier town of Del Rio. John saves his fellow stagecoach passengers from hooded bandits of the Cavendish Gang, led by disgraced Union Major Butch Cavendish (Christopher Lloyd). John stirkes up a romance with one of the passengers, writer Amy Striker (Juanin Clay) daughter of local newspaper publisher Lucas Striker (John Hart). When Lucas Striker's newspaper office is attacked by the Cavendish Gang leaving Lucas dead, Dan and his fellow rangers organize a posse to go after Cavendish with John joining. The group trace Cavendish to a ravine where having been betrayed by Collins (David Hayward) are gunned down by Cavendish and his gang and left for dead. By chance Tonto (Michael Horse) comes across the site of the shootout and discovers not only is one of the rangers still alive, but it's his friend and adoptive "blood brother" Kimo-Sabe who had saved his life in their youth. Tonto nurses John back to health and eventually honing John's skills in shooting and helping him wrangle a white Stallion he names Silver, John dons a mask leaving behind his former name and swears to protect law and order as The Lone Ranger starting with bringing Butch Cavendish to justice.

First appearing on radio station WXYZ (Detroit) in 1933 and created by either station owned George W. Trendle or by writer Fran Striker (matter of some debate), the series while initially aimed at children managed to exhibit a broader reach than anticipated with over the half the audience consisting of adults. The success of the character and radio program lead to expansion of the character to other areas including books (many written by Striker), two Republic Pictures produced film serials, and most famously the 1949-1957 TV series adaptation starring Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels as The Lone Ranger and Tonto respectively. After the series ended Moore continued to make appearances as the character at Children's Hospitals, Fairs, and charitable events having identified with the character. Rights to the character were eventually bought by oil billionaire Jack Wrather, who sought to make a feature film adaptation of the character for modern audiences. Development on the film was sped along by the success of 1978's Superman encourages financiers to revive other older Ips and characters including The Lone Ranger. The movie was beset by problems including Klinton Spilsbury who portrayed the character in the film whose behavior was reported to be problematic with the actor often getting into brawls, showing up to set drunk, or acting with an unearned air of arrogance. Spilsburry's performance was deemed weak and was eventually dubbed over by actor James Keach (who later said Spilsburry's performance wasn't THAT bad but it was an easy payday), but the biggest negative publicty came from Wrather's treatment of Clayton Moore who obtained an injunction against Moore from making any appearances as The Lone Ranger in public out of fear his continuing to do so would confuse audiences. Moore continued to make appearances using wraparound sunglasses and eventually won a countersuit that allowed him to continue. When the movie was released, the film was a massive disaster and alongside Heaven's Gate is credited with making the western genre less bankable at the box office (though Lone Ranger would mitigate its losses thanks to healthy TV sales). The Legend of the Lone Ranger is considered a black mark on the character, but is it really that bad?

One of the major criticisms of The Legend of the Lone Ranger was in the hour long lead up before John Reid dons the mask, a point producer Lew Garde would concur with in his memoirs saying in hindsight the backstory should've been done away with in the first ten minutes. The movie does take a long time before Reid finally dons the mask, but I do understand why the hour exists in relation to the rest of the story. The movie tries to set up the relationship of both Tonto and Reid from the days of their youth (only hinted at in the TV series) and give us more insight into the motivation behind the characters and their relationship. It's not bad in theory, and the sequence where we see Reid raised alongside Tonto is definitely influenced from contemporary westerns of the 70s such as Little Big Man or A Man Called Horse that tried to give more depth to Native American characters in contrast to the majority of productions of the 40s,50s, and 60s, with instances like Tonto in The Lone Ranger being the exception rather than the rule. I think what doesn't work is the story beat of John being sent to Illinois so he can study law because it feels like it distances him a bit too much from both Tonto and Reid's brother Dan with Tonto being absent for nearly a half-hour until the 50 minute mark.

Klinton Spilsbury is a major issue with the movie, he looks fine as The Lone Ranger and looks like a leading man, but with his voice dubbed noticeably by another actor we don't have a "full" performance for the character and instead we have two halves of a performance crudely stapled together. This was Spilsbury's only film role and I'm not sure how fair I can judge his performance since I'm not experiencing all of it, but as is its unfortunately not all that great. I did enjoy Michael Horse as Tonto in what was Horse's film debut and Horse would go on to have a respectable career as a character actor notably playing Deputy Hawk on the cult TV show Twin Peaks. Most of the supporting cast is really good with Christopher Lloyd's take on Butch Cavendish as a rogue separatist union Major bent on establishing the Republic of New Texas by kidnapping President Grant is a fun premise and Lloyd's intensity makes him seem like a force to contend with, similarly Jason Robards is very entertaining as President Grant with his grizzled demeanor and acerbic commentary leading to some fun exchanges between him and Lloyd.

The movie is the final directorial feature of noted cinematographer William A. Fraker of Bullitt and Rosemary's Baby among others, and having directed well regarded Lee Marvin western Monte Walsh in 1970, it's clear Fraker knows how to direct and stage an epic and energized western. The action sequences are brutal and chaotic with a sense of weight to them with the Stagecoach set piece in particular featuring some beautiful vistas as well as some thrilling sequences. The movie was very expensive for the time and you can see the money on screen with how elaborate the action sequences are. Unfortunately what drags them down is the lack of a strong lead and thanks to the dubbing and dragging nature of the first half of the film, Spilsbury and Horse really don't replicate the chemistry Moore and Silverheels managed to convey in just 66 minutes that this movie tries to do with 97 minutes.

The Legend of the Lone Ranger is okay. There's some strong performances from Lloyd, Horse, and Robards, and the action is suitably engaging with elaborate stunts and set pieces where the money was clearly spent, but the lack of chemistry between Spilsbury and Horse, as well as the fact there's not really a "full" performance for The Lone Ranger makes for a pretty noticeable weak point in the movie. It's not a complete failure and there is some fun to be had, but it's pretty hard to ignore some major faults.

I know that I am in the minority here, but I've always really liked this movie. I fondly recall viewing it in the theater with my parents when i was 6 years old. Maybe I am blind when it comes to the film, but i don't see any major problems with it. It's not a perfect film, but it is quite enjoyable. Let me put it this way, there are many films out there which are much worse!

I think what i liked the most was the music score, that theme song was haunting to my ears and one of the few that stayed fresh in my mind for so many years. John Barry truly did a marvelous job on this one, and many other movie scores over the years as well. I wish i could find the original theme song on CD, or at least on MP3.

I saw this when I was five. I liked it at the time and was too young to have heard about the politics and controversy with Clayton Moore or notice the dubbing of the title character's voice. Even watching it again the other day for the first time in almost thirty years, those things were not issues to the movie itself.

It was entertaining. There are things I'd change here or there, but overall it was good. The handling of Tonto still holds up today in our hyper-PC world.

It's not without its warts, but they can easily be seen beyond and the movie enjoyed. Definitely check it out.