This movie is unintentionally funny. The actors look a hundred years out of place. There are scenes which look like the makers of this movie saw The Doors and On Deadly Ground too many times with its spiritual mysticism. The lead actor (I forget his name and it's probably just as well) looks like he would have trouble leading little old ladies across the street, let alone seek revenge on killers. You don't feel like you are watching a western but somebody's home movies of people trying to act like cowboys. I haven't seen the universally panned 1981 movie Legend of the Lone Ranger in a long time, but I remember it being better than this. Still the movie is watchable in a Mystery Science Theater 3000 kind of way.
24 Reviews
Basic flavor, but a flat taste (minor spoilers)
LucianG27 February 2003
Warning: Spoilers
The basic story of this TV pilot was similar to the original `legend,' but it had its differences too, some major and some just silly. Instead of John Reid, former easterner and now Texas Ranger, we have Luke Hartman, law student and visitor to Dallas from the east, who just so happens to be a dead-on shot. Instead of Butch Cavendish and his gang, we have `Kansas City' Haas and the Regulators who kill the Rangers. Unknown to them, Luke survives and is nursed back to health by Tonto, an Apache who owes him a debt from early in the movie. After recovering, Luke is driven by vengeance over the murder of his brother and trains with the help of Tonto and Kulakinah, the Apache medicine man ably portrayed by Wes Studi. His desire for revenge is understandable, but the `don't stoop to his level' scene with his great almost-mystic horse Silver was pretty silly.
A couple of things that say `this is the Lone Ranger' were either missing or misplaced to the end. First, in previous incarnations, the Lone Ranger always valued human life, knowing that it was precious. The silver bullets he used in the books, radio shows, early movies, and TV show, represented that link to life. Silver bullets, like life, are valuable, and are not to be used lightly. The silver bullets were nowhere to be seen in this movie, and the revelation about the preciousness of life was only discovered at the end.
Secondly, this TV movie began without the William Tell Overture, which was a bad sign, and ended with a quick-time rock version of the WTO that sounded as if it was thrown in for as short a time as possible just because everyone was expecting it. In the closing scene, the galloping horses appeared to have been speeded up as they often did in the original series, though in this case it looked more like the actors and the horses were just trying to get to the end of the movie as fast as they could rather than trying to catch outlaws.
A few minor quibbles:
The acting ability of the stars was like much of what one sees on the WB, neither particularly good nor extraordinarily bad. Again, like many of the WB's shows, the cast members were mostly in their younger 20's, with a few exceptions. Because they were in Texas, the Apaches lived in tepees, which would probably have been historically correct, rather than the traditional Apache wickiup, but the hot tub in the largest tepee the world has ever seen (or maybe it was a medicine lodge?) was completely over the top! Even if one grants that an in-ground tub could have existed, the hot water with JETTED bubbles was just a little too much! Well, maybe a lot too much.
In summary, as a movie, it had the basic flavor of the Lone Ranger, but it was not the movie that it could have been, and in the end, it left a flat taste on the palate. If it overcomes the odds and the production cost problems and becomes a TV series, perhaps these issues can be corrected.
My rating: 5/10.
A couple of things that say `this is the Lone Ranger' were either missing or misplaced to the end. First, in previous incarnations, the Lone Ranger always valued human life, knowing that it was precious. The silver bullets he used in the books, radio shows, early movies, and TV show, represented that link to life. Silver bullets, like life, are valuable, and are not to be used lightly. The silver bullets were nowhere to be seen in this movie, and the revelation about the preciousness of life was only discovered at the end.
Secondly, this TV movie began without the William Tell Overture, which was a bad sign, and ended with a quick-time rock version of the WTO that sounded as if it was thrown in for as short a time as possible just because everyone was expecting it. In the closing scene, the galloping horses appeared to have been speeded up as they often did in the original series, though in this case it looked more like the actors and the horses were just trying to get to the end of the movie as fast as they could rather than trying to catch outlaws.
A few minor quibbles:
The acting ability of the stars was like much of what one sees on the WB, neither particularly good nor extraordinarily bad. Again, like many of the WB's shows, the cast members were mostly in their younger 20's, with a few exceptions. Because they were in Texas, the Apaches lived in tepees, which would probably have been historically correct, rather than the traditional Apache wickiup, but the hot tub in the largest tepee the world has ever seen (or maybe it was a medicine lodge?) was completely over the top! Even if one grants that an in-ground tub could have existed, the hot water with JETTED bubbles was just a little too much! Well, maybe a lot too much.
In summary, as a movie, it had the basic flavor of the Lone Ranger, but it was not the movie that it could have been, and in the end, it left a flat taste on the palate. If it overcomes the odds and the production cost problems and becomes a TV series, perhaps these issues can be corrected.
My rating: 5/10.
The Lone Ranger Re-booted for the WB
zardoz-1318 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The Warner Brothers Network struggled to reboot "The Lone Ranger" without success as a weekly series in this cable TV adaptation. "Child's Play 3"director Jack Bender and "Let The Devil Wear Black" scenarists Stacy Title and Jonathan Penner have taken lots of liberties with the original material. Not only have they changed the names of various protagonists and the antagonists, but also they have altered major plot incidents. The Texas setting remains intact, and Boston bred Luke Hartman (Chad Michael Murray of "House of Wax") arrives from the East to visit his brother, Harmon Hartman (Sebastian Spence of "Little Boy Blues"), who moonlights as a Texas Ranger. Notice that the hero's name has been changed from John Reid to Luke Hartman. When the regulators start raising hell with homeowners in the route of the railway, Harmon and his fellow Rangers saddle up for action. Naturally, Luke wants to accompany his big brother, but Harmon refuses to let him join them. Nevertheless, Luke rides after them despite his older brother's warnings. Harmon allows him to spend the night with them. The chief villain in The Lone Ranger origin story was Butch Cavendish, but here he is known as Kansas City Haas (Dylan Walsh of "Congo"), who seems friendly enough in the beginning. Instead of leading the Rangers into a cross-fire in a valley, double-crossing Kansas and his armed regulators massacre the Texas Rangers while they are encamped for the evening. Kansas and his gunmen are trying to run settlers off their property so they can sell it to the railroad. Kansas plugs both Hartmans, but Luke manages to survive the ordeal. After being tutored by Tonto (Nathaniel Arcand) and given a mask by Native American witch doctor Kulakinah ( Wesi Studi of "Heat"), Hartman makes his first appearance at night as the Masked Man and thwarts Kansas and his gunmen from running a black family off their property. Murray dons a black mask and straddles a white horse, but his outfit looks nothing like Clayton Moore. For the record, Hartman meets Tonto when he tries to defend Tonto' sister in town from a gang of horny gunslingers on his first day out west. Of course, this cannot compare with Clayton Moore's "Lone Ranger" movies and TV episodes, but it is a serious, straightforward narrative that occasionally incorporates some humor and sexuality. Meantime, the Indians don't want to help. The most interesting character again is a villain, and Dylan Walsh savors the role with enthusiasm. At one point, Tonto's sister Alope (Anita Brown of "A Guy Thing") sinks into a hot tub with him. The dialogue is sometimes profane but always memorable. The WB didn't slight this oater. The rough-hewn sets look sumptuous, and the production values are strong. The use of songs behind the violence isn't as effective. In this version, Luke is a natural born crack shot with a handgun. Keep in mind that the Lone Ranger is more of a teenager. He saves Tonto's life at one point. Not bad.
Carson City, 90210
DrStrangeFate1 March 2003
Chad Michael Murray just didn't have the screen presence to really pull this off. He just isn't very believable in the role and frankly, the Lone Ranger is a man to be feared and respected... Chad Michael Murray might be a teen heart throb but is not somebody that is the least bit intimidating. I thought that Nathaniel Arcand's rendition of Tonto was interesting, he does have more screen presence than Chad Michael Murray although he was a little heavy on the angst to be a very likeable character. If this ever becomes a series then hopefully he will tone it down a few notches. The brief romance angle between Tonto's sister and Luke Hartman was okay, the bath scene and explicit sexual overtones may have been a little over the top though as younger kids should be able to watch a show like this. I did like the mystical elements introduced, it adds an interesting angle to the character although the silly power-jumping stuff reminded me of an old show called Manimal for some odd reason.
The background elements of the plot were loosely based on the established story... you know the one that has been established from the books, comics, TV show, and movies for 60 or so years. The writers apparently thought they could do better and decided to make changes that really didn't need to be made. I am not sure why they changed his name to Luke Hartman from Dan Reid.. again, a fact that has been established for over 60 years. I wonder if the copyright holder insisted that these name changes be made so that this is some type of "parallel-universe" version of the Lone Ranger and not the real thing. The overall design of the sets were good, whoever did the technical advising for the movie did a pretty good job. The hip hop music was P*A*I*N*F*U*L... in fact, most of the music was extremely inappropriate and instead of making the scenes hip, they made them awkward and confused. They did give a half-hearted nod to the real Lone Ranger by playing the William Tell Overture at the end and although the rendition was pretty good, the cinematics should have been better... it just looked silly, this skinny guy riding along with this giant Indian guy riding next to him... just who is the sidekick here anyway?
The Lone Ranger's costume was pretty lousy, bearing zero continuity to the actual character and much more like a reject from the Village people. I know they are trying to make him look hip and cool but in doing so have made the character very undistinctive, average, and boring. Gone were all the trademarks elements that are part of the character. It seems to me that when you take a character as well known as the Lone Ranger, you should at least get people to make the film that have some granual of respect for the character itself and include at least some of the elements that make the character as enduring as it has been. When you change as much as these people have then you have a totally different product... this was not the Lone Ranger but rather a cheap knockoff masquerading as the Lone Ranger.
Overall, the movie reminded me of Sony's Godzilla remake.. and is once again proof positive that completely re-inventing a classic icon is foolish and stupid because you automatically alienate any real fan base out there. Most males over the age of 30 probably grew up watching the real Lone Ranger on TV or listening to Radio shows when they were kids. I was hoping for a semi-mature effort from WB but instead we ended up with their usual, predictable attempt to lure in the young, hip crowd with a product that is cliche' and an insult to anybody that knows anything about the character. If this is going to be a series (ugh) , the only hope will be to grow this lame character into more of what it is traditionally suppose to be and introduce those elements that make the Lone Ranger special, but then again it seems some people feel that anything that rebels against tradition is the right thing to do.. how sad. The only redeeming value of this movie is that it made the 1981 flop "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" movie look much better. It was universally disliked because most people felt it strayed too far from the original but after watching it again and comparing it to this lame duck, it is about 100 times better than I remember it. If this ever becomes a series could it be saved? yes, but will it be saved? Probably not and that's a shame.
The background elements of the plot were loosely based on the established story... you know the one that has been established from the books, comics, TV show, and movies for 60 or so years. The writers apparently thought they could do better and decided to make changes that really didn't need to be made. I am not sure why they changed his name to Luke Hartman from Dan Reid.. again, a fact that has been established for over 60 years. I wonder if the copyright holder insisted that these name changes be made so that this is some type of "parallel-universe" version of the Lone Ranger and not the real thing. The overall design of the sets were good, whoever did the technical advising for the movie did a pretty good job. The hip hop music was P*A*I*N*F*U*L... in fact, most of the music was extremely inappropriate and instead of making the scenes hip, they made them awkward and confused. They did give a half-hearted nod to the real Lone Ranger by playing the William Tell Overture at the end and although the rendition was pretty good, the cinematics should have been better... it just looked silly, this skinny guy riding along with this giant Indian guy riding next to him... just who is the sidekick here anyway?
The Lone Ranger's costume was pretty lousy, bearing zero continuity to the actual character and much more like a reject from the Village people. I know they are trying to make him look hip and cool but in doing so have made the character very undistinctive, average, and boring. Gone were all the trademarks elements that are part of the character. It seems to me that when you take a character as well known as the Lone Ranger, you should at least get people to make the film that have some granual of respect for the character itself and include at least some of the elements that make the character as enduring as it has been. When you change as much as these people have then you have a totally different product... this was not the Lone Ranger but rather a cheap knockoff masquerading as the Lone Ranger.
Overall, the movie reminded me of Sony's Godzilla remake.. and is once again proof positive that completely re-inventing a classic icon is foolish and stupid because you automatically alienate any real fan base out there. Most males over the age of 30 probably grew up watching the real Lone Ranger on TV or listening to Radio shows when they were kids. I was hoping for a semi-mature effort from WB but instead we ended up with their usual, predictable attempt to lure in the young, hip crowd with a product that is cliche' and an insult to anybody that knows anything about the character. If this is going to be a series (ugh) , the only hope will be to grow this lame character into more of what it is traditionally suppose to be and introduce those elements that make the Lone Ranger special, but then again it seems some people feel that anything that rebels against tradition is the right thing to do.. how sad. The only redeeming value of this movie is that it made the 1981 flop "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" movie look much better. It was universally disliked because most people felt it strayed too far from the original but after watching it again and comparing it to this lame duck, it is about 100 times better than I remember it. If this ever becomes a series could it be saved? yes, but will it be saved? Probably not and that's a shame.
Complete waste of film
daniducci3 March 2003
The only redeeming quality about this "movie" is the depiction of Tonto as a self assured warrior with leadership abilities. Outside of this one aspect, the rest of the movie was nothing more than a poorly written insult to the history of the Lone Ranger.
While not the first adaptation to get the name wrong, the fact that they change the name from John Reid to Luke Hartman tells you just how little respect the writers have for the character. On top of that, you get a scrawny kid who doesn't even shave yet to play the part? He better be a crack shot, cause there's no way he survives in a hand-to-hand fight.
Bad acting, bad writing, silly action sequences, and a complete lack of respect for the story make for a completely worthless movie. And just to add insult to injury, they have to mangle the William Tell Overture? While a few teenage girls might enjoy this as eye-candy, it lacks any actual quality to make it worth watching.
While not the first adaptation to get the name wrong, the fact that they change the name from John Reid to Luke Hartman tells you just how little respect the writers have for the character. On top of that, you get a scrawny kid who doesn't even shave yet to play the part? He better be a crack shot, cause there's no way he survives in a hand-to-hand fight.
Bad acting, bad writing, silly action sequences, and a complete lack of respect for the story make for a completely worthless movie. And just to add insult to injury, they have to mangle the William Tell Overture? While a few teenage girls might enjoy this as eye-candy, it lacks any actual quality to make it worth watching.
Updated and Fun - A great made for TV Movie
mattachine18 February 2008
This is a very light, made for TV movie. Much better than the campy original TV show. But fans of the original TV show will obviously not enjoy this particular. movie.
If you were born in the 1980s or above, you'll enjoy this up to date take on the Lone Ranger.
Personally I quite liked the relationship shown between Lone Ranger and Tonto (it seemed much more even than the original show) in this movie. It could have been easily called "Tonto and the Lone Ranger".
Of course it doesn't hurt that both the Lone Ranger and Tonto are extremely hot guys, so they're not exactly hard on the eyes. It's unfortunate that this show didn't get turned into a TV series, but if you want a light hearted movie that's going to be a-okay for the whole family, you can't go wrong with this movie.
If you were born in the 1980s or above, you'll enjoy this up to date take on the Lone Ranger.
Personally I quite liked the relationship shown between Lone Ranger and Tonto (it seemed much more even than the original show) in this movie. It could have been easily called "Tonto and the Lone Ranger".
Of course it doesn't hurt that both the Lone Ranger and Tonto are extremely hot guys, so they're not exactly hard on the eyes. It's unfortunate that this show didn't get turned into a TV series, but if you want a light hearted movie that's going to be a-okay for the whole family, you can't go wrong with this movie.
Best version ever
susanrankin26 December 2020
Not nearly the mess everyone rants about
Robert_duder1 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I had wondered a long time why a new version of The Lone Ranger hadn't been done and it wasn't a huge surprise to learn that the WB was going to teenagerize the legend. The series was never picked up but left us with an updated version of the classic western films. Chad Michael Murray just minutes before his fame plays The Lone Ranger and his alter ego. Everyone seems to be genuinely upset about this rendition but I don't quite see the problems although they're are a few, no doubt about it.
This interpretation revolves around the arrival of future Harvard Lawyer Luke Hartman who has made his way out to Dallas, Texas to visit his brother and his wife and young son before making his way to school to fulfill his father's dreams. When Luke arrives a week early, his brother is on his way out on a manhunt. It turns out his brother is a member of a volunteer law enforcement group, a ranger. They are after a group of men called The Regulators who has been burning homes and causing problems in order to make way for the railroad coming through Texas. Luke disobeys his brother's warnings and follows the rangers out to find these men. During the night the Regulators led by Kansas City Haas, a man thought to be on the side of The Rangers, attacks the rangers and shoots them all where they sleep including Luke. However Luke doesn't die and is saved by a young Apache Indian whom Luke had saved his sister earlier that day. The Apache Indian known as Tonto takes Luke back to the camp and nurses him back to health with the help of the tribe. Luke begs for Tonto's help to train him in warrior ways in order to get revenge on Kansas City Haas and The Regulators. Tonto refuses knowing that it is against Tribal Law to train a white man. However after speaking to a close friend within the Tribe Tonto realizes he must help Luke. Together they train. Tonto teaches him everything he knows about being a warrior, hand to hand combat, discipline, mind control, everything. They lean on each other and become the best of friends. Tonto encourages Luke to don a mask in order to represent his warrior side and Luke becomes a masked man bent on revenge. Tonto and Luke track down The Regulators and when it comes down to Luke having the opportunity to avenge his brother's death, Silver, his horse stops him. Luke learns more while they work to find The Regulators a second time. When they meet again Luke learns that anger does not justify murder and he upholds and the law and captures the killer also deciding to stay and defend Texas as The Lone Ranger.
Some things must be considered when going into this film. First and foremost this is less of a retelling than creating the legend over again for youngsters who probably never heard of Clayton Moore. So the film is made specifically with them in mind and no one else. Set old time western action to modern day dance music, forget any remnants of historical accuracy whatsoever, and basically just touch on the old Lone Ranger. All the elements are here...Tonto, Silver, the Mask, the guns, hi ho silver, and jumping onto his back, but do away with the white hat, black mask (it's brown.) They really go back to the roots of where this character is coming from and you also have to remember that this was meant to be a pilot to a series so they are basically only setting things up for future plot developments, including the romance. Some things are left so open for that reason. The cast is actually quite excellent. The unknown (at the time) Chad Michael Murray fits in perfectly, not so much with the western scenery, but just with the character, he's definitely a teenage draw. Nathaniel Arcand plays Tonto and he is great. He DOES fit in with the western scene and is excellent as the teacher and semi-sidekick but more of a partner. One thing I was impressed with was the film is rich with Native American heritage. How true it is, might be a different story but still it has that element of culture that is so often not covered in films. Director Jack Bender who has done some great Television does his best but I think the writing lacked something. I think it would have gotten better as a series. Overall it was an enjoyable teen flick rendition of the classic character and I don't know why people give it such a hard rap. Check it out if you ever get to see it, it's a rare gem. 7/10
This interpretation revolves around the arrival of future Harvard Lawyer Luke Hartman who has made his way out to Dallas, Texas to visit his brother and his wife and young son before making his way to school to fulfill his father's dreams. When Luke arrives a week early, his brother is on his way out on a manhunt. It turns out his brother is a member of a volunteer law enforcement group, a ranger. They are after a group of men called The Regulators who has been burning homes and causing problems in order to make way for the railroad coming through Texas. Luke disobeys his brother's warnings and follows the rangers out to find these men. During the night the Regulators led by Kansas City Haas, a man thought to be on the side of The Rangers, attacks the rangers and shoots them all where they sleep including Luke. However Luke doesn't die and is saved by a young Apache Indian whom Luke had saved his sister earlier that day. The Apache Indian known as Tonto takes Luke back to the camp and nurses him back to health with the help of the tribe. Luke begs for Tonto's help to train him in warrior ways in order to get revenge on Kansas City Haas and The Regulators. Tonto refuses knowing that it is against Tribal Law to train a white man. However after speaking to a close friend within the Tribe Tonto realizes he must help Luke. Together they train. Tonto teaches him everything he knows about being a warrior, hand to hand combat, discipline, mind control, everything. They lean on each other and become the best of friends. Tonto encourages Luke to don a mask in order to represent his warrior side and Luke becomes a masked man bent on revenge. Tonto and Luke track down The Regulators and when it comes down to Luke having the opportunity to avenge his brother's death, Silver, his horse stops him. Luke learns more while they work to find The Regulators a second time. When they meet again Luke learns that anger does not justify murder and he upholds and the law and captures the killer also deciding to stay and defend Texas as The Lone Ranger.
Some things must be considered when going into this film. First and foremost this is less of a retelling than creating the legend over again for youngsters who probably never heard of Clayton Moore. So the film is made specifically with them in mind and no one else. Set old time western action to modern day dance music, forget any remnants of historical accuracy whatsoever, and basically just touch on the old Lone Ranger. All the elements are here...Tonto, Silver, the Mask, the guns, hi ho silver, and jumping onto his back, but do away with the white hat, black mask (it's brown.) They really go back to the roots of where this character is coming from and you also have to remember that this was meant to be a pilot to a series so they are basically only setting things up for future plot developments, including the romance. Some things are left so open for that reason. The cast is actually quite excellent. The unknown (at the time) Chad Michael Murray fits in perfectly, not so much with the western scenery, but just with the character, he's definitely a teenage draw. Nathaniel Arcand plays Tonto and he is great. He DOES fit in with the western scene and is excellent as the teacher and semi-sidekick but more of a partner. One thing I was impressed with was the film is rich with Native American heritage. How true it is, might be a different story but still it has that element of culture that is so often not covered in films. Director Jack Bender who has done some great Television does his best but I think the writing lacked something. I think it would have gotten better as a series. Overall it was an enjoyable teen flick rendition of the classic character and I don't know why people give it such a hard rap. Check it out if you ever get to see it, it's a rare gem. 7/10
I've had enough of slanderous comments.
keldara_129 April 2003
While reading many of the comments about this movie, I noticed that a fair percentage of them are inflammatory. While this version of the Lone Ranger was aimed at teen girls(I happen to be one) as is obviously depicted by placing Murray as the Ranger, what viewers tend to overlook is that it is just that, a version of the story. I've heard many comments on the lack of good costuming,and I agree it did look way too modern, the actual Lone Ranger costume is a legally bound costume. No one but Clayton Moore can wear that costume legally. Also the William Tell overture, that to I'm afraid cannot be legally used in its original form. And the hip- hop? I have to admit I was paying more attention to the beautiful sets than the background music.While hip- hop is not exactly the best thing to play, I can definitely see why it was, considering the target audience. The dialogue was not fabulous, I know. Oh, and the changing of the character's name? Once again I'm afraid the law gets in the way. On a special note, I suggest doing a little research before condemning a VERSION of a classic show.
Hoaky? Gawd Yes!! Lousy? Just great to see the theme revisited.
carlecker28 December 2005
Listen - up. Some of us have waited for the Western Genre to have a comeback ~ and hopefully more historically correct for Natives and Blacks. This was far from even a hint of come-back but it was SOMETHING WESTERN at least! Let's face it. The original was hoaky too. And corny and all of that. It had all the earmarks of Hollywood of the time ~ as in hoof beats on a hollow sound-stage floor, phoney back-drops, the same local scene re-used ad nausium. Jay Silverheels and CLayton Moore were as stiff and wooden and un-western as Luke and Nathaniel in this 'younger years' version. LOL Don't take it seriously, i mean it has a modern rock soundtrack and machine sewn pin-strip shirts for gawds sake ha ha ha ... just sit back and enjoy the tale and the nostalgic trip to your childhood if you're old enough. It's a fun made-for-TV-movie that is surely DVD worthy perhaps with a few of the half hour originals as as Special Features And Interviews with both cast of old and new.
A Middling Effort
ghayes-226 February 2003
I watched this expecting the worst, and was actually mildly pleased. This movie is certainly an improvement over the 1981 disaster Legend of The Lone Ranger. My biggest disappointment was that the lead, though competent, is just too young to carry the role. On the other hand, he's perfect for WB's target audience, the young adult crowd. And of course, this film has "Pilot" written all over it.
That said, there were some changes I didn't quite get. Like, why did they change the Lone Ranger's name? "John Reed" becomes "Luke Hartman"? And where are the silver bullets? I mean, come on!
Oh - and who knew that 19th century Apache women were so skilled in the use of eyebrow pencils, eyeshadow, foundation and lip liner? History lessons can be fun, I guess.
That said, there were some changes I didn't quite get. Like, why did they change the Lone Ranger's name? "John Reed" becomes "Luke Hartman"? And where are the silver bullets? I mean, come on!
Oh - and who knew that 19th century Apache women were so skilled in the use of eyebrow pencils, eyeshadow, foundation and lip liner? History lessons can be fun, I guess.
a modern view of an old story!
jmm2134027 February 2003
I grew up with "The Lone Ranger"! First, on radio then the early days of TV. Loved it first for the music then the story! I also saw the movie made several years ago that seems to be the origins of this movie. That movie didn't go too far! This one I like and hate! Why?
Chad Michael Murray does a fine job in this role. This movie seems to be leading to a series which would be fine. Typical of WB, they seem to want to aim it at a young demographic and hence use an MTV approach to the background music [Rossini did a fine job with "The William Tell Overture] and that joggled me. Frankly the music pukes, in addition to being anachronistic and WB who runs a big music business probably shouldn't try promoting that in all its programming. The movie had good action, although the 'kung fu' seemed out of place. The actors were pretty good and convincing in their roles. The sites were beautiful to see; I really liked the locations. Introducing the Indian Maiden[Alope] as a love interest for Luke was refreshing; something that had not really been done with any of the previous 'lone rangers'. This 'pilot' has real potential and I hope that WB decides to continue the series. It would be refreshing but they've got to rethink the background music [nothing wrong with a traditional approach]! Love the movie; hate the soundtrack!
Chad Michael Murray does a fine job in this role. This movie seems to be leading to a series which would be fine. Typical of WB, they seem to want to aim it at a young demographic and hence use an MTV approach to the background music [Rossini did a fine job with "The William Tell Overture] and that joggled me. Frankly the music pukes, in addition to being anachronistic and WB who runs a big music business probably shouldn't try promoting that in all its programming. The movie had good action, although the 'kung fu' seemed out of place. The actors were pretty good and convincing in their roles. The sites were beautiful to see; I really liked the locations. Introducing the Indian Maiden[Alope] as a love interest for Luke was refreshing; something that had not really been done with any of the previous 'lone rangers'. This 'pilot' has real potential and I hope that WB decides to continue the series. It would be refreshing but they've got to rethink the background music [nothing wrong with a traditional approach]! Love the movie; hate the soundtrack!
I absolutely love it!!!
RavenMaiden28 February 2003
I recently watched The Lone Ranger (2003), the T.V. movie and i have got to say that i really liked it. I don't think i've ever really watched a western movie before and i never thought i would, but i'm hooked now, i only hope that they decide to make it a series for this fall. The acting was fabulous, i love Tonto, he was great. And Luke is a deffinate hottie. I loved seeing Wes Studi, he's as amazing as ever. All round its a great show, very entertaining. I'll make a prediction, if this show premiers this fall as a series, its gonna be a hit. Its the best show i've seen on T.V. in ages.
A genuine travesty
mt904515 August 2003
When I read the promotional statements about the new proposed Lone Ranger series on the WB, I was immediately set to wondering how in the world they'd do the teen-aged version of someone whose entire identity was based upon the idea of having none, subjugating his own individuality for a grander idea of becoming the embodiment of western justice and lawfulness. Quite obviously the answer was to screw the entirety of the original and go with a repulsive hybrid which retained virtually nothing but the name.
In principle, remakes of classic characters can be accomplished without totally trashing everything that was good about the original and necessary for those who remember the original (the single reason I can imagine it makes any sense to do it in the first place) to accept the revision. The WB execs, however, wouldn't know about this, and have shown in every case that they (or their hired contractors) know more than the characters' originators. Thus, we get a semi-powerless, uncostumed Clark Kent who may never become Superman at all (the acceptance of which by the TV public resulting in all the awful reworkings of other characters to follow), we get Birds of Prey who bear only superficial resemblance to the comic book they came from (with disastrous results), and we get a Tarzan set in New York played by a blond underwear model. Thus it is no surprise that they attempted to update the Lone Ranger a la "Young Guns," applying wildly inappropriate casting, characterization, costuming, dialogue, music, and approach to something that needed alteration only in tone and the storyline sophistication to elevate it from its juvenile entertainment roots. Luckily, I've already forgotten everything about it that I can, though I fear some aspects will haunt my nightmares for years to come.
About the only aspect of the basic concept of the Lone Ranger that had any need to be altered was the reason for wearing the mask, which was glossed over by the TV series, and seemed only to serve as a plot complication in which someone would have to be convinced that he was not an outlaw despite the costume. The revisions here were complete, and inane, and the mask only served here to make the poor actor look like a complete idiot. The less said about everything else, the better.
The single reason I write this is to clear up the mistaken assertion of another reviewer here. The Lone Ranger's costume and likeness are owned by Golden Books Inc., who were responsible for this production as copyright holder; they could have used whatever aspects of the original they wanted, including the costume, civilian name, story elements, et al. Clayton Moore owned NOTHING involved with the Lone Ranger, and in fact was enjoined by the copyright owners of the time (Mattel, I believe, circa 1981) of the release of the prior travesty of the character ("Legend of the Lone Ranger" starring the "immortal" Klinton Spilsbury, redubbed by James Keach) from wearing either the tunic or mask of the Lone Ranger in the public appearances he'd been making for decades, because they would "confuse the public." They later relented, but Moore never owned any of it and has nothing to do with anything apart from surely rolling in his grave. Similarly, Rossini's "William Tell Overture" is public domain, and free for anyone to use. So each of the awful choices made by the producers were freely made and totally their fault.
There are no excuses except the hubris possessed by virtually every producer who has ever come near a camera in the history of film, combined with the presumption that the original idea they've been charged with retelling is either hopelessly out of date, misconceived, or somehow flawed--because it would "obviously" still be in production if none of these were true. What makes me saddest of all is that I cannot think of a single instance in the dozens of recent examples where the revived result was superior in any way to the original, except in terms of the amount of money thrown at it. Perhaps, someday, there will be one. It would be a happy, and very welcome, surprise.
In principle, remakes of classic characters can be accomplished without totally trashing everything that was good about the original and necessary for those who remember the original (the single reason I can imagine it makes any sense to do it in the first place) to accept the revision. The WB execs, however, wouldn't know about this, and have shown in every case that they (or their hired contractors) know more than the characters' originators. Thus, we get a semi-powerless, uncostumed Clark Kent who may never become Superman at all (the acceptance of which by the TV public resulting in all the awful reworkings of other characters to follow), we get Birds of Prey who bear only superficial resemblance to the comic book they came from (with disastrous results), and we get a Tarzan set in New York played by a blond underwear model. Thus it is no surprise that they attempted to update the Lone Ranger a la "Young Guns," applying wildly inappropriate casting, characterization, costuming, dialogue, music, and approach to something that needed alteration only in tone and the storyline sophistication to elevate it from its juvenile entertainment roots. Luckily, I've already forgotten everything about it that I can, though I fear some aspects will haunt my nightmares for years to come.
About the only aspect of the basic concept of the Lone Ranger that had any need to be altered was the reason for wearing the mask, which was glossed over by the TV series, and seemed only to serve as a plot complication in which someone would have to be convinced that he was not an outlaw despite the costume. The revisions here were complete, and inane, and the mask only served here to make the poor actor look like a complete idiot. The less said about everything else, the better.
The single reason I write this is to clear up the mistaken assertion of another reviewer here. The Lone Ranger's costume and likeness are owned by Golden Books Inc., who were responsible for this production as copyright holder; they could have used whatever aspects of the original they wanted, including the costume, civilian name, story elements, et al. Clayton Moore owned NOTHING involved with the Lone Ranger, and in fact was enjoined by the copyright owners of the time (Mattel, I believe, circa 1981) of the release of the prior travesty of the character ("Legend of the Lone Ranger" starring the "immortal" Klinton Spilsbury, redubbed by James Keach) from wearing either the tunic or mask of the Lone Ranger in the public appearances he'd been making for decades, because they would "confuse the public." They later relented, but Moore never owned any of it and has nothing to do with anything apart from surely rolling in his grave. Similarly, Rossini's "William Tell Overture" is public domain, and free for anyone to use. So each of the awful choices made by the producers were freely made and totally their fault.
There are no excuses except the hubris possessed by virtually every producer who has ever come near a camera in the history of film, combined with the presumption that the original idea they've been charged with retelling is either hopelessly out of date, misconceived, or somehow flawed--because it would "obviously" still be in production if none of these were true. What makes me saddest of all is that I cannot think of a single instance in the dozens of recent examples where the revived result was superior in any way to the original, except in terms of the amount of money thrown at it. Perhaps, someday, there will be one. It would be a happy, and very welcome, surprise.
Funny, Sexy and a great show!
countrygirl20006 March 2003
I am very impressed with the way WB updated the Lone Ranger. Chad Michael Murray was fantastic! He is young, hot and sexy. A Star in the making.
There was lots of action laced with humor. It was very well done and the cast was great.
You almost felt like you were there. I feel that by updating the Lone Ranger we are giving the younger generation a chance to know one of the greatest cowboys. I believe this movie will open the doors for more western style shows something that has been long over due. I would love to see this become a tv series.
There was lots of action laced with humor. It was very well done and the cast was great.
You almost felt like you were there. I feel that by updating the Lone Ranger we are giving the younger generation a chance to know one of the greatest cowboys. I believe this movie will open the doors for more western style shows something that has been long over due. I would love to see this become a tv series.
the best movie ever!
angiemusic829 March 2003
this was the best version of the lone ranger ever!wonderfully written and acted! i hope it becomes a series. my family and all my friends loved it!i like how they updated it. the music was cool. the outfits were great. anyone who didnt like it had to be blind. and anyone who would put down someone as sweet as chad has problems. everyone involved did a fantastic job! and, im not a teen, im 23. chad murray was a more sexy lone ranger, but he would be sexy in anthing. and, they needed to bring the western into 2003. nathaniel arcands fighting scenes were awesome too. it made me proud to have cherokee in my family. silver was beautiful, and, the forbidden love story of the ranger and tontos sister was exciting! if the wb dosent pick this up as a series, they must not care about how many viewers they have. they will be the ones missing out. think of all the money that could be made on pictures, videos, and merchandise of this show too. sunshine
can't wait for the series
alliecat13827 February 2003
I loved this movie! It is something I hadn't planned on watching, but I am glad I did. I want to see how everything unravels. IT was great and left me wanting to see more. Nathaniel Arcand did an excellent job as Tonto. The story of The Lone Ranger has been a favorite of mine, since I was a little girl and watched the cartoon Every Saturday morning. This definitely will live up to the WB standards, a channel I love.
Awesome movie, hope it's a series
canadian_renegade1 March 2003
After hearing tales of my dad talking about The Lone Ranger, and other such tales, I was semi-interested in this movie. Then I started watching it. It was amazing! The story is original, and believable. There are rumours that this is going to be a series, and I hope so. This has great potential! Action-filled without being corny, and I love Silver. It's the kind of movie that you have to watch a few times to get all the details. And I love it how the little things a character says end uyp being big deals in the end. It makes the story flow so much more. 10/10!
Great movie
lucasscottlover13 January 2006
This movie was outstanding in my opinion, I may be the only one who thinks that but who cares because I'm sticking to that notion! The actors were outstanding and the scenes were completely breathtaking. Everyone I know hated this film but I feel they are wrong! The directing was great and the movie was really emotional! The first time I see the movie out to buy I'm going to get it. Me and my mom shed some tears and only a really good movie is able to make me cry. Great actor choice, personally I think you made good costume choices too, none were to overboard. Chad gave a wonderful performance too! You go Chad! I was completely heartbroken when the makers decided to cut it as a show, I would have been an avid watcher! I am a true fan!
I thought it was great...
WhiteCoyote28 February 2003
I loved it. It was one of the few 'Western' orientated movies that didn't show Native Americans as savages walking around and saying "how, white-man." And The Ranger himself was all "Hi-ho, Silver, Away!" They eliminated a lot of what made 'The Lone Ranger' seem extremely corny to me. As for the soundtrack, I loved it. Especially the ending with The Lone Ranger theme blaring on electric guitar. If I can find the tabs for it, I'm playing it at my next party. I hope they make into a series, I'll add it to my list of things that I watch during the week. Smallville, Buffy, Angel, CSI...The Lone Ranger. Sounds like a pretty good fit to me, y'all. Sure, I'm 18, and an angsty 18 year old male, at that. But this movie sparked my interest. Sure, it didn't hold true to what the old Lone Ranger acted like, and the wardrobes weren't exactly accurate, (being native myself, I do understand that.) but it's defiantly going down as one of my favorite T.V. Movies.
EXTRAORDINARY!
angiemusic8219 March 2003
This Lone Ranger movie was absolutely the best that my wife, kids,and I have ever seen! Making the ranger younger was a great idea, and having tontos sister as a love interest was brilliant! Alot of people seem mad that they changed a classic, but my family and I would love to see it as a regular series. If there is too much controversy, then, let him be the son of the lone ranger. they could add the silver bullets and butch cavendish for history. The clothes were cool,and the new name went with the younger character better. It was awesome the way it was though! Here is a real laugh. A few people called the original lone ranger intimidating, He was just a good guy who fought to save people,like this one. It was wonderfully written and acted. I also think the william tell overature sounded good like that. Lots of families loved the movie, not just teenagers either. The script was great,the dialogue, the scenery... The legend lives on! This could be the start of a life-long career for Chad Murray and Nathaniel Arcand! A few people complained about sexual content, but thats life.I think> everyone involved did a fabulous job!The movie taught kids good things too, like how valuable friendship is, hate is no reason to kill,revenge is wrong, so is being predjudice..The movie was exciting from beginning to end!Hopefully, the WB will be smart enough to pick it up as a series before another network does.
GOOD THINGS UP AHEAD!!
spencerthetracy27 February 2003
Good acting, good action sequences, good comraderie--this just might add up to something. If the first episode is indicative what the rest of the series has in store, then I'll be tuning in. Chad Murray has that playful and spiritual quality that not only makes a star but which, more importantly, makes a good actor. Some good casting and VERY GOOD cinematography are going to make this a very watchable and compelling show. So far-thumbs UP!
Best Prequel ever!
sarahsmithson-0609610 October 2022
This is a wonderful movie. We watch it every Thanksgiving. It is a great prequel. This feels so much more accurate than any other version I have seen. The characters are well written and although the main actors are a bit young and green, they are playing iconic characters who are at this point still young and green. There is a lot of emotional and cultural reality to the script. If you want your preteens to be inspired, this will do the trick! But us oldsters can really enjoy it too! I find the story moving every time I watch it. And when William Telk's Overture plays at the end I get goose bumps.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
