Die Legende vom einsamen Ranger

The untold origin of the Lone Ranger. It shows who he was and how and why he became the Ranger.

Legendary bomb. The idea was not a bad one--reinvent and introduce the Lone Ranger for 1980s audiences. Right off the bat though there were problems. The studio ordered Clayton Moore (the original Ranger) to stop appearing anywhere as the Lone Ranger. It led to a nasty little battle that made headlines. I know of people who refused to see the film because of how Moore was treated. Also they hired the awesomely untalented Klinton Spilsbury to play the Ranger. Spilsbury was very handsome and muscular but had absolutely no charisma and just couldn't act. In fact his whole vocal performance was redubbed by another actor! Also his off screen antics (public drunkenness and beating people up) didn't help matters. Acting aside, the script is dull and slow. Also the Ranger himself doesn't show up until an HOUR in! There were some complaints at the time that the movie was too violent for a PG. However I don't think it was that bad.

There are a few (very few) things done right here--the photography was truly beautiful; Michael Horse was excellent as Tonto; Christopher Lloyd is lots of fun as the villain and when the Lone Ranger finally shows up (with the William Tell Overture booming from the soundtrack) it's really rousing. But, all in all, this is a boring and terrible attempt to bring back the Lone Ranger. It's easy to see why this bombed. A 4--mostly for the photography.

The Legend of the Lone Ranger is an earnest adaptation of the origin and earliest adventures of John Reid's masked alter ego. Not particularly well made or well acted, Legend does have its moments, especially after lead Klinton Spilsbury dons the familiar black mask and white hat. To hear the upbeat tempo of the William Tell Overture truly does bring shivers to old fans' spines once more. Spilsbury, despite a nationwide search, was not a good choice for the Lone Ranger. He is not especially tall, broad shouldered, or very heroic in his movments. And obviously his voice was not good enough for the role either, as James Keach was brought in to dub over Spilsbury's lines. However, Spilsbury does prove to be physically capable, and his fight scenes and shoot outs are very much like the legendary Clayton Moore's. Michael Horse has departed from Jay Silverheel's monosyllabic and subservant version of Tonto. He is an activistic sidekick, prepared to defend his people to a fault, even if he has to step over his partner, the Ranger. Look for fairly good acting from the various co-stars, including Christopher Lloyd as the fiendish Butch Cavendish, Richard Farnsworth as Buffalo Bill, and especially Jason Robards as a frequently inebriated President U.S. Grant. All in all, not a great film, but one that tries incredibly hard to keep the Legend of the Lone Ranger alive.

After reading so many bad comments on this film, I guess I'm one of the few that disagree with the critics. I really liked this movie. I thought it was well directed by William Fraker, with terrific photography and a well written story. So, for once, there isn't a lot of blood and guts all over the place. Who cares? It was also interesting to me to see how the Lone Ranger got his name and the whole silver bullet legend, which I never knew. So, thanks for filling me in on that subject.

Some wonderful performances by all of the leads. How wonderful to see Jason Robards as President Grant. He added so much to the role with his usuall unbeatable acting abilities. This is a terrific actor in all that he does. And Christopher Lloyd as "Butch" Cavendish, the villain, plays the part with simplicity and not the usuall western bad guy. It was nice to see Lloyd play a different kind of role other than the character from "Taxi" he's known for. I liked Matt Clark as the Sheriff. You see Clark in many films and most of the time his work goes un-noticed. This actor, too, does fine character work. Then we have the Lone Ranger and Tonto. Yes, there are many legends that lean on the gay relationship, but this viewer liked these two actors. I didn't know that Klinton Spilsbury's voice was dubbed as the Ranger. But I thought he had lots of charm and certainly good looks, with or without the mask. His scenes with the horse, Silver, were wonderfully humorous and appealing. His scene in the church with Amy was also well played and well photographed. I liked this actor and don't understand why he never appeared again in a film. It must have been his own choice.

As Tonto, Michael Horse was perfection. Simply played with dignity for his race, he brought some nice quality to the film. You felt that unsaid respect and devotion the two heroes had for one another. If you want to go the gay route, do so. I guess in this day and age, one must take that aspect and build on it. What, then, does that say of the Three Muskateers?

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.

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.