Tag: movie reviews

The Grand Budapest Hotel Movie Review

Director Wes Anderson is known for being in acquired taste and I’ve always found myself somewhere towards the middle with him. The strongest proponents of his work find Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, Moonrise Kingdom, and others to be brilliant. Frankly, I do not. However, I’ve yet to watch an Anderson picture and not come away with giving it a recommendation – some more highly than others (Tenenbaums is my personal favorite).

There is nothing about The Grand Budapest Hotel that changes that dynamic. Like his aforementioned efforts, some have found this to be a masterpiece and I disagree. Yet again – the aspects that are great are truly remarkable. The majority of the pic takes place in the 1930s when The Grand Budapest Hotel is a thriving business located in the made-up European Republic of Zubrowka. The head concierge is Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), with a penchant for romancing the wealthy older (much older) female clientele of the establishment. One current conquest is Madame D (Tilda Swinton with one heckuva old lady makeup job). It is Madame D’s murder that leads to her concierge lover being framed and he must clear his name with the assistance of his best Lobby Boy Zero Mustafa (Tony Revolori). This is all set against the backdrop of the outbreak of World War II and Anderson’s screenplay manages to occasionally integrate the tragic elements of the war with the madcap events happening before us. The story is told in flashback with 1980s Mustafa (F. Murray Abraham) recounting the pic’s events to a writer played by Jude Law. And even the Abraham/Law dynamic is a flashback itself with a modern-day Tom Wilkinson as an older version of Law.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is loaded with actors in supporting roles that Anderson has used many times. They include Adrien Brody as the Madame’s conniving son, Edward Norton as a police inspector, Harvey Keitel as an inmate helping Gustave, Jeff Goldblum as a lawyer tasked with the Madame’s complex will, and smaller roles from Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, and Jason Schwartzman. There’s also Saoirse Ronan as Mustafa’s love interest. The cameos by Murray and Wilson felt a bit perfunctory to me, as if Anderson simply felt the need to include his usual standbys, but the director’s biggest admirers will probably appreciate their inclusion.

For all the considerable star power inhabiting Hotel, it’s the Gustave/Mustafa relationship that fills most of the brisk 99 minute running time. And it’s the until now unknown impressive comedic chops of Fiennes that is by far the highlight. Known for being a serious actor, the actor seems to relish playing this zany character and spouting Anderson’s dialogue. I suspect he may become yet another staple of the director’s troupe (I hope so).

The production design and cinematography are fantastic. This is an absolutely gorgeous picture to look at and Anderson evens shoots Hotel in three different aspect ratios in relation to each time setting.

As already stated, the most rabid aficionados of Anderson’s work will adore this. Somewhat surprisingly – Budapest managed to breakthrough to the mainstream more than any other of his pictures with a wonderful $162 million worldwide gross. I say surprisingly because I put this on the same level with most of his other efforts. This is a consistently amusing comedy with spots of true hilarity. The moments where Anderson injects emotion into all the craziness feels a little forced, more so than it did in Tenenbaums or Moonrise Kingdom. And any comedy that puts Bill Murray in a scene and doesn’t let him do something funny earns a demerit.

Bottom line: if you’re in the Anderson makes pretentious fluff camp, you’ll still be. If you’re in the Anderson is a God camp, you’ll worship again. Or if you’re like me… you’ll appreciate its finest moments without coming close to uttering the word masterpiece.

*** (out of four)

 

 

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit Movie Review

Looking over the landscape of movies over the past decade, it’s almost as if someone got Batman, Superman, Spiderman, The Incredible Hulk, James Bond, Jason Bourne, and others in a room together circa rougly 2004. And in their best Oprah voice, they exclaimed “YOU get a reboot! YOU get a reboot! YOU get a reboot! EVERYONE GETS A REBOOT!!!”

And so it continues with the character of Jack Ryan which casts Chris Pine (the rebooted Captain Kirk himself) as the fourth actor to play the role after Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, and Ben Affleck (soon to be rebooted Batman). Based on the works of Tom Clancy, this franchise got rolling in 1990 with The Hunt for Red October (Baldwin), continued with Ford in 1992’s Patriot Games and 1994’s Clear and Present Danger, and then onto 2003’s The Sum of All Fears with Affleck.

Like Sum of All Fears, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit is yet another origin story of the character and how he got involved in the CIA in the first place. Affleck’s origin story worked in part due to its arrival less than two years after the events of September 11. The terrorist attack scenes involving Baltimore hit close to home after the tragic real-life events in New York City, Washington D.C., and rural Pennsylvania. In this reboot, it’s the event of 9/11 itself that influences Jack to his military and eventual CIA service.

We open with Jack as a student abroad when 9/11 occurs and this leads him to enlist in the military and an eventual injury sustained while serving in Afghanistan. His stateside rehab puts him in contact with a med student (Keira Knightley) who will become his fiancee and also with a CIA official (Kevin Costner) who’s on a recruiting (SHADOW RECRUITING!) mission. Costner’s casting as the wily veteran mentor was interesting to me in the sense that I bet the actor was probably offered the role of Ryan when Hunt for Red October was being developed (just an educated guess).

Costner recruits Ryan to go deep undercover as a Wall Street analyst whose main job is to keep an eye out for terrorist financial transactions. Jack discovers a plot to crash the U.S. financial market and perhaps carry out even more dastradly attacks on the homeland. This nefarious plot is led by a Russian baddie portrayed by the film’s director himeslf, Kenneth Branagh.

There’s a nifty sequence in Shadow Recruit where Jack and his fiancee must team up at a dinner meeting to trick Branagh’s villainous character. This portion is well-constructed and sufficiently suspenseful. Unfortunately, the remainder of the picture feels awfully familiar and unremarkable. The truth is that it’s easy to see why audiences were ambivalent about this franchise reboot and why it only earned a middling $50 million stateside.

Like The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012, Shadow Recruit feels unnecessary. Also like that film, it’s an easy enough viewing experience and has its moments but that’s not quite enough to justify its existence. We’ve seen Batman and James Bond rebooted to terrific results in recent years. This reboot is one that is mildly entertaining but easily forgotten.

**1/2 (out of four)

Edge of Tomorrow Movie Review

Over the past decade, Tom Cruise has concentrated mostly on sci-fi and action B movies in between the occasional Mission: Impossible franchise pic. Edge of Tomorrow resides on the higher end of the spectrum as far as quality. It does so mostly by featuring an aspect of Cruise that many of his latest films have not – the guy’s got a sense of humor and can use it well.

Tomorrow‘s plot is explained mostly by CNN anchors as the movie opens. An alien race called Mimics have wreaked havoc all over the world and Cruise’s character Major William Cage has the cushy position of explaining how things are going to talking heads on TV. He’s never actually seen battle and that’s perfectly OK with him. That is until he’s summoned by a general (Brendan Gleeson) to cover a real battle up close and when Cage refuses, he’s stripped of his rank and forced to actually fight in it.

This leads to a situation where Cage’s character is killed (no spoiler here) and the aliens blood is splattered on him. And that creates the Groundhog Day situation where he wakes up everyday on that battle morning until he figures out a way to prevail and eliminate the alien race. Emily Blunt is cast as a super soldier who is the only one that understands Cage’s unique predicament. If this all sounds a bit silly – I suppose it is. However, screenwriters Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth do a remarkable job at making this all make sense.

Most importantly, Cruise succeeds at bringing a sense of fun for most of Edge‘s running time. The script allows Cruise and Blunt to have some humorous interplay, particularly because its up to Blunt to “kill” him every time he screws up… which is often. Edge of Tomorrow doesn’t take itself too seriously for about two-thirds of its length. It’s only in the last act that it becomes humorless and therefore a more conventional and run-of-the-mill alien invasion flick.

Bill Paxton seems to be having a good time as a squadron leader and Noah Taylor turns up as a scientist who must explain important plot points to Cruise – just as he did over 12 years ago in Vanilla Sky. Blunt is certainly cast against type but she makes the most of her butt kicking role. Doug Liman’s direction is sturdy as you’d expect and The Bourne Identity director knows his well around an action sequence.

The so-so final act aside, Edge of Tomorrow stood out to me because Cruise seems to having more fun that he has in awhile. I would put it ahead of his latest lackluster fare such as Jack Reacher and Oblivion. If you’re looking for a decent summer popcorn watching experience, this fits the bill.

*** (out of four)

Non-Stop Movie Review

2008’s Taken began a new and profitable chapter in the career of Liam Neeson as a B movie action king and that trend barrels forward with Non-Stop.

The formula is simple: write a fairly absurd and mostly conventional action plot setup and let Neeson growl his way through it. The original Taken took moviegoers by surprise by showing just how effective the star could be in these roles as a total badass. Non-Stop casts Neeson as a federal air marshal who is struggling with alcoholism and depression after the death of his young daughter to cancer. If this seems like a convenient plot device for easy sympathy to the lead character – well there you have it.

On a long flight to London, Neeson begins receiving text messages that a passenger will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred to a bank account. The stakes get higher when it turns out that the account is registered to Neeson himself. Zoinks! This leads to everyone believing that he is the hijacker and he must prove them wrong by figuring out who the real culprit is.

Non-Stop features supporting work from Julianne Moore in a pretty thankless role as Neeson’s seatmate, “House of Cards” Corey Stull as an NYPD officer/passenger, and Oscar winner Lupita Nyong’o as a flight attendant. While these faces are recognizable, this is Neeson’s show all the way. He manages to allow Non-Stop to be a mostly entertaining diversion for most of its running time.

That said, as the plot rolls along, it becomes clear that no explanation of the events taking place are likely to make any real sense. And when the true culprits are revealed, the reasoning behind their actions are a bit… well, unbelievable.

Non-Stop doesn’t belong in the same solid B movie category as the first Taken. It’s more in line with that picture’s sequel and Unknown. If you don’t carry on your brain to the proceedings, there’s some fun to be had just watching Neeson do his thing. This type of nonsensical flick would actually be the perfect waste of time pic to view on a long flight… if it wasn’t about a plot to blow up a long flight.

**1/2 (out of four)

The Purge Movie Review

James DeMonaco’s The Purge is proof positive that an effective marketing campaign and creepy TV spots can lead some titles to gross far more than they should. Released last June, the pic opened to a way more than expected $34 million. Once audiences figured out its questionable quality, it only added $30 million more after its initial three day debut. Still, with a tiny $3 million budget it represented a financial windfall for Universal and a sequel is coming next month.

The Purge is predicated on a simple and pretty ludicrous premise. Set in 2022, the crime rate is down to 1% due mostly to a 12 hour period every March where there are no laws. People can feel free to murder anyone they want with no repercussion and this is designed to restore balance and let individuals play out their violent tendencies. It’s sort of like The Hunger Games where everyone can participate and not just watch. DeMonaco’s script does little to explain why this tactic is so successful and it takes a tremendous suspension of disbelief on the audience’s part to buy it.

Ethan Hawke (who has seen better horror flicks with Sinister) is a security system salesman with a wife (Lena Headey) and two kids who has undoubtedly seen financial benefit from all the purgin’. On the night of said Purge, events take place which make the family vulnerable to becoming victims of the big event. Scary looking individuals with Strangers type masks follow.

The largest problem with The Purge is that it attempts to walk a fine line between social satire and just being an all out B movie horror flick. It never quite decides which it would rather be so it succeeds at neither. DeMonaco’s script suggests there may have more background on why this Purge tactic was adopted by the U.S. government, but it never gets into explaining it. For most of the running time, this is just a run of the mill pic about terrorizers trying to kill the family and it’s not a terribly original or memorable one at that.

Performances are adequate if not particularly noteworthy for any of the actors. There’s “twists” involving the family’s neighbors that you’ll see coming from a mile away. One of the most positive aspects of The Purge is the brisk 85 minute running time. It’s watchable for sure, but little else.

There are moments few and far between where we see how The Purge could have been an intelligent commentary on violence in this country, but it never bothers to go there. What we’re left with is considerably less impressive.

** (out of four)

Arbitrage Movie Review

What if a Gordon Gekko type figure was in the midst of the largest financial deal of his career and then goes and gets his mistress killed? This is the central concept of Nicholas Jarecki’s Arbitrage, which boasts an impressive performance from Richard Gere and its fair share of flaws.

Gere is Wall Street hedge fund tycoon Robert Miller and the picture opens with him celebrating his 60th birthday with his wife (Susan Sarandon) and family. He’s got a girl on the side too (Laetitia Casta) and it’s this relationship that comes into focus when he dozes off driving with her. They crash – he lives, she dies. Miller is forced to immediately decide whether the incident will jeopardize the impending sale of his company that’s worth hundreds of millions. He enlists Jimmy Grant (Nate Parker), a young man with a criminal past whose father served as Miller’s driver for many years to help. Jimmy picks him up from the scene of the accident before the police arrive and becomes an accomplice to the cover-up.

It is Jimmy who the police focus on, led by Detective Bryer (Tim Roth, overacting a bit) and this leads to Miller having to choose how the situation plays out. While his actions were accidental, some of Miller’s handlings of his company’s finances turn out to be downright illegal which strains his relationship with daughter (Brit Marling), who serves as CFO for the fund. We go back and forth as Miller tries to be one step ahead in his personal and financial problems. In essence, he looks at managing the accident cover-up just as he would managing an investment deal – carefully and often coldly.

Arbitrage opened in 2012 to mostly rave reviews, especially for Gere. He deserves a lot of that credit. Over the past few years, Gere has turned in one solid performance after another. The role of Miller is similar in some ways to the character he played in Unfaithful. Or at least those characters find themselves in similar storylines. Gere gives this part his all and it’s because of him that Arbitrage is often involving and interesting.

That being said, I was underwhelmed by the picture as a whole. The relationship between Miller and Jimmy is central to the story and yet it feels curiously underwritten. While Nate Parker shows promise in the role, the underdeveloped nature of his connection to Miller begs for more fleshing out. Sarandon is saddled with a fairly one-note role as the wife who may know more than her husband figures. And as mentioned before, Tim Roth hams it up a bit much as the detective determined to see the filthy rich boy fall.

We gets scenes that show Miller’s mastery of negotiation and it gives Gere a chance to shine – even if the scenes themselves feel familiar. For a movie about multi-million dollar investments, I had a hard time investing myself in the storyline.

**1/2 (out of four)

Enough Said Movie Review

Who knew the pairing of Tony Soprano and Elaine Benes would result in something this rewarding? Nicole Holofcener’s Enough Said is a romantic comedy which employs relatively few of the clichés we’ve come to expect in the genre. There is one giant exception and it hinges on a fairly amazing coincidence between the picture’s central characters. At the end of the day, though, it doesn’t matter much because this is a thoughtful, honest, often emotional, and incredibly well-acted movie.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus is really only known for her TV work – “Seinfeld”, “The New Adventures of Old Christine”, and “Veep”. James Gandolfini played one of the most iconic television roles in history, but has had an impressive filmography as well. Putting these two together in a rom com doesn’t sound like an automatic recipe for success. It is.

Enough Said focuses on Eva (Louis-Dreyfus), a middle-aged divorcee and mother of one whose daughter is getting ready to go to college. Albert (Gandolfini) is a middle-aged divorcee and father of one who daughter is getting ready to go to college. The two meet at a party and begin dating. Eva is a masseuse who meets a new client (Catherine Keener) at the same party. It turns out later that she is Albert’s ex-wife and this complicates Eva’s view of her budding relationship.

The film is refreshing in its realistic dialogue. Its funny moments aren’t forced and feel natural. I particularly liked how many of the characters first question to Eva about being a masseuse is whether clients often become aroused. I have a feeling masseuses probably get that question all the time. There are some nicely developed supporting characters including Eva’s not so happily married friends played by Toni Collette and Ben Falcone. In a lesser movie, Eva and Albert’s exes might be portrayed as “bad guys”, but not here. Director and writer Holofcener seems to respect her audience and she gives us characters that are flawed, but also just good people trying to make things work out.

The screenplay is a huge plus and the last few minutes of Enough Said pack more emotional punch that I could’ve anticipated. Yet it’s Louis-Dreyfus and Gandolfini that make this film special. Louis-Dreyfus has proven a master of sitcom acting which requires different beats and style than movies. She is terrific here as well and I would love to see her continue to seek out roles on the big screen.

Sadly, we all know that Gandolfini died last year shortly before this picture’s release. Those of us who came to know him and love him and sometimes loathe him as Tony Soprano knew his intensity and brilliance at playing that character. His portrayal of Tony is legendary. However, he was so much more than that and capable of playing much different roles and that is evidenced here. We don’t see Tony Soprano in the character of Albert. We see Gandolfini brilliantly stepping into the part of a regular guy who gets a second shot at love. These two TV titans have been blessed with great writing on the small screen back in the day. They get another chance here in this.

And it gives an audience one more chance to remember the talents of a man who left too soon. Enough said.

***1/2 (out of four)

Lee Daniels’ The Butler Movie Review

Lee Daniels’ The Butler has moments of genuine power and insight dealing with our nation’s civil rights history over the past near century. Spanning over 80 years in time, The Butler takes us from the picture’s central character working in the cotton fields of Georgia as a young boy to sitting in the White House as an old man waiting to meet with the first African-American President of the United States. In between those times, Cecil Gaines (Forest Whitaker) becomes quite familiar with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, working as a butler from the Eisenhower administration through the Reagan administration.

The film is loosely based on true events and The Butler shifts its time between Cecil’s work experience and family life. For the work portion, we get a journey through several decades of political history from desegregation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Vietnam to the South African apartheid movement. In many cases, these events coincide with Cecil’s family as his oldest son Louis (David Oyelowo) gets very politically involved in civil rights issues. The irony is not lost on the audience – his father works in the center of the  U.S. government but has an occupation where being seen and not heard is the rule. Oprah Winfrey is Cecil’s wife Gloria, a well-rounded character full of imperfections but also an enduring devotion to her husband.

The Butler is really centralized on the complicated relationship between Cecil and David. It is their dynamic that provide the picture’s best moments, as well as several between Cecil and Gloria. When screenwriter Danny Strong focuses his concentration on their storylines, the film is effective and often emotionally satisfying.

It’s the scenes in the White House that often fall far short of satisfying. For starters, director Daniels’ decision to cast recognizable actors as the Presidents backfires. Much of this is due to casting. We have Robin Williams as Eisenhower, James Marsden as JFK, Live Schrieber as LBJ, John Cusack as Nixon, and Alan Rickman as Reagan. None of them make much of an impression and most aren’t given enough screen time to make one anyway. Their casting serves as a distraction more than anything else and we feel like we’re watching the actor, not the POTUS character they’re playing. The same cannot be said for Winfrey, who is outstanding. She reminds us that she probably would’ve had a great movie career over the last couple of decades if not for that whole building a billion dollar multimedia empire thing.

Even with casting quibbles set aside, where The Butler sometimes fails is in its journey through history that could often be described as “cliffs notes”. There simply isn’t the proper time to give these important political issues any real fleshing out. Some of these scenes showing the struggle of the civil rights movement, especially those involving Louis, are powerful. And we do get involved with the characters of Gaines family and we can thank some excellent acting from Whitaker, Winfrey, and Oyelowo a lot for that.

The Butler‘s finest moments are mixed with a lot of disappointing ones, including some unfortunate casting choices and its uneven and too episodic screenplay. It’s the writing of the Gaines family in several scenes and the first-rate performances of the actors playing them that helps out a lot.

*** (out of four)

Admission Movie Review

Tina Fey has been one of the most important figures in American comedy in the 21st century and yet her latest film Admission gives her an opportunity to delve into sometimes more dramatic territory. While she passes the test with flying colors, the script doesn’t come close to matching her fine performance.

Director Paul Weitz has had an up and down directorial career from high points like 1999’s American Pie, 2002’s About a Boy, and the underrated In Good Company from 2004. Low points include American Dreamz and Little Fockers. Those titles alone show Weitz is capable of directing both raunchy comedies and those more grounded in reality. Admission falls more on the “serious comedy” side like In Good Company, but with a strange mix of supporting characters who are caricatures and the occasional raunchy gag that seems out of place.

Fey plays tightly wound Princeton admissions officer Portia, who thinks her life is going just fine with her snooty professor boyfriend (Michael Sheen) and a valued job in which only .01 of applicant students get through to the prestigious school. Her world is turned upside down when her relationship ends and she gets a call from John (Paul Rudd), who runs an unconventional high school. John is looking for his child prodigy student Jeremiah (Nat Wolff) to gain acceptance to the Ivy Leagues… but oh there’s more! He also believes Jeremiah is the son that Portia gave up for adoption when she was in college.

This leads Portia, who has her own parental issues due to her eccentric mother (Lily Tomlin), to a journey of self-discovery about the joys of parenthood… and, well, you get it. Of course, Portia and John begin to fall for one another, too. A lot of my problems with Admission is that we often see where it’s going and it follows Screenplay 101 to get there. While the screenplay from Karen Cromer attempts to make Fey’s character fairly multi-dimensional, the same cannot be said for the rest of the characters. We’ve seen Rudd play this type of role before (the somewhat flaky but ultimately likable chap) and he is pleasant in the part, but has little character to play with. Tomlin’s role could best be described as cartoonish and slightly annoying. Sheen, such a talented actor, is wasted. And Nat Wolff’s character isn’t particularly memorable either. We’re told he’s a child prodigy, but don’t get any true sense of why except that he reads a lot.

The positive aspect of Admission is Fey and really Fey alone. We know she’s funny, but there are scenes in which we glimpse just how great she might be with a well-written dramatic role. It would help if that role doesn’t come in an uncomfortable mix of drama and comedy where a comic “highlight” involves a cow giving birth.

** (out of four)

The Lone Ranger Movie Review

As 2013 comes to a close, there is little doubt that Gore Verbinski’s The Lone Ranger will be considered the biggest flop of the year. Stories abounded about production delays and problems. Journalists had a field day writing about its bloated budget (said to be at least $250 million) and the end of the box office dominance of star Johnny Depp. The pic’s failure to meet financial expectations is undeniable as it managed only $89 million domestically. For the majority of people who even casually follow the film biz, you’ve probably read nothing positive about The Lone Ranger.

Now that I’ve seen it, I will happily report that there are some positive things to say about this movie. Of course, it’s not all positive. Far from it. Based on an iconic 1930s radio show that later turned into TV series and films, the 2013 version is given the Gore Verbinski/producer Jerry Bruckheimer treatment. In other words, it’s given the Pirates of the Caribbean treatment.

And that means Johnny Depp as Tonto, the sidekick of John Reid aka The Lone Ranger (Armie Hammer). The Western is mostly set in 1869 (it’s told in flashback by Tonto when he’s a very old man) and Reid is a dignified attorney turned masked vigilante after his brother and his team of Texas Rangers are gunned down. The culprits are led by outlaw Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner). Comanche Indian Tonto has his own reasons to help his Ranger partner as seeks to bring justice to those responsible for killing his tribe when he was a child.

Along the way, we get a fairly generous helping of high-octane action sequences and a lot of humorous banter between the two leads. So does it work? Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn’t. And a lot of The Lone Ranger‘s effectiveness lies with its performers. Critics and journalists seemed to have their knives sharpened for Depp by the time this premiered. In some respects, I can understand why. It was ten years ago that Mr. Depp became a box office sensation with Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. What set that pic apart for Depp (after a film career that was already terrific though lacking in hits) was the thrill of seeing a truly great actor bring his glorious quirkiness into a blockbuster setting. Now it’s unfortunately begin to feel a bit old hat. It hasn’t helped that the pictures he’s chosen simply aren’t on the original Pirates popcorn level. This holds true for Depp as Quirky Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland, Quirky Vampire in Dark Shadows, Quirky Captain Sparrow in the subpar Pirates sequels, and yes, as Quirky Tonto. Almost as if to accentuate my point, there’s even one moment in this film when Depp literally kicks a dead horse.

That said, Depp’s Tonto has his share of chemistry with Hammer’s Lone Ranger. Mr. Hammer became known to filmgoers in not one, but two roles in David Fincher’s The Social Network. There are moments here when his comedic timing is off, but he mostly pulls off a rather unchallenging role.

As the villain, Fichtner doesn’t have much to do except look dirty. Indeed his creepiest role shall remain the police officer/Amway-type distributor in Doug Liman’s Go. Alas Fichtner turns out to not be the film’s only baddie. That reveal is meant to come as a surprise, but you’ll likely see it coming from a mile away. When an Oscar-nominated actor is cast in a part that seems pointless for two-thirds of the running time, he’s probably gonna turn out bad. If you’re interested in finding out who that talented actor is, I’ll let you look it up. Other familiar faces in The Lone Ranger include Helena Bonham-Carter in a glorified cameo as a brothel owner, James Badge Dale as the slain brother ranger, and Ruth Wilson as his widow who may have married the wrong brother.

Director Verbinski helmed the first three Pirates features and a complaint with them is a complaint here: the movie seems bloated and its 150 minute runtime often seems unnecessary. Depp has his moments. Even though we’ve seen this bag of tricks from him before, there’s no doubt Depp has impeccable timing when it comes to comedy and there are ample opportunities for him to display it.

Ultimately, The Lone Ranger mostly plods amiably for about two hours with some decent action and passable chemistry between its leads. However, it also features major shifts in tone that range from slapstick to more serious business when it comes to the relationships between settlers and Native Americans. Due to that, Ranger frequently feels like a different movie from scene to scene. For all those reasons, the picture often feels like a misfire, albeit an often entertaining one.

And then we get the climactic train sequence. Or, better yet, trains (plural) sequence as our main characters jump from rapidly moving locomotive to another to try and save the day. We as an audience are programmed to expect an impressive all-out action/adventure fest in the final moments of something like this. And I’ll be damned if this one isn’t really impressive. And I’m talking impressive in a way that makes the first two hours seem worth sitting through – flaws and all.

That said, I can’t ignore that most of The Lone Ranger doesn’t work very well. It’s not anywhere near as bad as its reputation though.

**1/2 (out of four)