If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Better Late Then Never

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

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.

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.

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.

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!