Sky have started showing this very recent release which was a poor box office performer and which stars the redoubtable Jonny Depp as Tonto.
We're both Depp admirers, partly because he's an outstanding actor, partly because you rarely get anything from him which doesn't in some way confound expectations, and we were both curious to know why the proven combination of Verbinski (Director) and Depp didn't achieve the same outstanding success as the Pirates of the Caribbean series.
The film is told through the perspective of an aged Tonto - now impossibly on tour with a Wild West show, rather like Buffalo Bill's show of the turn of the 20th Century. That might - possibly - have been the first mistake, since the effect of the technique is to slow the pace at crucial moments. However, there was probably a more significant reason why it stumbled.
Depp is reliably on form. His trademark cartoon-like eye movements, his sometimes bizarrely comic run and his incredibly well-timed use of bathos all contribute to his being one of the extremely few actors who can combine rich comedy with a genuinely heightened sense of real danger, often in the same scene. Arnie Hammer, the co-lead, is good, but it must be mighty difficult acting alongside Depp for anyone. Helena Bonham-Carter is excellent, as are all the supporting cast and the action sequences are some of the funniest - and most visually effective - I've seen in a movie.
So why did it fail, albeit financially? The film, unfortunately, deals with a very well-known and comparatively recent episode in American history and the slaughter, by means of a concealed Gatling gun, of attacking Comanches was difficult to watch and too real, unlike the more make-believe scenes in Pirates. The villain of the film - Butch (Cassidy) - was also extreme, and inflicts violence and cruelty which is extraordinarily visceral in its nature, and the effect of that is to make for uneasy watching. It's the extreme contrast between this elemental evil and Tonto's daftness that I suspect acts to unnerve the audience and possibly deter them from wanting to see it a second time. Film humour is a craft, and one way to make it work is through contrasting scenes of real threat and danger with scenes of incredibly silliness. I think perhaps that the film made the contrast too strong, so the relief gained when the humour arrives does not outweigh the anxiety generated by the danger and horror.
So, having said all that, is it worth seeing? I believe it is, if only to watch Depp, whose portrayal of Tonto is incredibly effective. Depp uses his voice masterfully, and he imitates the drawling baritone of Robert Stack (The Untouchables) in every respect to perfection. As an aside, I'm not sure anyone else has noticed this as I can't find references to it anywhere.
The action sequences at the start and end are also phenomenal, and it's easy to see where the massive budget went. They're pulled off superbly, too, and although you know a lot is green-screened you really can't see the joins. The film is a little long: almost three hours which - at home - is bearable, but I can see the cinema audiences might not have been so forgiving. The original William Tell overture is played towards the end when the Ranger finally dons his mask and performs the most unlikely shoot-out scenes ever filmed (and the funniest, beyond doubt) but one high spot of the film is Silver. The horse appears on rooftops, up trees, in train carriages - in short, anywhere it would be impossible for a horse to get, and that's a nice touch.
In summary, then, a film which it's worth seeing but not the best of Depp's (or Verbinski's) offerings. Nonetheless, an enjoyable ride and a a great deal of fun.
