skoyles I first saw The Legend of the Lone Ranger with my then eleven year old daughter and have not seen it until this evening when I enjoyed a none to good DVD in a "FULL SCREEN"(i.e., butchered for 1.33:1 CRT TVs) format. I may never lose the idiot smile on my face. The music is what one can always expect from John Barry, one of the greatest composers to ever write for the movies. The details show a genuine effort to get things right: in the prologue set in 1854 cap-and-ball revolvers are used (1860 models but at least they tried); in the body of the motion picture Colt 1873s and Remington 1875s are used. The town and Indian village are beautifully realized while the gorgeous cinematography even survives FULL SCREEN. A pre-"Back to the Future" Christopher Lloyd is terrifying. It is redolent with references that only fans of the radio and Clayton Moore TV show would get: Detroit, John Hart, Striker. Somebody tried very hard! The Me generation's attempt to hold to the story and legend of what was entertainment and instruction for children required the blood and surfer hairdo (shudder) but such things do not detract from the Legend. I have yet to see the 2013 Lone Ranger but a friend has seen it and recommended it highly. We shall see but, for now, this 1981 movie, excoriated by critiques and shunned by North American audiences, can hold its head high.

Neil Welch As the Johnny Depp/Gore Verbinski iteration moves towards the cinema screen, this 1981 version - now over 30 years old - merits revisiting. Savaged at the time, how does it stand up now? To be frank, the reasons why it was savaged are all still there. The Lone Ranger's origin story is a good one, but it is helped immeasurably by having an actor of charisma in the role. With the best will in the world, the unfortunate Klinton Spilsbury demonstrates, in a career-destroying performance (this was his only film), that not he is a charisma-free zone, he is also an acting-free zone. Michael Horse, as Tonto, is a better actor, but doesn't command the screen any better.We need our heroes larger than life, not smaller.

Dalbert Pringle Goodness Gracious! After all of its huge build-up, and its $18 million dollar budget, this pathetically mediocre Western (from 1981) has got to be one of the biggest disappointments of all time.This film is an utter disgrace to the wonderful legend of the Lone Ranger (one of my personal favorite cowboy heroes).Yeah. OK. I will admit that The Legend Of The Lone Ranger does feature some fine action, great scenery, and a promising storyline - But, unfortunately, this is all thoroughly sabotaged by noticeably awkward direction and an non-charismatic, no-talent, lead actor named Klinton Spilsbury (where the heck did they find this loser?) who actually had his voiced dubbed by actor James Keach.Enough said.

Chuck Miller Given that Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels are firmly in our minds and hearts as the Lone Ranger and Tonto, it was imperative that the casting of this film be correct. It's fine to cast an unknown actor in the title role, but whoever conducted the screen test certainly goofed big time. If you have to dub the voice of Klinton Spilsbury, then he's probably not the best choice for the role. This was worse than casting Michael Keaton as Batman, because Keaton amazingly pulled it off.Actually, the rest of the cast was pretty good. Christopher Lloyd as Butch Cavendish, Michael Horse as Tonto, and Richard Farnsworth as Wild Bill Hickok made the movie watchable.The acting ability of Spilsbury is virtually non-existent, though the physical action was passable.Other problems: The story has been told in films at least three times before, and the Lone Ranger never killed anyone in the other films and TV series. If the "real" Lone Ranger knew the fall would kill the outlaw, he would have chosen a different way to capture him. This Lone Ranger simply was not very believable.