ILNews

Hammerle on ... 'The Lone Ranger,' 'The Heat'

Robert Hammerle
July 17, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Lone Ranger

Remember that old hateful promotional TV ad starring Kelly LeBrock where she immortalized the conceited phrase, “Don’t hate me because I am beautiful?” Well, let me paraphrase it by saying, “Don’t hate me because I liked ‘The Lone Ranger.’” From my view, what most of today’s critics are missing is the movie’s great strength, namely its historical significance.

Rip him if you will, but I thought Johnny Depp was a blast in his role as Tonto. Here he tells his life story to a young lad while participating in a traveling road show in 1933 where he appears as a human mannequin labeled the “Noble Savage.”

rating-ranger.gifBeginning in 1869, Tonto relives his own tragic childhood. Having befriended two white stragglers for a cheap pocket watch, they wipe out his small tribe after he leads them to a rich silver deposit. It is a heartbreaking story and reflects the theme of the film where Native Americans are on the verge of becoming ghosts in their own land.

Against this backdrop, the vagabond Tonto meets the delusional Armie Hammer, playing a character returning to the Old West after graduating from law school. Mr. Hammer’s John Reid/Lone Ranger is dedicated to the cause of justice, and he sees no need for a gun. He’s wrong.

As Reid joins a posse of rangers led by his brother (James Badge Dale) in pursuit of the notorious Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), they ride into a death trap. Luckily, Reid survives with the reluctant help of Tonto, and he begins to wear his classic mask to hide his identity.

Tom Wilkinson, great as always, plays Cole, one of the ruthless railroad tycoons building the transcontinental rail line. Besides befriending Cavendish, he secretly violates treaties with the surviving Comanches, inducing the military to wrongfully attack them when they rise up in righteous anger. He is as hateful here as he was loveable in “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” (2011).

A large battle is looming as Reid gradually wrestles with the reality that justice is little more than a figment of his law school imagination. In a sense, it was like being a defense lawyer in Indianapolis under our prior prosecutor, only to learn that he allegedly authorized the release of a convicted killer after receiving what appears to be a large campaign contribution. Maybe I should have followed the Lone Ranger’s lead and worn a mask into court.

So despite the film’s shortcomings, I strongly maintain that it provides a window into our ugly national past. Millions of roaming buffalo were nearly made extinct simply to get them out of the way of our future rail lines. Native Americans were viciously eliminated because this was now our land and not theirs.

I should also note that the magnificent dueling train chase seen at the conclusion of the film enthralled even the film’s harshest critics. Done to the “William Tell Overture,” it produced the same undeniable thrill that I felt as a kid watching the old series on TV.

So think young, embrace history and go see The Lone Ranger.

The Heat

Simply stated, this is the best female buddy picture since “Thelma and Louise” (1991). It is vulgar, profane and frequently hysterical beyond words. It’s as if modern science developed a way to combine the DNA of Mae West and W.C. Fields, resulting in the glorious Melissa McCarthy.

Written by Katie Dippold, director Paul Feig has brought us a delicious concoction that centers on a stressed out FBI agent and a maniacal Boston police officer. Sandra Bullock has never been better as the uptight federal agent, and Melissa McCarthy is the girl from another planet, a woman who views shame as a virtue.

Ms. Bullock’s agent, known as Ashburn, has been assigned to a Boston investigation by her New York superior simply to get her out of his hair. Desiring nothing but personal advancement, she has alienated all of her co-workers with her arrogance.

Unfortunately for her, she finds herself given Ms. McCarthy’s officer Mullins as a partner. Israel and Hamas have more in common than these two ladies.

rating-heat.gifPut another way, Ashburn operates by the book and Mullins has never read it. In scene after scene, Ms. McCarthy explodes with a toxic venom. While arresting a man for patronizing a prostitute, she calls his wife on his cell phone while crushing his knuckles with the other hand. She threatens to shoot a drug suspect in the scrotum if he won’t answer questions, firing a couple empty rounds just to test his resilience.

While Ms. Bullock looks on in complete horror, Ms. McCarthy ups her comic ante at every turn. In particular, there is an unforgettable scene where Mullins is forced to take Ashburn to meet her estranged family. It seems that one of her brothers just got out of prison, while the others consistently pepper Ashburn with such profound questions as, “Are you a man?” And when she gives the obvious answer, the next question is, “Did it happen at birth or did you have an operation?”

But don’t make the mistake that this is simply a comedy, as our odd couple continually flirts with disaster as they try to identify their drug target. People die, which nearly includes our duo, but nothing is going to remotely stop Mullins’ poisonous assaults on whoever is nearby, be they friend or foe.

Sure, as a lawyer it is sometimes difficult to overlook the ladies as they violate a citizen’s constitutional rights. On the other hand, we all know that objections are routinely sustained in a court of law, so I was more than willing to apply that same theory to our girls as they occasionally had to break into an apartment without a warrant.

Regardless, while Ms. Bullock is very good here, nothing compares to Ms. McCarthy. To use a favorite phrase, no one in the history of film, man or woman, has ever been this full of piss and vinegar. She is a walking volcano, eating poorly and dressing worse. Yet you can’t help but love her malicious intensity, and it is impossible to take your eyes off of her.•

__________

Robert Hammerle practices criminal law in Indianapolis. When he is not in the courtroom or working diligently in his Pennsylvania Street office, Bob can likely be found at one of his favorite movie theaters watching and preparing to review the latest films. To read more of his reviews, visit www.bigmouthbobs.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT