Lone Ranger Is Getting Panned

[CrimsonGhost]

For those with discerning taste, a great Johnny Depp western is DEAD MAN. It's well done and literally beautiful.

[convoy357]

I saw it with the family. We all liked it and had a great time. It was exactly what I expected, I do not feel dissapointed. I can enjoy this type of movie because I just take it for what it is, rather than trying to think of ways it could've been different or better. I will say that I liked it much better than the Superman movie.

[Hector]

I saw it today, didn't care for it much.

I just wanna punch Johnny Depp in the face, enough of his Jack Sparrow incarnations, lol.

To erase the memory of watching that fake Western, I'm now going to watch Open Range (saved on my DVR)...to regain my faith and sanity in Westerns.

Thank you Kevin Costner!


P.S. Having said that, I think Armie Hammer looked the part, too bad it had too many "wannabee" funny moments. I'd get rid of Depp, get someone a lot cheaper-priced (and make Hammer the top billed actor), and turn Hammer's Lone Ranger into a real baddarse.

[YoungOnce]

Ok.... Reviews were mixed so I took the family today with low expectations. I have to say, this was a waaaay more entertaining movie than either Man of Steel or World War Z. It actually didn't feel like an origin movie even though both the Lone Ranger and Tonto got one. Good story with a followable plot, great stunts, great use of the iconic music and just quirky enough to draw a few laughs.

I have to recommend this to anyone who enjoyed the Indiana Jones movies and the feel of old serials in general. Great popcorn fun and not as mindless as some have reviewed it to be. The tone is a little similar to the recent Mummy movies, without the reliance on CGI.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Saw it and liked it. Posted in the other thread, but if you go in expecting a different take, I think you will enjoy it. It's fun.

Chris

[Donkey Hoatie]

I've found that I have no interest in the big summer popcorn blockbuster movie. I'd much rather see the next American Beauty, if that's the example. I don't care about a mindless movie, where I forget about it before I get to the parking lot. I actually went to the theatre to see Lords of Salem, for example, and I thought about it for a week after. I'm not even sure I liked the movie! But it stuck with me and meant something because it was different than all these dumb superhero things over and over and over again.

So Lone Ranger? I don't care if I even see it. Not because of critics, but because I feel like I've seen it already.

CrimsonGhost, I think you and I have pretty much the exact same feeling about cinema. If I'm going to part with my hard-earned money in a theater, I want to have something to show for it. I want that movie to crawl up in my head and settle in for a long time. I want to stay up late at night wondering what happened to some of the characters. I want to consider, and reconsider, the way the plot took me from point A-to-B-to-Z.

And, yeah, I watch some of the eye-candy stuff, too (Spiderman, X-Men, Lord of the Rings), but only when it's related to characters I have a strong emotional attachment to, based on my childhood nerd-dom. But, for the most part, give me a No Country for Old Men, or Once, or Shawshank Redemption, or heck even American Beauty over 99% of the same, old, recycled stuff that Hollywood keeps pushing on us.

With ticket prices hovering around $12 in my neighborhood, I feel like I'm justified asking to see better movies in the theater. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to stay at home, spending time in my own head, where things are much more interesting than watching stuff blow up real good.

[ctc]

>My standards have lowered for these kinds of movies, I'm afraid

I wouldn't think of tham as LOWERED, just a little sideways. I've long felt that what we get from mainstream films are really, REALLY expensive B-Movies; with some of the flair that makes a good B-Movie sucked out 'cos that'd be too much of a risk. To that end, finding something within entertaining is perfectl;y okay. I think of old, 50's monster movies. I love 'em, even though they're all EXACTLY the same. I watch for the weird monsters. Don't care so much about anything else.

My lament nowadays is the the current crop of B's have budgets in the hundreds of millions, and they don't take the same chances the old B's did: the 50's movies HAD to come up with weird, wacky, over the top monsters and stories and situations 'cos that's all they had. So you'd get a giant marionette menacing town, with an explanation about it being from another dimension, and therefore made of anti-matter, rendering it immune to our weapons.... or maybe a gorilla with a diving bell on it's head and a bubble machine, from outer space.... or crawling, (mostly) invisible nuclear brains.... I'm kinda tired of "they're aliens, and they look like Master Chief, until you take the helmet off.... then they look like Predator."

Don C.

[kingdom warrior]

I don't care what the critics say, gonna go see it on the weekend and enjoy it for what it is........there is NO version of the Lone Ranger that is BEYOND great.....
the Tv show is solid but seen one episode seen them all.....and the movie serials were Ok. The TV movie a few years ago sucked and the 1980's movie was cheesy......

[Brazoo]

>That makes it sound a lot more weird, fun and interesting than I would have thought it was from the ads.

I think nowadyas you gotta look for more subtle stuff like this to get much out of mass entertainment. I've noticed (for myself, anyhoo) that the last decade or so of movies have been really bah: the highs not that high, the lows not that low. It shows that the formula has been perfected again, which is why there are so many returning ideas, tropes, scenes, themes, actors, directors.... So you gotta step outside of your own head a bit to see what MIGHT be there. Like this review. Are all those things REALLY in the film, intentionally; or did the reviewer subconsciously add them?

Maybe it doesn't matter, and THAT'S what this era will be known for.... a sort of "tabula rasa" wherein the viewer can read whatever into the essentially blank (my buddy Rob prefers "empty") entertainment. Sorta like all the weird stuff folks read into the cartoons of their youth; it's the result of two human psychology bits: the need for completion, connecting up things that have been grouped (rightly or wrongly) into sets by the brain.... and the idea that the brain can't abide emptyness, and thusly fills in the essentially empty presentation. Be it film, book, comic, whatever. Maybe that's the post-deconstructionist thing. No longer breaking down the artifacts of culture, but spackling in the holes.

I totally do that! Or if I see a movie with 3 entertaining things in it i end up liking it. The last Punisher movie and that Hansel and Gretel movie come to mind. My standards have lowered for these kinds of movies, I'm afraid.

This reviewer sounds like he enjoyed the Pirates movies a lot more than me, so I'm not putting too much stock in his review. I do like the William Tell thing though - I'm always happy when movie scores do something fun, all the movie scores are so serious and bland now.

[ctc]

>That makes it sound a lot more weird, fun and interesting than I would have thought it was from the ads.

I think nowadyas you gotta look for more subtle stuff like this to get much out of mass entertainment. I've noticed (for myself, anyhoo) that the last decade or so of movies have been really bah: the highs not that high, the lows not that low. It shows that the formula has been perfected again, which is why there are so many returning ideas, tropes, scenes, themes, actors, directors.... So you gotta step outside of your own head a bit to see what MIGHT be there. Like this review. Are all those things REALLY in the film, intentionally; or did the reviewer subconsciously add them?

Maybe it doesn't matter, and THAT'S what this era will be known for.... a sort of "tabula rasa" wherein the viewer can read whatever into the essentially blank (my buddy Rob prefers "empty") entertainment. Sorta like all the weird stuff folks read into the cartoons of their youth; it's the result of two human psychology bits: the need for completion, connecting up things that have been grouped (rightly or wrongly) into sets by the brain.... and the idea that the brain can't abide emptyness, and thusly fills in the essentially empty presentation. Be it film, book, comic, whatever. Maybe that's the post-deconstructionist thing. No longer breaking down the artifacts of culture, but spackling in the holes.

>He has a specific origin that can only be played so many ways to remain true to the source material.
>So depending on where you came in, expectations or general interest in the character will vary greatly.

Those apply to a LOT of characters, especially nowadays when everyone mines the past instead of opting for something new. And it's a problem as well as a blessing. You get the name recognition, but you have to time "your" version so's to key up with whatever position on the nostalgia wave said character is currently coasting. I think part of the problem with the Lone Ranger is that he's generally considered WAY old; a product of our parent's time more than ours. So there's a lot of distance for a new audience. He was filler when we were kids, and he's ancient history for our kids.

So maybe you do a complete redo.... which is an option, but risks cheesing off the oldster fans or making the character too much like current characters, boring a new crowd.

>I've seen Superman's orgin retold so many times over the last few decades that it's actually become boring. Why do I need to see it played out again?

That's my complaint with a lot of stuff; Lone Ranger AND Superman included. Entertainment-wise we're living in a post-scarcity world. You can find ANYTHING out there without much effort.... meaning the past incarnations of almost any character are readily available. Which means, really; NO character is obscure. Dropping the time between reboot films doesn't help. Hell; they were announcing the next version of the Batman films BEFORE the last one came out. Who do they think they are, DC Comics?

Normally you get something every decade or so that completely upends the formulas, a sort of refresh for entertainment, allowing at least SOME new ideas to get in.... but we seem overdue.

Don C.

[Bionicfanboy66]

Personally, I'd rather see The Lone Ranger during it's theatrical run and wait for Man Of Steel to hit Redbox. I've seen Superman's orgin retold so many times over the last few decades that it's actually become boring. Why do I need to see it played out again?

[MIB41]

I just think the Lone Ranger has a limited scope for attracting new audiences. I don't place his potential beyond that of the Phantom. He has a specific origin that can only be played so many ways to remain true to the source material. And just as Brazoo has demonstrated, awareness of the character is based solely on one's personal exposure to those different treatments through the years. The Lone Ranger has been played straight as well as been the butt of jokes. So depending on where you came in, expectations or general interest in the character will vary greatly.

[Brazoo]

Hmmmm....

Here's a positive review:

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2013/07/fanboy_flick_pick_the_lone_ranger_a_tone_stranger.php

Don C.

That makes it sound a lot more weird, fun and interesting than I would have thought it was from the ads. I actually think I might get a kick out of a huge climactic action scene scored by the William Tell Overture.

To bad most people on here don't like movie reviews!

[Gorn Captain]

I had hoped it would have had a "classic western" feel to it, without the OTT action and explosions and CG.
People like Eastwood have shown us that you can make a modern exciting western, but still respect the genre rules.

I'll probably watch this movie on TV so I can truthfully give my opinion on it, but I haven't enjoyed any of the previews I've seen of it. I'm glad that some of us here liked it, though. Enjoy!

[enyawd72]

I think the Lone Ranger character suffers from perceptional issues. You have generations of people who have a general idea of who he is. But really only one live portrayal has taken hold in all this time and that's by Clayton Moore in the 50's. Yes, kids grew up watching the cartoon in the 70's. And there was a brief attempt to revitalize him to film which flopped badly in the early 80's. But the character has remained dormant for such a long time, there has never been any true gauge on what people want (or don't want) from those treatments for a modern interpretation. What do you keep as relevant and discard as too "yester-year"? I think critics went in with their own ideas and that's why you're getting these reactions. I've enjoyed the trailers and I'm not so married to the Clayton years that I can't look through a different scope to see him in a new light. The fact that critics don't like it actually has me encouraged!

What you said. Personally, I can't wait to see it.