The Lone Ranger (2013)

[Goffe]

I'm just amazed how good it was, given all the hate that TLR received. It was so well filmed and well acted that I never felt pacing problems, enjoyed every fvcking minute of it. I loved Armie Hammer here, great chemistry with Depp and he was kinda "gangling", what made him absolutely hilarious. the first and last 30 minutes were perfection. Definitely one of the most fun movies I've ever seen and I don't even like Westerns movies. I rarely disagree with critics, but TLR is A+ (98) 

 

I doubted Verbinski once, never again. 

Edited October 9, 2013 by Goffe

[Plain Old Tele]

Goffe, you're shaping up to be my Opposite, it seems.

[Lordmandeep]

The movie has problems but it is much better then the critics say...

 

First of all, the film should have just went with being a darker Spagetti Western because that is when the film is best... When the film goes dark and into the past and the melody from Once Upon A Time West plays... I think because I liked those old Sergio Leone Westerns I think I am a bit biased as paying homage to this film was something I really liked.

 

The film has problems, the comedy was childish when the film was so serious at the same time.

 

However this film is easily the best at capturing the magestic scenery of the West more so then any film recently.

It was nice to see a Hollywood film actually film at actual locations and the Scenery was likely the highlite of the film.

 

The film suffers however from a disjointed plot and a weak performance from the Long Ranger and an odd performance from Johnny Depp.

All I can is that this film perhaps did not deserve to be a big blockbuster but it does not deserve such hate either.

 

 

That is why I was so happy World War Z did well, because the whole media circus wanted the film to fail but it was  a good popcorn film and that is what summer films shoud.

 

Ideally this film should have made around 150-200 million in my opinion.

 

 

B

Edited October 21, 2013 by Lordmandeep

[Lordmandeep]

The point is there have been many films as good or worse then this and made a lot more money,

[John Marston]

I get the feeling this is not as bad as it's made out

[Lordmandeep]

I think for the scenic shots alone it really throws you back to the old Westerns like the Searches and Once Upon A Time In The West.

[Dingdong123]

The final action scene was enough for me to forget the whole pacing issues at the start. Indeed the saving grace of this enjoyable film.

[rukaio101]

The final action scene was enough for me to forget the whole pacing issues at the start. Indeed the saving grace of this enjoyable film.

This. They took far too long getting there, but it was worth it all for that action scene.

[Goffe]

nvm

Edited November 9, 2013 by Goffe

[IndustriousAngel]

So I finally did it, I watched this tentpole ... and really, it's a masterpiece if you consider burning money an art. At least 30min too long, at least one story too much, boring leads, a director who's unsure whether he's filming a tribute, a spoof or a straight western - there's nearly nothing here that fits except the occasional landscape shot and nearly every scene involving Silver.

[Goffe]

IndustriousAngel, on 23 Nov 2013 - 7:37 PM, said:

it's a masterpiece if you consider burning money an art.

 

 that's a bit too much, don't you think?

Edited November 23, 2013 by Goffe

[IndustriousAngel]

IndustriousAngel, on 23 Nov 2013 - 7:37 PM, said:

it's a masterpiece if you consider burning money an art.

 

 that's a bit too much, don't you think?

It's exactly what I thought while watching it. btw, it's nearly identical to what happened with "John Carter" (of Mars). Disney take a few tons of money and throw them at the audience, hoping they'll throw it back, all without a concept about what they're aiming for in first place. If I had to dissect it, TLR suffers from:

- overlong runtime (spent on framestory / sidequests / flashback ...)

- convoluted storyline

- weak characters with questionable motivations

- inconsistent tone, never sure if it's comedy, spoof, tribute or the real thing

The first three points btw are true about John Carter too (at least the tone was consistent there).

 

If you spend 200mil or more on a product (yep, those are products), you should at least have a hunch where the strengths of your product lie. The TLR storyline (railway through native's land; treasure) is not exactly groundbreaking territory, it's been filmed dozens of times - standard Western fare. So, what' special about the Western genre? I'd say, the main strengths are the semi-lawless background, a kind of anarchy, where conflicts very easily get boiled down to physical confrontations, and the emptiness of the countryside, allowing every kind of mischief and forcing the characters to rely on their own strengths. A society where a ruthless man can get away with violence, and where someone proficient at tracking and using a gun has much more impact than a lawyer or a banker.

Which brings us to TLR. Putting a lawyer in the heart of your Western simply is - wrong. At least there's a good villain in Butch, but he turns out to be only his brother's right hand? Twist, twist ... a Western doesn't need twists, it needs the confrontation between the good guy and the bad one! When the Ranger and Tonto had Butch at gun's point in front of that mine (about 1h30min into the film) and the Ranger decides to take him prisoner, my ladyfriend groaned and left the room. It's simply - wrong.

It's only the last half hour of TLR where they tried - the characters don't get any more interesting but at least the action picks up and there's a nice showdown. 30 strong minutes in a film 135min long? That's burning money.

[Goffe]

It's exactly what I thought while watching it. btw, it's nearly identical to what happened with "John Carter" (of Mars). Disney take a few tons of money and throw them at the audience, hoping they'll throw it back, all without a concept about what they're aiming for in first place. If I had to dissect it, TLR suffers from:

- overlong runtime (spent on framestory / sidequests / flashback ...)

- convoluted storyline

- weak characters with questionable motivations

- inconsistent tone, never sure if it's comedy, spoof, tribute or the real thing

The first three points btw are true about John Carter too (at least the tone was consistent there).

 

If you spend 200mil or more on a product (yep, those are products), you should at least have a hunch where the strengths of your product lie. The TLR storyline (railway through native's land; treasure) is not exactly groundbreaking territory, it's been filmed dozens of times - standard Western fare. So, what' special about the Western genre? I'd say, the main strengths are the semi-lawless background, a kind of anarchy, where conflicts very easily get boiled down to physical confrontations, and the emptiness of the countryside, allowing every kind of mischief and forcing the characters to rely on their own strengths. A society where a ruthless man can get away with violence, and where someone proficient at tracking and using a gun has much more impact than a lawyer or a banker.

Which brings us to TLR. Putting a lawyer in the heart of your Western simply is - wrong. At least there's a good villain in Butch, but he turns out to be only his brother's right hand? Twist, twist ... a Western doesn't need twists, it needs the confrontation between the good guy and the bad one! When the Ranger and Tonto had Butch at gun's point in front of that mine (about 1h30min into the film) and the Ranger decides to take him prisoner, my ladyfriend groaned and left the room. It's simply - wrong.

It's only the last half hour of TLR where they tried - the characters don't get any more interesting but at least the action picks up and there's a nice showdown. 30 strong minutes in a film 135min long? That's burning money.

so, you didn't like TLR because it wasn't a true western

[IndustriousAngel]

so, you didn't like TLR because it wasn't a true western

It was an overall mediocre movie, with boring leads and a been-there storyline. It could at least have been fun if they'd stayed true to the western genre conventions.

Mind, I'm all for going against genre conventions, and there are some great Westerns that did so. This is not one of them, and for me it's really burning money to put 200mil or more into something that doesn't know what it is or should be.

[Plain Old Tele]

As much as I love the final train sequence, my god, what a mess of a movie. Train wreck indeed... at least the ending is appropriate!

[mattmav45]

This is one those rare films that starts awful, stays awful, and ends awful.It's really terrible, and yet is a somewhat fascinating watch. A laughable film, one that ranks as not only one of the worst blockbusters of the last decade but also as one of the biggest WTFs.D

[Squaremaster316]

*1/2 out of *****

 

An overall terrible film that will do to Depp's career what After Earth will do to Will Smith's.

[Goffe]

[Omario]

finally saw it last night. I fail to see why a movie like this (a western) would be given such a big budget. It wasn't a bad movie but wasn't very good either.

 

Depp is too engulfed in his Jack sparrow role to play anything uniquely now. His mannerisms and style while acting are too similar to Sparrow. Even though i enjoy his acting...its just getting abit tiresome now.

[4815162342]

So that was The Lone Ranger...Actually, it was fairly enjoyable, particularly that insane kinetic final action setpiece. The problem, aside from being fairly bloated, is that the film has no idea what kind of movie it wants to be. It's part revisionist Western history piece, part absurdist comedy, and part macabre fantasy and it randomly shifts between them at any second. I get the feeling that there was a lot more fantasy stuff in the movie but it got cut/edited/rewritten out (I know the original attempt at production had to do with Werewolves or something).One question:What happened to Cavendish and Fuller? We know Fuller's train crashed into Cavendish's car, but it looked like Fuller definitely jumped clear in time and Cavendish might have, but we don't get any answer (unlike Cole who we clearly see buried by the silver at the river bottom). And then at the very end we have one of the Monty Python killer rabbits ambling over and eating a scorpion, which implies that nature is still out of balance which implies that the wendigo (Cavendish) is still alive.Considering the box office outcome, I guess we will never get an answer.