Mr.Briggs

3 more positive reviews (13 total). It's up to 21%

PenguinJoe

I had high hopes for Public Enemies :/

inri222

Sorry ain't nothing there that IMO comes close to Dead Man, Donnie Brasco, Ed Wood or Fear & Loathing.

RichC2

Didn't say there was, but he isn't completely slumming it either.

bunkaroo

As did I given it was Michael Mann directing. I did not expect I'd be looking at my watch every 5 minutes.

inri222

Good for him, he's got 2 franchises in his pocket and he wants to get a 3rd one. I just believe that the guy has more potential than just going through the motions to make a quick buck.

Kal-El

Why did Disney even bother calling this "the Lone Ranger" when it's painfully obvious from the marketing that it's all about Tonto? Might as well have called it "Johnny Depp plays the same damn quirky character for the 275th Time".

I like Armie Hammer but it just seems like he got the short end of the stick here next to Tim Burton's real wife.

nickdawgy

When I first heard about this coming out I figured Depp was the title character.

Either way, it'll most likely make big money, crap or not. I asked my wife if she wanted to see it and mentioned it was getting bad reviews. Her response? "Yeah but it's Johnny Depp."

Women.

JumpCutz

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

OldBoy

and here I was looking forward to this prior to coming into this thread

RocShemp

I couldn't even finish it because it was so damn boring. And I too was looking forward to it because of Mann.

Jaymole

Currently at 26% on RT, but even some of the fresh reviews don't inspire much excitement in seeing it:

- ... not so bad a companion piece to the better-and-better Rango as initially feared.

- In the end, The Lone Ranger is one hot mess -- an entertaining one, to be sure, but still a mess.

- There's an "everything and the kitchen sink" overkill in the story. ... Verbinski manages to keep it all reined in, barely.

- Somewhere in there is an entertaining film, but The Lone Ranger stretches your patience mightily.

inri222

IMO :

I actually liked Public Enemies and did not find it boring at all. But that was not because of Depp, more because of Mann. I thought it was a very well crafted film, like a 1930's version of Heat. Instead of focusing on the domestic lives of the cop & the criminal like Heat, it instead focuses on the celebrity status of these 2 individuals given to them by the media and the public at large. The #1 problem with the film is that Depp & Bale are very one-dimensional so the film relies more on style than substance.

Mr. Cinema

I saw Dead Man's Chest in theaters. It was a long sit, but I think watching the third one at home is probably the longest I've felt at watching a movie. Could have been easily called "Pirates of the Caribbean: Will It End?".

Transformers 3 is also right up there, especially that incredibly slow and dull first 70-80 minutes.

Dr. DVD

I am quite amazed at how they could let another Lone Ranger movie suck after the debacle of the early 80s. I thought that would serve as a good warning.

Ash Ketchum

It's been 32 years. A lot gets forgotten in that time.

I wonder how long it'll take to forget the current flop and make yet another one.

bluetoast

So it's a flop already?

Mr. Cinema

They had shows starting last evening and it took in about $2 million. The numbers I'm reading are around a 5-day estimate of $50 million. The production + marketing budget is probably at least $300 million.

inri222

http://deadspin.com/you-should-absol...nger-635037780

...............I think The Lone Ranger is gonna be compared to Wild Wild West a lot because they're both Westerns, both action-comedies, and both wretched. (Also, they may both be commercial disappointments.) But what they most have is common is that they follow the same, overconfident formula, which leads to total disaster. WWW was made by the team that had such big success with Men in Black—star Will Smith and director Barry Sonnenfeld—and they assumed that if a sci-fi mismatched-buddy-comedy worked, you could do the exact same thing in the Old West. Except Men in Black was really funny, and WWW really wasn't.

That's The Lone Ranger's problem, too. Star Johnny Depp, director Gore Verbinski, and producer Jerry Bruckheimer all teamed up for the first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies. They've essentially made another Pirates but as a Western: Depp once again dresses up in makeup and plays a "kooky" character, and there are lots of extravagant set pieces, broad humor, and an ungodly running time. (The movie is 150 minutes long, which is still shorter than two of the three Pirates films they did together.) It's not so much that Depp and Hammer are Smith and Kline, but Lone Ranger sure is pleased with itself for the cleverness of its construction, which also sunk WWW. There are few things sadder than watching a bad, long, unfunny movie that seems to be high-fiving itself constantly because it thinks it's really fun and great.

Depp's performance as Tonto is more of the same shtick he's been doing for most of this century. He's not mimicking the flamboyant Jack Sparrow routine as much as he's going for the "I sure am quietly odd, aren't I?" bit that he used for Dark Shadows. I honestly don't know if Native American groups will get that annoyed by the portrayal: It's not that the performance is culturally insensitive so much as it's just a big, vague cartoon of a human being. What is pretty frightening is that this portrayal is Depp's idea of restoring honor to Tonto. I suppose it's good that Tonto doesn't run around scalping people and doing rain dances all the time, but Depp instead turns him into an "adorable" Charlie Chaplin-like figure whose straight-faced response to all the nuttiness around him is meant to suggest a heightened intelligence. It's condescending in its own way....................

Ash Ketchum

In this thread, it is.

bluetoast

Heh, true. Well, I thought it wasn't bad. But don't people on the Movie forum suck William Fichtner's dick? As such, I'm surprised there's no support for him.

Why So Blu?

This will probably bomb the way John Carter did, except that when folks actually saw John Carter, came back and reported that the film was actually pretty good. It was a film that was done in by atrocious marketing. The Lone Ranger seems to be getting done in, because it's a bad film, with stellar marketing.

Looks like Disney will be 2 for 2.

RichC2

John Carter didn't get a 51% (61% audience) rating and wind up on numerous worst-of-the-year lists from faulty advertising.

But it's good you enjoyed it.

Lone Ranger is a bad movie advertised accurately.

EddieMoney

Let's not judge too quickly. The Lone Ranger has soared back to 24% on RT.

GrouchoFan

I think Jay Silverheels might be the real victim here when it's all said and done.