I saw it. I thought it was decent entertainment. It has a different ethos from most summer blockbusters. It's neither oppressively self serious nor Vin Diesel-ish--and that's always a plus. Which is not to say it's a pop masterpiece. But, everyone on screen is having fun and I found that infectious. I don't think it's fair to call it Pirates of the Caribbean: The Western. The first PotC was a sexy, cool romp. "Sexy" and "cool" are not words that fit The Lone Ranger.

This review on Roger Ebert.com nails it for me.

Gore Verbinski movies have never been simple. They're packed full with detail, story developments and set pieces.

It's not always my thing to enjoy it. But it's nice to watch movies like that once in awhile.

Maybe Verbinski should have made Bioshock instead.

FWIW, I will say that my theater was close to full and most of the audience consisted of Baby Boomers. My parents went to see this today and said their showing was packed as well. This might find an audience among that age group and older. Most of them seem to be liking it, and they also don't use the internet much.

For sure. The old fucks in my showing were having a fucking ball with it. I'd swear the group of old ladies a few seats from were gettin wet watching this film. They loved it. They loved the show and whatnot from what I could hear. Good for them. It weirded me out but it was kind of cool to see a group of old people enjoy something that came from there past. Albeit renewed.

You people are too critical. What were you expecting, The English Patient? Just sit back and enjoy the ride!

I think I remember hearing that old fucks were getting wet during The English Patient as well.

Meanwhile you'll be jizzing in the theater when the new Ninja Turtles movie comes out, so it'll all even out.

By that logic, you can say that about any summer blockbuster...

One of my pet peeves is when somebody says, "Well, it's not going to win any awards, but I had a hell of a good time!".

Either way, it's a weak defense often deployed when a film can't be defended (talking generally, not about The Lone Ranger).

The big thing about this movie that really bugs the hell out of me is that they have Johnny Depp playing one of the most iconic Indian characters. INDIAN character. Doesn't make sense.

That's the core defense of Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness. Except the supporters of them claim these films have artistic merit, but ultimately this is what their defense boils down to.

I can at least say that Man of Steel and The Lone Ranger are nothing special and leave it at that. I wouldn't defend them as works of art.

You've been Zeppo-ed.

Well that's your problem there. Your "iconic" Indian character was first played by a white guy of Irish descent. And even at his most "iconic" period he was still a racial stereotype. Is he even iconic? The Lone Ranger I could believe being iconic but Tonto? I'm not sure many would go that way cuz of the way the character was and is seen as today.

Critically speaking was The Lone Ranger any good? I LIKE the visual image the character had and respect its legacy but have never been attracted to actually care about it.

Gore Verbenski is not a very good director, I mean he's more miss than hit I have no idea why studios put so much faith in him, same with Peter Berg and Andrew Davis.

The Lone Ranger might have actually been a lot better with a smaller budget because I see it as a more character driven story. Jim Jarmusch could've been a more inspired choice to direct. Debra Granik is another person who I could see benefiting with doing a film like this.

I wonder if whoever greenlit this film was stabbed to death by the Disney shareholders with the same sword they used on whoever greenlit John Carter?

I thought he was Native American, not Indian.

Doubtful. Greenlighting an old and obscure brand like Carter with an actor that isn't well known will most likely get you fired. Doing so with a well known brand of pop culture with a major movie star attached won't, at least logic would dictate such. Hollywood logic might be different.

I know Depp is in the movie but who the hell is the guy playing the actual title character of the film? I have never heard of or seen him before. I think they would have fared better going with a "name" for the Lone Ranger than stunt casting with Tonto.

I personally have no interest in seeing this film. My son wants to see it but this is what I call a "grandparent" movie. Let the grandparents suffer through it and spend their money to take him instead of me. I did the same thing with Monsters U - an instant grandparent film. I have already suffered enough taking him to see Man Of Steel this summer. At least we enjoyed Star Trek. And Iron Man (sorta). Looks like it is going to be a disappointing summer for myself.

I remember a couple years back Disney considered pulling the plug due to an out of control budget.

Random side not isn't The Lone Ranger supposed to be like the great grandfather of The Green Hornet?

I just saw it and had the exact same crowd. Never saw so many white-haired people in a movie I went to see before. And there was even applause at the end.

I gave it a 3/5. The framing device was awful ... and considering the running time, that's probably an easy 15 minutes they could've saved there. Added nothing and frequently took away by pulling you out of the story. The last 20 minutes really saved things. There were other big action set-pieces in the movie, but the last one had the pulpy action/adventure fun that I would've thought a Lone Ranger movie would be all about. I didn't mind Depp as much as many seem to. So overall for me, it was ok. There's probably a really good 1:40 minute movie in there.

Given the negative reviews I was curious to see this movie. I was expecting a train wreck, figuratively speaking, but enjoyed it more than expected. My matinee was populated with older folks (like me) and they clearly enjoyed it also. So, perhaps it is a generational thing.

I do agree with those who thought it was much too long. On the other hand, in contrast to most here, I thought that Depp did a good job with his character. Armie Hammer was fine as LR. I really liked Ruth Wilson and stayed for the credits so I could find out who she was (hadn't a clue). One of my favorite bits was the "spirit" horse appearing in incongruous ways, silly but fun because it was unexpected. And many of the jokes worked for me.

Things that didn't work for me included historical anachronisms and weird geography. Couldn't they have found some scenery in Texas? Big Bend NP for example? And why write in the events at Promontory, Utah? Mountains with silver mines in Texas? But that's traditional in Westerns and very few show the remotest fidelity to actual location (The 1969 True Grit was filmed where I live and it bears not the slightest resemblance to Oklahoma). The firearms were all wrong, a Gatling gun and smokeless powder? But that is common in most Westerns, save for those few that take some care in the details. But I find it strange that they try to get some things right and then punt on the rest.

But those are just quibbles. I remind myself that POTC, and the Disney ride that inspired it, bears no relation whatsoever to real pirates and that much of the movie is a complete fantasy (Jack Sparrow and the others are dead, after all). So the Lone Ranger is also fantasy, from radio play days onward. It is just that I am familiar with western history so those details of geography and history are a bit more jarring. Like essentially all action/adventure movies, ranging from Die Hard to Raiders of the Lost Ark, it requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Much like the comic book and sci-fi movies that are often so popular.

Not referring to this movie but in general I also hate people who go into every movie seemingly expecting a masterpiece work of film or something and can't just have fun with a movie or nitpick something apart if it isn't perfect. Some movies you just have to roll with and have a good time. I love movies that are more insightful and well made too but I don't expect it out of each and every film I see. It doesn't always mean that movies not made that way are any less good, they just are playing to a different audience.

I've read he's the Green Hornet's great uncle or his great grandfather. Not really sure which it is.

I will add that the showing my girlfriend and I attended also had a lot of baby boomers and older folks.

I think you misread TheMovieman's post. He wasn't complaining about people not allowing themselves to enjoy movies that aren't masterpieces of high art. In fact, it seems he was making the exact opposite point - namely that no one should be allowed to say they enjoy a movie that isn't high art. And that is a viewpoint with which I profoundly disagree.

I don't need to defend my enjoyment of any movie. If I enjoy it, I enjoy it. If anyone has a problem with that, then they have serious interpersonal issues that need professional attention.