Sounds like my thoughts on MoS.

Um, I wasn't saying that at all. Just that when people do defend a movie that isn't "high art" (using your words), they fall back on "well, it won't win any awards but..." kind of statement rather than just stating they enjoyed the movie. It was strictly in response to Groucho's post (my first mistake, I know) that triggered a reaction (my second mistake, apparently).

John Reid (The Lone Ranger) is the great uncle of Britt Reid (The Green Hornet).

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture...-ranger-review

The Lone Ranger Has No Idea What It Is

It's still only midsummer, so it's not yet possible to state definitively that The Lone Ranger, released over the holiday weekend, is the worst film of 2013. It's a clear frontrunner, though. The Lone Ranger is a film that manages to be bad in many ordinary ways and, also, to be bad in a rather extraordinary way. It has all the failings that a big blockbuster can have — convoluted overinvolved plots, cardboard characters, and bland action sequences — and it also has Johnny Depp as Tonto. Depp is a courageous actor who takes big risks, which sometimes pay off magnificently and sometimes end in disaster. The decision to play Tonto falls into the latter category. It's the kind of artistic failure that makes you question not just the movie, and everyone involved in making it, but the entire culture that produced it.


The original television series The Lone Ranger was one of the shows that invented pop culture as we know it. After the transition from radio, it was the first huge hit for ABC, and it ran for nearly the entire 1950s. The structure of serialized television is all there: great theme music, a series of catchphrases ("Hi-Yo, Silver!"), and a twenty-two minute structure that could be repeated endlessly with pleasure. The simplicity of the original show is in sharp contrast to the Bruckheimer version of today, which cannot seem to decide what kind of story it is. It begins in a flashforward to 1933 with Tonto in a traveling exhibit entitled "The Noble Savage in His Native Habitat." He walks around the wax scenery, having gnomic conversation with a cute, questioning kid dressed up as the Lone Ranger. (Why, in the movies, are children always politely curious about the stories of random strangers?) The framing device — here as always — is the surest sign of storytellers in a panic. While the original television series Lone Ranger relied, almost to a fault, on the strength of its iconography, the new version is terrified of what meanings people will read into it.

Tonto is right at the center of this anxious storytelling. Johnny Depp plays him as a comic-tragic type, whose broken English becomes a kind of conscious brokenness. This is definitely a post-political correctness version of the Indian sidekick. But I'm not sure whether the new version is less offensive than the original. An entire backstory about Tonto's massacred tribe is put into play, which I guess is less offensive than the fact that the original Tonto was from a tribe, the Potawatomi, that actually lives in Michigan and not the Southwest. But Depp's Tonto is filled with a New Age-y spirituality that requires massive bouts of overacting. At least the original Tonto didn't make you wonder if he'd had some kind of brain damage. On the other hand, what choice did Depp have? He could not make Tonto a "noble savage," obviously, because that's racist. He could not make Tonto a straight sidekick, because that would also be racist. He could not make him a victim or a killer. So instead the character is a mishmash of stabs at sympathy: He's a victim of genocide, a revenger, a lunatic, an exhibition performer. It's a mess. An embarrassing mess.

Such politically correct confusion afflicts the whole of the movie. The new Lone Ranger himself is something of a doofus, whose moral righteousness is almost a personal flaw. The plot involves corruption in high places and a critique of American progress through a device borrowed from Once Upon a Time in the West — devious railroad developments leading to real-estate skullduggery. It all feels like writers playing defense. They are trying not to be called evil at all costs, so their Wild West is conscious of the historical crimes committed in its name. At the same time, nobody wants to abandon the idea of the great white Western hero, so the Lone Ranger is virtuous but weakly so. This is a version of compromise. Here's the thing, though. You can either have one or the other. You can either approve of the railroad blasting through the landscape, bringing civilization and all its accoutrements to the untamed wilderness. Or you can be on the side of the massacred tribes who had to pay for that progress with the bulk of their populations.

One of the more interesting features of the original Lone Ranger series was that the bad guys were all American. The vision of the West was one in which white people, every week, failed to live up to the ideals of their own laws. The friendship between the Lone Ranger and Tonto was the hope for an idealism that was beyond race — sprung naturally from the minds of white people — but still a transcendental vision of law that justified, at least in the 1950s, the cruelty of conquest. The new Lone Ranger has no such faith, no faith in anything, just the hope of merchandising. The movie would be a perfect subject for George Packer's The Unwinding, the summer's great book about American society's diverse crumbling into a collection of tolerant, anxious fragments. The Lone Ranger is exactly that — a movie that's been unwound. You can't call it racist, but you can't really call it anything else either.

It was not a great movie and had plenty of flaws. That said, I had a good enough time with it. The people in the theater seemed to just be in love with it. It was weird. Inside the theater, you would never know that you were seeing a movie that's a huge flop.

I thought the cast was great. Even Depp. Gore Verbinski is a good enough director, but he really needs a firm editor to keep him focused. I would say cutting about 30 minutes out of this movie would've really improved it. Also, the framing device was just horrible and my biggest complaint about the movie. There was just no need for it.

I went with 3.5/5.

this.

on the whole though I was surprised by utterly entertaining it was, notably the over the top train sequence at the end.

a 3/5 in my book.

Well first thing I'll say is that I went to a 1230 showing and the theater was packed! It was also full of mainly older people with the odd exception. The people in the theater also clapped and cheered and you never would have known that the movie did as poor has the responses seem to indicate.

As for how I liked it? Well, the movie reminded me a lot of The Green Hornet(and yes I know about the connection). Mainly because of the fact that the lead character was written like a klutzy idiot, and the sidekick was written as the hero. I don't really see this movie doing any favors for Armie Hammer. By the same token, I also thought Johnny Depp did really well as Tonto and made the movie fun. In fact I think he was by far the best cast member of the movie. The only other one who stuck out to me was Bill Fichtner and only because his character looked so much like Jonah Hexx.

This movie went on to long and just kinda dragged about the last forty minutes. I think there's a strong 2 hour movie in here, but it needed to be focused better. The funny thing though is that even though I was starting to get a little bored with it, the last twenty minutes the movie really hit it's stride with the train sequence. The train sequence was so much fun I had a huge grin and honestly I think it saved the movie. It also made me think why couldn't we have got a Lone Ranger movie that kept the excitement of the end for the rest of it.

Overall I'll give it a 3/5. It had good things about it, but it also does so many other things wrong(goody comedy, too long run time). Which bums me out because I've always liked the older pulp heroes. Sure they can't compare to Batman or Spiderman, now a days, but there still fun in there own right.

3/5(bumped up from a 2/2.5/5 because of the train sequence).

I think they were going for a Little Big Man vibe with that framing device. Didn't work. Ditch those scenes as well as another 15-20 minutes, and it's definitely a stronger film (though still not great).

Depp as an Indian is a joke. I just about puked seeing the preview and it was a minute too much. Haven't heard anything positive from friends who have seen it, either, and their comments are more that it was a let down and why the movie was so damn long. I am avoiding this until I can watch it on my Netflix Streaming $8.99/month account.

Jerry Bruckheimer likes to force-feed his audience for about 150mins, due to repeating cliches, repeating plots, and basically repeated scenes altogether told in different ways for special effects value and awe...like his audience is somehow averaging the 12-year old mark.

Can Johnny Depp be any more tedious?

I cannot even look at or listen to Johnny Depp in interviews anymore. The steepling of his fingertips against his lips while he listens and ponders the questions. Then the affected low quasi-English accent and monotone reply. And the fucking outfits, hats, scarves, rings, trinkets and twine.

Get a load of this shit...



Johnny Depp and producer Jerry Bruckheimer have spoken out for the first time since mega-budget Western “The Lone Ranger” crumbled at the global box office, blaming U.S. critics for one of the biggest Hollywood trainwrecks of the year.

“I think the reviews were written seven to eight months before we released the film,” Depp proclaims in a new interview.

Disney’s costly feature, which could lose as much as $150 million, never stood a chance of succeeding because of overtly negative press, according to the Oscar-nominated actor.

“I think the reviews were written when they heard Verbinski and Bruckheimer and me were going to do ‘The Lone Ranger’,” Depp said. “They had expectations that it must be a blockbuster. I didn’t have any expectations of that. I never do.”

Depp’s co-star, Armie Hammer, who played the title character in the $250 million film, echoed their sentiments.

“This is the deal with American critics: they’ve been gunning for our movie since it was shut down the first time,” Hammer said, “That’s when most of the critics wrote their initial reviews. If you go back and read the negative reviews, most of them aren’t about the content of the movie, but more what’s behind it. It’s got to the point with American critics where if you’re not as smart as Plato, your stupid.

As of Aug. 3, “The Lone Ranger” has grossed $86 million at the U.S. box office with a 28% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes.

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/jo...akingnewsalert

World War Z got raked over the coals by critics a lot more than The Lone Ranger when reports of trouble on the set first leaked out and it ended up being a modest hit.

There was a lot wrong with The Lone Ranger that critics had nothing to do with. First and foremost being it was a $250 million dollar movie featuring a character that no one has cared about since the 60s.

I'm sure the studio itself expected it to, you know, make a profit. And considering its budget, it needed to be a blockbuster in order to make money. Oh, and releasing it as a tentpole during the summer with a major media campaign sorta added to the whole illusion that this was supposed to be a blockbuster. Shame on the critics for jumping to such wild conclusions. Obviously Depp signed on thinking this was a small, independent film. It's too bad all the critics got together and agreed almost unanimously to pan it before they'd even seen it.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column...kheimer-108756

Johnny Depp, Don't Shoot the Messenger for 'Lone Ranger' Flop


It’s been a rough few years for professional film critics, between the slow decline of newspapers and the proliferation of enthusiastic online cinephiles with opinions and internet connections.

But hark, from out of the sunset come riding Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer and producer Jerry Bruckheimer, here to make critics feel relevant and powerful again.

This trio has been telling the British press that it’s entirely the fault of us ink-stained wretches that their expensive Western “The Lone Ranger” laid a big egg in the United States, earning just $86 million against a budget of 437 super-kajillion samoleons.

It’s a rare example of high-profile, highly paid Hollywood types bitching and moaning about a community that studio filmmakers generally ignore -- unless it’s Oscar season.

And the content of this troika’s complaints is so flimsy that it’s worth examining each argument one by one.

DEPP: “I think the reviews were written when they heard [director] Gore [Verbinski] and Jerry [Bruckheimer] and me were going to do ‘The Lone Ranger.’ They had expectations that it must be a blockbuster. I didn’t have any expectations of that. I never do.”

I can’t speak for all critics, Mr. Depp, but trust me when I tell you that most of us do our best to go into every film with no preconceived notions. (This gets harder and harder to do as movie marketing goes up our nose every time we click on a website, turn on our television or open our eyes in public.)

Not going in with our minds made up makes the possibility of surprise more likely, and when you sit through as many leaden, overblown blockbusters as we do, surprise is one of the few things that gets you out of bed in the morning. Had “The Lone Ranger” been anything but a leaden, overblown blockbuster, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

BRUCKHEIMER: “I think they were reviewing the budget, not reviewing the movie. The audience doesn’t care what the budget is -- they pay the same amount if it costs a dollar or 20 million dollars. It’s unfortunate because the movie is a terrific movie, it’s a great epic film. It has lots of humor. It’s one of those movies that whatever critics missed in it this time, they’ll review it in a few years and see that they made a mistake.”

Yes, clearly film critics are obsessed with bringing down big-budget movies. That must be why “Iron Man” and “Avatar,” two expensive films of recent vintage, were roundly praised. Heck, even Bruckheimer’s own “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” scored a strong 79 percent on the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes -- and last time I checked, that first “Pirates” movie wasn’t made in Bruckheimer’s parents’ basement, with the producer maxing out his Visa.

Whether time will be kind to “The Lone Ranger” will be up to history to decide, but as for Bruckheimer saying the movie is terrific, great and funny, well … every father thinks his child is the smartest and the prettiest.

HAMMER: “They tried to do the same thing with ‘World War Z.’ It didn’t work, the movie was successful. Instead they decided to slit the jugular of our movie.”

Putting aside the fact that “World War Z” currently has a “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I want to address the notion of “they tried,” as in, “an organized cabal of film critics everywhere decided as one that they were all going to do something in tandem in the hopes of achieving a desired effect.”

I invite you, Mr. Hammer, to sit in on any meeting of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association or any other film critics enclave and afterwards, tell me how much groupthink you observe. Film critics do what they do because they value their own judgment and opinion, and if you think a mass of us could conspire to agree on where to go to lunch, much less what Hollywood productions we’re planning to torpedo, you clearly need to meet more of us.

It’s admittedly very flattering, gentlemen, that you think that the critical establishment is responsible for the catastrophic domestic box-office performance of “The Lone Ranger,” but it’s also hilarious.

If film critics could destroy a movie, Michael Bay and Adam Sandler would be working at Starbucks.
If film critics could make a movie a hit, the Dardenne brothers would be courted by every studio in town.

“The Lone Ranger” stunk so much so that audiences got an immediate whiff and stayed away.

End of story.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a6tHjZQGzLw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I hope he does. Back in the days of Ed Wood, Gilbert Grape, and Donnie Brasco, he was one of my favorites. I cannot stand this guy anymore.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Mark-...zed-38889.html

Does Wahlberg not realize that Depp is likely taking a good chunk of that $250 million? Now, my honest thought on this is that we could have done without this movie in the first place. The best part of the movie actually being released is not having to sit through that torturous trailer every time I went to the movies and that has been quite often the past six months.

Mark Wahlberg was quoted as saying "If I was in The Lone Ranger, it wouldn't have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of money coming into those theaters and then me saying, 'Ok we're going to make a hit with this thing, don't worry.'"

This is the funniest/brilliant post I've read in years.

How much money would Depp get? Probably at most $20 million up front. That still doesn't explain where the rest of the $230 million dollar budget went. Granted the train scene had a lot of destruction but even still.

Finally saw this thing. Nowhere NEAR as bad as the media and most critics have made it out to be. Yes, it's over-long, over-indulgent, over-produced, and some of the humor falls flat, but it's a mostly enjoyable bigscreen adventure. And it's nowhere near "The Tonto Movie guest starring the Lone Ranger" as many assumed it might be. 3.5 out of 5.

I saw it and thought was a lot of fun and William Fichtner was badass - and brutal. In fact, this flick bordered on R due to how violent his character was.