Skip to main content

A review by a well known western movie historian and author, Bill Magers.

 

With a truly objective state of mind I went to see Gore Verbinski’s “Lone Ranger”—and came out objecting to nearly everything. This is a bloated terrible film by any standard! Viewing this 150 minute incoherent dumb and dumber train wreck is a mocking travesty to the LR legend. First of all, the film alternates between trying to be a serious western for a few minutes here and there but immediately slams you back into Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote/3 Stooges cartoonish lowbrow comedy carnage which includes Silver who appears as a ridiculous hat-wearing eccentric spirit horse, a crimson haired madam in a football field sized house of ill repute whose ivory-scrimshawed false leg contains a double barreled shotgun, oversized carnivorous rabbits, a cross dressing badman amongst other idiot henchmen led by uglier than sin boss Butch Cavendish (I must admit William Fichtner’s killer Cavendish is the best character in the film even though at one point he eats Dan Reid’s heart). Armie Hammer’s effete Lone Ranger verges on slapstick as straight man to Johnny Depp’s relentless mugging. To see these two legendary heroes framed by the William Tell Overture against vistas made famous by the likes of John Ford brings on a certain nostalgic swell until its continually and jarringly slam dunked back into over-the-top cartoonish shenanigans. The Lone Ranger actually utters the modern day over-used catch phrase, “Let’s do this!” Was that necessary? Was this film necessary? If you revere the Lone Ranger mythos of Brace Beemer, Lee Powell, Bob Livingston, Clayton Moore, John Hart—even Klinton Spilsbury—Hi Yo your Silver as far away from this idiotic abomination as possible.

 

 

Allan wrote,

"Just back from seeing "Man of Steel."  Would have been better off staying home and playing trains.  Really good movies are hard to come by these days, that's for sure. "

I couldn't agree more! The movie should have been titled, "Demolition - The Video Game On The Big Screen", as that is what it was.

 

I was a Lone Ranger fan and believe to have read every comic book available of the same. But just as I couldn't swallow a pirate with the looks of Depp, when I first saw the Lone Ranger preview months ago, Depp as Tonto just ruined it for me. I guess I'll have the popcorn at home while watching Netflix.

 

Alex

Originally Posted by pennsyk4:

A review by a well known western movie historian and author, Bill Magers.

 

If you revere the Lone Ranger mythos of Brace Beemer, Lee Powell, Bob Livingston, Clayton Moore, John Hart—even Klinton Spilsbury—Hi Yo your Silver as far away from this idiotic abomination as possible.

 

 

You can bet I'll follow that sage advice!

 

Actually, I saw enough of the various trailers in recent months to know that this absolutely/definitely wasn't a film that will get my money in any form, even on DVD.  Takes more than train wrecks to make a good movie, but I guess you could say this entire film is likely destined to become a giant train wreck in more ways than one.  

Originally Posted by pennsyk4:

A review by a well known western movie historian and author, Bill Magers.

 

With a truly objective state of mind I went to see Gore Verbinski’s “Lone Ranger”—and came out objecting to nearly everything. This is a bloated terrible film by any standard! Viewing this 150 minute incoherent dumb and dumber train wreck is a mocking travesty to the LR legend. First of all, the film alternates between trying to be a serious western for a few minutes here and there but immediately slams you back into Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote/3 Stooges cartoonish lowbrow comedy carnage which includes Silver who appears as a ridiculous hat-wearing eccentric spirit horse, a crimson haired madam in a football field sized house of ill repute whose ivory-scrimshawed false leg contains a double barreled shotgun, oversized carnivorous rabbits, a cross dressing badman amongst other idiot henchmen led by uglier than sin boss Butch Cavendish (I must admit William Fichtner’s killer Cavendish is the best character in the film even though at one point he eats Dan Reid’s heart). Armie Hammer’s effete Lone Ranger verges on slapstick as straight man to Johnny Depp’s relentless mugging. To see these two legendary heroes framed by the William Tell Overture against vistas made famous by the likes of John Ford brings on a certain nostalgic swell until its continually and jarringly slam dunked back into over-the-top cartoonish shenanigans. The Lone Ranger actually utters the modern day over-used catch phrase, “Let’s do this!” Was that necessary? Was this film necessary? If you revere the Lone Ranger mythos of Brace Beemer, Lee Powell, Bob Livingston, Clayton Moore, John Hart—even Klinton Spilsbury—Hi Yo your Silver as far away from this idiotic abomination as possible.

 

 

Sorry, Charlie,

I'm not a fan of professional movie critics, historians, or authors who tend to impose their views.  My wife and I have tickets for the 10 o'clock show and I'm not discouraged.  We are just going to enjoy it for what it is.  Matt

Originally Posted by boin106:
Originally Posted by pennsyk4:

A review by a well known western movie historian and author, Bill Magers.

 

With a truly objective state of mind I went to see Gore Verbinski’s “Lone Ranger”—and came out objecting to nearly everything. This is a bloated terrible film by any standard! Viewing this 150 minute incoherent dumb and dumber train wreck is a mocking travesty to the LR legend. First of all, the film alternates between trying to be a serious western for a few minutes here and there but immediately slams you back into Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote/3 Stooges cartoonish lowbrow comedy carnage which includes Silver who appears as a ridiculous hat-wearing eccentric spirit horse, a crimson haired madam in a football field sized house of ill repute whose ivory-scrimshawed false leg contains a double barreled shotgun, oversized carnivorous rabbits, a cross dressing badman amongst other idiot henchmen led by uglier than sin boss Butch Cavendish (I must admit William Fichtner’s killer Cavendish is the best character in the film even though at one point he eats Dan Reid’s heart). Armie Hammer’s effete Lone Ranger verges on slapstick as straight man to Johnny Depp’s relentless mugging. To see these two legendary heroes framed by the William Tell Overture against vistas made famous by the likes of John Ford brings on a certain nostalgic swell until its continually and jarringly slam dunked back into over-the-top cartoonish shenanigans. The Lone Ranger actually utters the modern day over-used catch phrase, “Let’s do this!” Was that necessary? Was this film necessary? If you revere the Lone Ranger mythos of Brace Beemer, Lee Powell, Bob Livingston, Clayton Moore, John Hart—even Klinton Spilsbury—Hi Yo your Silver as far away from this idiotic abomination as possible.

 

 

Sorry, Charlie,

I'm not a fan of professional movie critics, historians, or authors who tend to impose their views.  Everyone has their view of movies and sometimes they all think they're movie critics.  My wife and I have tickets for the 10 o'clock show and I'm not discouraged.  We are just going to enjoy it for what it is.  Pass the popcorn!  Matt

Originally Posted by boin106:
Originally Posted by boin106:
 

 

Sorry, Charlie,

I'm not a fan of professional movie critics, historians, or authors who tend to impose their views.  Everyone has their view of movies and sometimes they all think they're movie critics.  My wife and I have tickets for the 10 o'clock show and I'm not discouraged.  We are just going to enjoy it for what it is.  Pass the popcorn!  Matt

Matt

I was just passing it along for information.

I plan to see the Lone ranger movie, despite all the negatives I have read.

The movie critics I paid attention to are long deceased.  I respected their opinions cuz they had earned that respect.  Many critics now are just overpaid hacks.  That said, this movie is getting reviews very much like the one posted above.  That said, Ima gonna see it anyway and enjoy it for what it is.  As Al Hitchcock once said, "It's only a movie".

Originally Posted by boin106:

 

Sorry, Charlie,

I'm not a fan of professional movie critics, historians, or authors who tend to impose their views.  My wife and I have tickets for the 10 o'clock show and I'm not discouraged.  We are just going to enjoy it for what it is.  Matt

Good for you!!! Too many haters in the world. I never pay attention to 'pro' movie reviews. They get much more coverage the more negative the review.....media never hunts out a happy story....drama powers media of all types today......that's THE driving force behind FaceSpace, Twit etc etc. Drama (more the negative the better) is KING!

Go have fun!

I wouldn't say that critics are necessarily haters...far from it in most instances.  The respected ones generally have a good bit of background in their respective fields.

 

I never pay much attention to film or other critics, and prefer to make my own determination of how "good" a film might be.  I'll willingly share my views, but don't expect others to necessarily agree with them.  That's perfectly fine as far as I am concerned.

 

For example, I liked the latest James Bond film and didn't like the latest Superman.  I'm sure there are others out there with the opposite opinion.  I'll avoid the Lone Ranger film based on the snippets I have seen.  Those segments were enough for me to know the film doesn't/won't meet my expectations about being reasonably faithful to the Lone Ranger stories (and image) I choose to remember from my youth.

Most likely this film will turn out like the Thomas and the Magic Railroad film that came out 13 years ago. A critical flop and didn't do well enough at the box office, despite many famous actors (Alec Baldwin, Peter Fonda and Mara Wilson). But even after all that, Thomas fans, at least quite a bit, still find some things to like about it.

Movies are meant to entertain us. As each of us has our own interests and expectations of what is entertaining it comes down to a personal choice.

 

The movie makers tend to make movies based on what they believe the majority of audiences want to see. Right now every movie maker tries to out do the other with their special effects. If you like action and computer generated special effects than you'll probably be entertained.

 

The producers are taking a big chance on a movie like the Lone Ranger as so many of us grew up watching the Lone Ranger on TV and have formed our own opinions of this character. However for younger audiences, their target market, this will be the first time they will have an opportunity to create an impression of the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

 

My wife and I will go to see the movies next week as we just want to be entertained for a couple of hours.

 

Steve Tapper 

When it comes to many things, including movies, the only thing that matters [for you] is how much you enjoy [or hate] the movie.

 And like someone mentioned previously, the only true rating for the industry is how well it did at the box office.

 

Has movie that did terrible at the  box office ever won an Academy Award for best picture?

I use IMDB.com which collects ratings from the general public and breaks them down by age group.  After several thousand people rate the picture you have a good idea if it is worth seeing.  The lone Ranger has a rating of 6.5 out of 10 which is not great.  People 45 and over gave it a 5.6.  I'll pass

I really liked the first Pirates/Carribean.   I'm not a fan of Johnny Depp and I kept thinking how great that movie would have been if they could have brought Robert Shaw back from the dead to star in it.   He was the prototype pirate from "Swashbuckler" a few years ago.   

 

I'm sure the younger folks liked the off beat/gay/sissy acting character Depp played.  Being an older guy, I like my pirates in the vain of Errol Flynn or Tyrone Power.  I also realize movie studios do not gear their efforts to people of my generation.  

 

We always watch for movies to see, but the pickings are slim for us older folks. 

Just seeing promos for "Ranger" and the bird Depp wears on his head was enough for us to lose interest in it.    I am so happy to have a great collection of 30-50 year old movies to watch.  

Originally Posted by matt b:

 

Just seeing promos for "Ranger" and the bird Depp wears on his head was enough for us to lose interest in it.   

Wow!  I had a totally different take after seeing the promos; "Yeah, finally, tonto is interesting!"  Very cool movie, too.  Dumb in places, but then so was Pirates . . . that's part of its charm.

Originally Posted by Lee Willis:
Originally Posted by matt b:

 

Just seeing promos for "Ranger" and the bird Depp wears on his head was enough for us to lose interest in it.   

Wow!  I had a totally different take after seeing the promos; "Yeah, finally, tonto is interesting!"  Very cool movie, too.  Dumb in places, but then so was Pirates . . . that's part of its charm.

We'd get along fine....my thoughts exactly! I had fun and so did the wife....topped off with a 5 Guys burger and it was a night!!

They have made good westerns for adults.  I can't recall what the age was that I have

read most TV programs are aimed at (all the adults I know almost break the remote in their frenzy to turn off, so-called "reality shows"...I watch The Great Race because I like to travel and they do get to different places...couldn't care less about the characters..they just get in the way of the scenery) but I don't think that target age qualified you for a driver's license.  The original Lone Ranger TV shows were

obviously low budget back lot filmings that were not staged in Mounument Valley.  They certainly held my interest as a kid.

To see one that was aimed at somebody with an I.Q. in positive numbers and produced by someone of Spielberg's ilk, that actually could be imagined as being history on

film,  I would shell out for.

Saw it earlier today.  It was Pirates of the Caribbean except set on the old West, which was pretty much what I was expecting, considering who the producers and directors and cast are and their styles of work.

 

That being said, I enjoyed it, but nowhere near as much as if it had been a more serious treatment of the character.  But in reality, this film was a vehicle for Johnny Depp and not the title character.

 

Andy

My wife and I saw it today.  It was not anywhere near a western version of Pirates.  It was a comedic, satirical, comic book depiction of the Lone Ranger (kinda glad it was not a serious version of him).  Johnny Depp actually did a good job as Tonto.  Just his facial expressions alone were good throughout the movie.  It's no serious drama with intrinsic values, it was just a fun movie.  We had some buttered popcorn for the first time in a long time.  It made the movie even better.  Matt

Originally Posted by Andy Hummell:

I also grew up watching reruns of Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels, and they made a pretty good impression on me as to what the characters should be like.  I despised the 80's movie version and the attempted reboot in the early 00's.  That being said, I am cautiously optimistic for the upcoming version.

 

If they manage to keep the Lone Ranger's moral code intact, avoid making either character a buffoon, and tell a good story without being preachy or politically correct, then I think it will be all right.

 

I am still tickled with my Lionel Lone Ranger set.

 

Andy

I also grew up watching the Lone Ranger runs also and liked it.  But I still liked this movie version also.  Matt

Originally Posted by scale rail:

Best movie we have seen in a long, long time is "World's Fastest Indian". Horrible title unless you know that it's about a old guy and his Indian motorcycle. It's a true story. Don

I think I saw this at the McCuaig Theater.  No popcorn, but they served wine!  Matt

Originally Posted by pennsyk4:
Originally Posted by boin106:
Originally Posted by boin106:
 

 

Sorry, Charlie,

I'm not a fan of professional movie critics, historians, or authors who tend to impose their views.  Everyone has their view of movies and sometimes they all think they're movie critics.  My wife and I have tickets for the 10 o'clock show and I'm not discouraged.  We are just going to enjoy it for what it is.  Pass the popcorn!  Matt

Matt

I was just passing it along for information.

I plan to see the Lone ranger movie, despite all the negatives I have read.

Charlie, I think you will enjoy it.  Matt

Originally Posted by boin106:
Originally Posted by pennsyk4:
Originally Posted by boin106:
Originally Posted by boin106:
 

 

Sorry, Charlie,

I'm not a fan of professional movie critics, historians, or authors who tend to impose their views.  Everyone has their view of movies and sometimes they all think they're movie critics.  My wife and I have tickets for the 10 o'clock show and I'm not discouraged.  We are just going to enjoy it for what it is.  Pass the popcorn!  Matt

Matt

I was just passing it along for information.

I plan to see the Lone ranger movie, despite all the negatives I have read.

Charlie, I think you will enjoy it.  Matt

AMEN TO THAT BROTHER!

Whatever happened to going to the movies just for some good old mindless fun? Does it always have to be an epic?, "true to the legend"?, historically accurate?, make us think? Does everyone think they can do or know better? Just about every movie that gets trashed by the critics usually does well in the box office, very few actually tank. I've already read critics who are trashing Despicable Me 2 because it doesn't carry the same feel or gets away from the original, for cripe sakes it's a cartoon! So don't hold too much stock in critics or others criticisms of a movie. How many of us have a favorite movie or TV show and have at least a half a dozen friends and family who think it's the stupidest thing THEY'VE ever seen? I like The Walking Dead, my wife hates it, I like Star Trek, lots of people hate it, I can't stand that version of A Christmas Carol that is more like a musical than a regular movie but it apparently is very popular. And my all time favorite is the folks who didn't like Polar Express because the characters eyes looked strange, really? That's your big hang up about this movie? My movie plans for the next few days? Superman, Despicable Me 2, The Lone Ranger and Monster University looks like I'll be eating a lot of popcorn!

 

Jerry

Originally Posted by boin106:

Wow...there are some hard tack movie fans and "critics" here.  Wonder what type of movies they DO like.

Well, I enjoy films like Lawrence of Arabia, The Sand Pebbles, Quiller Memorandum, Forbidden Planet, the original Day The Earth Stood Still, October Skies, Much Ado About Nothing(Kenneth Branaugh version), various ToHo Japanese monster/SciFi movies and a lot in between.  It all depends on my expectations.

 

Other films I can do without.  From what I've seen of the LR previews on TV and snipits online, it fails to meet my expectations and I can do without it.

 

Rusty

Saw LR, has a bit of silliness to it that seems to work for the Pirates movies, but not this one. There is however a superb part when the Wilm Tell Overture is played and here comes the LR. My heart just jumped...best part. That's the way the whole movie should have been made, but this newer generation doesn't know about the classics. Make sure you see it in a theater that has a good sound system, you may never be able to replicate that part at home.

Originally Posted by Super'O' man:

Saw LR, has a bit of silliness to it that seems to work for the Pirates movies, but not this one. There is however a superb part when the Wilm Tell Overture is played and here comes the LR. My heart just jumped...best part. That's the way the whole movie should have been made, but this newer generation doesn't know about the classics. Make sure you see it in a theater that has a good sound system, you may never be able to replicate that part at home.

The movie is far from perfect.....but the part with WTO does make you sit up....like you did as a kid watching TV!! That was fun.

I've been bummed out on movies that are remakes of old TV shows for a long time. The new actors/producers never seem to get that certain "it" that made the original so good. When the first Batman movie came out with Michael Keaton, I was hoping for some campy fun like the old TV show. I was wrong. Not that it was a bad movie, it was more like the original comics than the TV series I loved as a kid. Not what I was hoping for. The Beverly Hillbillies was another of my favorite TV shows as a kid and the Jim Varney/Cloris Leachman remake was fair, but not near as fun as the original TV series.

I think movie makers have to make a decision between making something the old fogies that watched the original series will like or to produce an updated story to capture an audience that never saw the original. Kinda the way the Will Smith version of Wild, Wild, West changed things up for a new much younger audience. As a fan of the old series I didn't care for that movie, but I know lots of younger guys who did. I haven't seen the A-Team movie and a slu of others based on old TV shows for that reason. I probably won't see this new Lone Ranger either. Not that it is a bad movie, it's just not what I'm looking for. Guess the way I remember my favorite shows is tough to outdo by modern movie makers.  LOL          

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×