Ah, those thrilling days of yesteryear" really *were* thrilling then!   I cannot say enough bad things about this film!  So I won't.  Man, "The Lone Ranger" was being widely panned, too... and after spending $250 million, there's no excuse for a bad movie.    For some good-- lots of action; gunfights, horse chases, train robberies, everything is there, and it's done with attention to detail, good stunt work, and very cool visual effects... but so what -- !  One would think for two hours and 29 minutes, it had better be.    

But in the end, what we have here is a wild, wild west Pirates of the Carribean. Same Jokey tone, weird characters, ect.  Most of the humor fell flat to me, and yes that includes Depp's screwball take on Tonto despite him being the star of the show.  And the reason I say that... Armie, for playing the lead role was likable in this, but pretty bland, and largely overshadowed by Depp.  I had to re-look at the title -- I thought it was "The Lone Ranger."

Don't get me wrong, I like Johnny Depp, but he was the wrong person for the role.   Heck, he could have played the Lone Ranger better.  Hell, even the tv series back in the 1950s found an amazing Native American to play Tonto, why couldn't this film?   Because it's all about making money.

Can't get out of here without mentioning this.... the heart eating scene; after being ambushed and laying on the ground dying beside his brother who was also shot - the villain cuts out the brothers heart and takes a bite of it.  All of which you don't see.

What you do see is the Lone Ranger watching him do it.  I'm guessing that the intent here is to show his upstanding character that despite seeing this - the Lone Ranger after catching the bad guy still wants to take him in to uphold justice vice just killing him.

Chances are, if you're a big fan of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise,  you'll probably love this film, but. for me... I found very little to like about what they've done with a classic American Hero.   I probably would have enjoyed it better, if the writers had just wrote a good old fashion western.  No silver saddle, the stiking blue costume, or Tonto's classic buckskins.  Man, what in the hell were they thinking?   How sad that a classic American Hero should be treated in such a shabby fashion... oh well.  

Being a huge Lone Ranger fan, I own all the DVDs... I was really looking forward to this film, despite Armie wearing that silly-ass costume.  Do I want my money back, no, but this is one movie I will not add to my collection.  But to each his (or her) own.

Hi-yo Silver;  Get 'em up, Scout!"

Ghostie

Quoted from ghost and_ghostie gal Don't get me wrong, I like Johnny Depp, but he was the wrong person for the roll.   Heck, he could have played the Lone Ranger better.  Hell, even the tv series back in the 1950s found an amazing Native American to play Tonto, why couldn't this film?   Because it's all about making money.

Yeah, fuck that clown. Remember when Depp was a good actor in good movies? Strange.

Ghost you double space after periods! Very old fashioned

Quoted from Heretic Ghost you double space after periods! Very old fashioned

In my haste to post my review, I failed to properly do a re-write.  Hell, I even misspelled role... shit!!!  

Did you see it yet--?

Ghostie

Hee hee I am in full boycott mode, I'm afraid. I like Verbinski and I like explosions but I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay Johnny Depp to take roles from cultural minorities.

I haven't seen it yet, and may not get to it until...whenever I get to it. But I'll give these observations:

- The box office take reflects a lot, I think on what is pre-concieved about the movie. It's gotten a lot of bad press and an odd development period. Set was shut down until 'the budget' got under control. It is, in fact, a common mention in most critics reviews I have seen thus far.

- I want confirmaation by those who have seen thge film to this Question:. It's something I also noted was a common grumble among critics, so help me out here: Is The Lone Ranger/Reid a passive character? If there's something to it, that's going to be a factor.

- Another common crticism, and I kind of see it here is that there's more focus on Depp's oddball Tonto incarnation than there is the title character. This is obviously due to star power. If there's something to it, it's a costly mistake. If anything, they should share equal time.

- Johnny Depp's Tonto appearance is too eccentric. I think folks are going WTF.

That's as far as I can go without seeing the film. My comments /questions are based entirely on the critics roundup I read on RT and the scenes/trailers/promotions on the film. I can't directly comment on any performances or the quality/interpetation of the shooting script.

I saw the movie Sunday. I had my expectations at a certain point going in and the movie lived up to that. As a result, I had a great time and I don't think this is a terrible movie.

Maybe it's just the market I'm in or maybe that the multiplexs where I am didn't have this showing on multiple screens, but this didn't seem to bomb where I live. The movie was sold out at the first venue I went to...drove to another theater to catch a screening a slightly later time and that showing was a few seats away from being sold out.

I'm guessing, though, that this movie has hit it's peak already so the label of "expensive bomb" is going to stick (and I read where Westerns do lousy overseas so the world-wide box office probably won't save them).

For the record, Johnny Depp claims to be part Native American. He's stated in interviews that he believes to be either part Cherokee or part Creek. The fact that he doesn't know which doesn't help the credibility of that claim.

As for his screen time, Depp did get top billing. I know the movie is called The Lone Ranger but Johnny Depp is a major star is Armie Hammer is, at the moment, an actor in movies. Obviously they were counting on Depp's ability to speak in odd accents, make weird faces and act eccentric to sell tickets.

Lone Ranger is the straight-man here. And yes, he is a bit on the passive side. He grows more aggressive during the story but only to a point.

This is a fun movie, though. Every cool thing about Western movies is crammed in this thing. Not just train robberies but run-away trains, train crashes and train explosions, gun fights, saloon girls, the lonely prairie wife, kid with a sling-shot, the Cavalry, an Indian battle scene, crazy animal behavior (there's a scene where the fur is litterally flying) and the setting is spectacular. About the only thing missing was a plot to kidnap Ulysses S. Grant.

The origin story they mostly got right. I was a Lone Ranger fan remembering the black and white show in syndication when I was only five or six. I'm not enough of a fan to have the DVDs but at one point in my childhood I owned a white hat, mask, and guns with paper-cartridges that popped and smoked when you fired it.

Honestly, I had a great time watching this except for a few nagging things that bothered me:

1. The Transcontinental Railroad didn't come together in Texas...it never went anywhere NEAR Texas. They're like 900 miles off. And I kept waiting from them to say something referencing maybe another Transcontinental RR being built somewhere else, but they never did. That's a laughable piece of wrong history.
2. As cool as the scenary was, it turns west Texas into the canyons of the Southwest...or makes it seem like it's just a short ride to them. You have to overlook more geography issues with that too.
3. Tonto's backstory was interesting. But do you really think any Native American, even a naive 12 to 14 year-old, is going to trust any white person at this point in history? This is 30 or 40 years AFTER the Trail of Tears and the breaking of countless treaties. Tonto's in a tribe that's been forced out of the their land at least once and being detained to a specific territory (that in a few years the US Government will ALSO be taking over). The fact that he makes a deal at all I was skepical of...and then he's stunned when it goes bad?
4. Butch Cavendish being made into over-the-top bad guy. He's not over-the-top in how he's portrayed, it's how he's written. It's like he wasn't bad enough as a murdering, theiving outlaw so the writing team took a look a iconic bad guys to round him off...so they sprinkeled in Darth Vadar (he'll kill his own people if they let him down) and Hannibal Lecter (a cannibal...but lacking a certain taste in fine wine).

Still, this movie was a fun ride / popcorn flick. I'm probably on the fringe of the age group that knows Lone Ranger. I'm guessing one reason this movie failed to take off is that to everyone 35 and under, this is not a character they know. And you need the 12-25 age demo.

Quoted from CrusaderVoice I'm guessing one reason this movie failed to take off is that to everyone 35 and under, this is not a character they know. And you need the 12-25 age demo.

I don't know, man. I'm 26 and I can't imagine anyone in my age group not at least being familiar with the Lone Ranger. You'd have to have lived under a rock. I've never watched the show but I'm well aware of the character. I can't speak for anyone born in the 90s. That's when it gets weird.

Personally, I'd say the problem with the marketing was that the movie itself doesn't seem to care about the Lone Ranger. Tonto is clearly the focus of the trailer. The initial trailer even had a Tonto motif worked into the logo design. WTF? Furthermore, hardly anyone knows who Armie Hammer is, they wouldn't be able to recognize him from the trailer anyway because he's wearing a mask half the time, and even if they did recognize him, he wasn't exactly the standout of the Social Network. Even so, it's just straight up bad casting. How's an unknown up-and-comer supposed to compete with Depp for screen presence? It makes no sense.

All this amounts to a disingenuous marketing campaign IMO and if the movie doesn't care about the Lone Ranger, why should the audience? Not to mention I think Depp's schtick has just grown tired and awkward. At least with Pirates, nobody had ever seen it before. Plus the guy's basically doing red face. That's just fucked up and embarrassing.

Think it's as simple as this just flat out didn't look very good. And apparently it's not.

Quoted from James McClung Think it's as simple as this just flat out didn't look very good. And apparently it's not.

Agree 100%.  I haven't seen it and I doubt I ever will, because it looks terrible.  Also, although I'm 50, I have about zero interest in this character.  I'm sure when I was young, I watched some of the series, but I have no memory of it and don't about it at all.

I personally like when stupid, ridiculously expensive movies flop hard.  They deserve to.

I heard there's not a lot of action in the film. In fact, there are only two large scale action sequences throughout the entire film. You can make a shitty summer film but at least put some action in it. Hell, even Michael Bay knows that.

I'll never see this film. I'll watch a REALLY s hitty movie for kicks. But just a semi s hitty movie? No thanks.

Quoted from albinopenguin I heard there's not a lot of action in the film. In fact, there are only two large scale action sequences throughout the entire film. You can make a shitty summer film but at least put some action in it. Hell, even Michael Bay knows that.

I heard that too. I watched a pretty substantial 20+ minute review for the film that mentioned that as well as some of the things that have already been brought up e.g. the Lone Ranger is a weak character and overshadowed by Tonto. Apparently what little action there is, is actually quite good but the reviewers didn't seem to think it redeemed the film as a whole. The tonal shifts are also among the many issues universally cited for the film. The whole thing just sounds like a mess.

This movie was surprisingly good. Maybe even one of my favorites of the year. Don't listen to the critics. See it and judge it yourself.

~Zack~

Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley until...whenever I get to it. -.

Well, I just gotten to it.  >

Looking back, I do think the criticisms of the film's budget are more than justified. Yes, there is the strong possibility that a good chunk of change was used for the bookend train rides which resulted in a Award Nomination for Best VFX. That said--the film was overproduced and the main problem is Johnny Depp. I couldn't help but notice that the actor (also an "executive producer") is first billed only name above the title. Armie Hammer's name could be seconf billed but his name should also be ahead of the title. So it's clear who deserves the blame for this misfire.

To have a brief recap of my troublesome areas storywise

Elderly Tonto and "Spiritial" Lone Ranger "who can't be killed". I was hoping that the idea was that it was simply a character pereception of Reid. Not literal. In the final sequence, Tonto is prroven right, as Lone Ranger can do wild and crazy things with CGI aid and video game action    We already know Tonto is never in danger - he has to live to tell this boring tale to the dimwit kid at the Wild West show. The story takes all day- they are there 'til closing! Since Lone Ranger cannot be killed, the suspense is taken away there as well. Granted, it could be taken from Tonto's point of view, but if so, the character would have not have "told" the story as presented. If you want to go "tall tale" go there. Otherwise, drop the Wild West show. It was pointless.

Tonto is a misfit due to him making a childhood mistake that wiped out his tribe's settlement. Tonto went crazy. Overall, this point isn't bad--just the placement in the film. It should have come MUCH earlier. Dare I say--perhaps even opening with it instead?

Reid/ Lone Ranger comes off as too passive. I understand why. With Depp's over the top eccentric Tonto, (and Carter's shotgun leg for that matter) Hammer is left with no other option than to be the straight man Bad news is, The Lone Ranger is a hero and should be more driven. The only time he is is in the film's last action sequence where he becomes a video game.

Again, the film is told from Tonto's "eccentric" point of view - but the kid throwing Lone Ranger the bullet from a moving train...? In SLO MO? The action scene went on wayyyyyyyy too lonnnnnng  so much that even the William Tell Overture was getting on the nerves. Then the shark is truly jimped.

I noted mentions od "wendigo". This was carry overs from previous drafts regarding such monsters I belive. The mention of them seems out of place, unless a wendigo would show up in a sequel, I 'spose.

Johnny Depp was too much of a distraction. Miscast without a doubt. I think it could have worked more effectively had they, instead of trying to make it more Pirates of thw Wild West (there was a reason why the the Pirates sequels were not as good as the first film) they would ave made more of a nod to the serials a la Steven Spielberg/George Lucas did with the Indiana Jones franchise it would have justified this. Or, for that matter, Mask Of Zorro like action (also written by Rossio & Elliot)
The only other way was to make it all camp and go 100% cheesefest.

Bruckhiemer thinks that in time, the film will be given more respect as it ages. I think that may be tru, to some extent. It isn't the worst film of 2013, I'll give it that. I can see where they were going for. It would have worked - if it wasn't for the excess baggage.

I watched 30 minutes or so of this film and I didn't like it at all. I'm not a Disney fan, in fact I'm nobody's fan, but I don't like Disney films in general. Johnny Depp was playing Jack Sparrow dressed up as a comical Indian. Complete crap.

I'd have liked to have seen a decent Lone Ranger. I love the concept. Disney were never going to do it justice... it's just not in them.