The Lone Ranger : Why we HATE this movie so much

I watched it last night actually, so that's something else you got totally wrong. My opinion is worth a lot more than yours little boy as I get paid for it. I'm a film and theatre critic.

I've seen the film several times and can tell when someone hasn't. Based on your remarks, you didn't see the film. You lied.

I'm sorry you're just being too silly now. What would you like? Signed affidavits from my wife, son and daughter in law?

I saw the film on Saturday night. I thought it a very poor film mainly because of problems with the pacing and the lack of a coherent plot. Instead of working on a decent plotline they just threw money at special effects. The final train sequence was far too long and was really the same thing happening over and over again. This sequence was also not very original as it borrowed a lot of the action on the trains from 'How the West Was Won'. The lunatic bandits wearing women's clothing and marching up and down the train in the beginning, and then being abandoned by the rest of the gang was pinched directly from the bank robbery scene at the beginning of Peckinpah's 'Wild Bunch' (I'm not positive but I think they were also singing the same Hymn)and the startled birds before the 'indian' attack was pinched from Ford's 'The Searchers'.

Unfortunately it is quite common now to think that lots of CGI effects make a good film - they don't - they just make it noisy and boring. The James Bond franchise was definitely heading that way before the Daniel Craig series brought it back. The awful rubbish of 'Superman - Man of Steel' was another. Far too long and completely lacking a coherent plot but simply filling in the gaps with massive explosions. I think my piece for that atrocity was along the lines of 'We get it 'Aliens bad Superman good'.

These films tend to be popular with those who do not want anything to stretch the mind, but rather just a lot of noise and razzle dazzle, which is why firework displays tend to be more popular with small children, and adults usually start yawning after the first half hour.

It is a great shame actually as we now have the ability to create the most stunning effects in films but this is being thrown away by those film makers who having a lot of money to spend, just fill the screen with explosions and train crashes. It's rather like the fact that today we have the technology in communication to achieve greatness for everyone, all of us can make our place in history, what do countless millions of us do with these technical miracles? Take pictures of what we are eating and post it on Facebook.

Just stop and imagine how poor the world would be if Michael Angelo had covered the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with depictions of bowls of pasta and garlic bread?

Youre a very immature person as evidenced by your taste in films and the rather childish remarks you make. Go and have a chat with an adult and get them to explain to you that grownups do not go around calling complete strangers stupid or liars. They should also explain that by acting in this way it makes you look very silly indeed. Now just imagine Ive patted you on the head so off you trot to bed, Im sure its way passed your bedtime.

Just calling a spade a spade.

It's not the movie. It's YOU.

The final train sequence is NOT the "same thing happening over and over again" as you erroneously claim. Read the GREAT CLIMAX topic on this board.

The plot is detailed, logical and coherent.

Again, you either didn't see the film or lacked the intelligence to understand it.

What questions do you have about it? I can answer your plot questions for you.

I'm sorry you don't really have the intellectual rigour to pursue this any further. As for asking you for information about anything I would have more success asking an apple.

You really need to grow up a lot and try and behave a bit more like an adult even if it is obvious you are extremely immature.

Don't try and lecture your betters, especially on subjects you obviously know nothing about.

I tell you what little boy since you seem to think I am stupid and unintelligent and cannot possibly know what I am talking about let us test your knowledge of films. Lets take another Johnny Depp movie, 'From Hell'.

Please enlighten us with your erudite comments on that offering.

Bob, don't try to argue with Cyclo Rider. He's an idiot. His parents were probably idiots. He won't understand your intelligence and he won't understand common sense.

Good advice, well stated.

Actually bob-1135, I am prepared to call you out on this. I seriously doubt that anyone would really believe that you are a film critic for the following reasons:

Firstly, it's a respected profession and despite him saying you "were too stupid to understand it" you instead chose to resort to name calling yourself and calling cyclo-rider "little boy" was just childish and not something a professional critic would do.

You have only rated 11 movies on IMDB in the 9 years you have been a member. Hardly the efforts of a genuine critic.

You saw a big budget movie *DAYS after it went into major release whereas a true critic would be registered with FIPRESCI and would have obtained a screener version in advance.

I couldn't be bothered listing anything else but I think my point is made.

They mostly come at night. Mostly

I want affidavits.

I suppose to be honest I hate this movie for its wasted potential.


-
In a fair universe, we would all be better people.

You do make your point of view clear in fairly lucid terms that is, when you can briefly avoid the temptation to disparage those with differing points of view as childish imbeciles but your claim to being a paid critic seems to rest on shaky ground. What respectable publication would publish without proofreading the work of a writer who refers to "Michael Angelo" and belittles his opponents by telling them "it's way _passed_ your bedtime"?

You do realize that there really wouldn't be much to make good movies about if we could never remind anyone of anything they wouldn't like?

Europeans massacred the natives.

The americans are the grandsons and granddaughters of those europeans.

Roger Ebert said it great: "By the end, [The Lone Ranger's] values are that of a brawny 1960s activist who insists that the stated values of America are great, but we haven't lived up to them."

And right when the William Tell overture kicks in during the climax (that was the scene of the year for me), the Ranger and Silver is in front of a courthouse sign stating "Justice For All." I think it's brilliant storytelling, I'm sorry.

The positive surprise all year. Uplifting to see balanced white guilt in a Bruckheimer/Disney blockbuster. Which is slightly ahead of its time, I guess, kinda like "1941".

And make Bass Reeves a character in a sequel. I'll sign the waiver on that idea, boys.

This is what Rolling Stone said about this movie and I concur:

"And while it was a tight race for the bottom of the scum bucket, with Travers calling the two worst films of 2013 "almost interchangeable in their badness," it's The Lone Ranger that's spared the disgrace of the number one spot. Even with Johnny Depp as Tonto and Armie Hammer as the titular masked crusader, the film was a hulking, horrible beast of boredom."

Depp says his inspiration for his costume comes directly from the painting of Kirby Sattler, a very white white man" As the article says, very un-Comanche.

See http://www.badeagle.com/2012/04/24/johnny-depps-new-comanche-tonto/

---

This is what Rolling Stone said

---

The worst source for ANYTHING.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

Stop reading what other people say about this movie in magazines or newspapers - maybe even this site..If you don't want to shell out the bucks at the theater, wait for it to appear on Netflix, your local video store, or at your library. This movie was solely for entertainment, and was not to be taken so seriously. Not as much fun as "Guardians Of The Galaxy" was, but still enjoyable. I can understand being repulsed by some of the behavior of 19th century America, but you can't sweep it under the rug - it happened. This film did present some good aspects of the society that was, and also presented the Native Americans as clearly and bravely fighting a losing battle. The past is interesting, but not always nice.

glossamir -

---

I can understand being repulsed by some of the behavior of 19th century America, but you can't sweep it under the rug - it happened. This film did present some good aspects of the society that was, and also presented the Native Americans as clearly and bravely fighting a losing battle. The past is interesting, but not always nice.

---

OK, before I post thiw, I am not someone who thinks of the 19th etury as soem sort of Grand Utopia and realise that America had very serious problems then. With that said, this FIlm was not the 19th Century a it actually was. The behaviours of the peopwl in the film wr mro like caricatures of how peope in the old Serials behaved in the 1920's about the Old West, a sort of deonstruction of the Sqeuaky CLean, perceived but not actual Racism of the source Material. It had nothign to do with actual American History in the 19th Century.

I'm not accusing anyone as taking this film as fact, but we do know that some practices by society back then were abysmal. It is referred to in this movie, but nobody is saying it was factual. It was just entertainment, not a documentary Sorry if you took my comment in that way.

Was that pirates of caribbean but in the desert ??

Anti White.zionist filth!

Anti White Race propaganda..

I didn't care for the movie and I thought Depp's "full blooded Comanche" get-up was as unrealistic as it was fake. His costume is a blatant copy of a painting by Kirby Sattler of an imaginary American Indian. The painting is named "I Am Crow". Depp, to me, looked like a cross between Captain Jack Sparrow with a crow on his head and a member of Kiss. Even the portrayal of the Lone Ranger is suspect since it is thought that the legend of The Lone Ranger was based on an African American lawman named Bass Reeves who lived with the Native Americans. The whole thing being fiction, I'll stick with Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels.

It was on odd combination of dumb comedy and serious melodrama, mostly the former, with some of the most ridiculous stunts I've seen put to celluloid, and that's saying something with all the phony CGI that exists in movies now. They CGI everything.

I just loved it when the horse got on top of the barn CGI or not .. it was funny .

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".

They massacred right many white people also .. like little Mary Kelly .. who was captured along with her mother Fanny Kelly in 1864 .. while they were on horse back going to the Indian's camp Fanny slowly dropped four year old Mary off of the side of her horse .. the Indians didn't see this and didn't noticed it for quite some time , but when they did they sent a party back to get her .. but instead of bringing her back they shot 3 arrows through her and scalped her .. This movie .. loved it .

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".

Your self-gratifying, narrow-minded ignorance and laughably one-dimensional grasp of history aside, in the real world this movie is widely disliked for so many other reasons. At the top of my list - it has all the subtlety of a Three Stooges short combined with the physics of a Road Runner cartoon. You can find more realistic animation in something with Looney Tunes in the opening credits.