The Lone Ranger

[danny_galaga]

Yes, I enjoyed this too! Same people who did Pirates of the Caribbean. Lots of laughs, great special effects and I think a fairly well thought out origin story. I can get hung up on technical things, but if the movie is fun, who cares if in real life, if you shoot the train driver and fireman, and then jam the throttle on full, the train might go a bit faster for maybe a minute before slowing down for lack of steam.

 If you liked the first Pirates, you will like this. If you didn't like Pirates, you have a rod up your ass, and should just stick to your Ingmar Bergman boxed set...

4/5 bars of silver (",)

my score for recent movies you may have seen:

  5/5 - The Way Back, The Kings Speech, Michael Clayton, In Bruges, Gran Torino, Mary and Max, Moonrise Kingdom

4.5/5 - Taken, Iron Man, Reign Over Me, Watchmen, The girl with the dragon tattoo

  4/5 - True Grit, Traitor, Bedtime Stories, Sunshine, pineapple express

3.5/5 - 300, Max Payne, You dont mess with the Zohan, Yes Man

  3/5 - That new Indiana Jones flick, Disturbia, That new TMNT flick,

2.5/5 - Angels and Demons

  2/5 - The Love Guru. Note: My 2 is probably someone elses 1. Just leaving room for worse!

[Ken Layton]

I thought this was a horror picture. Tonto looks like a monster from a George Romero movie.

[Howard_Casto]

I don't care how fun it is, the Lone Ranger was an untouchable tv classic, by remaking something that shouldn't have been remade in the way it was (wtf is Depp supposed to be?  Captain Jack with a dead parrot on his head?) Hollywood ruined another franchise. 

Also Danny you seem to like every movie you see... movie critics are supposed to hate everything they see so you can easily tell when something really good comes along. 

[koolmoecraig]

I don't care how fun it is, the Lone Ranger was an untouchable tv classic, by remaking something that shouldn't have been remade in the way it was (wtf is Depp supposed to be?  Captain Jack with a dead parrot on his head?) Hollywood ruined another franchise. 

Also Danny you seem to like every movie you see... movie critics are supposed to hate everything they see so you can easily tell when something really good comes along. 

I think you are giving Hollywood a little too much credit.  How can you ruin something that is largely forgotten?

By the way, a good site for movie reviews for curmudgeons like you/me is www.Pajiba.com

[ark_ader]

I don't care how fun it is, the Lone Ranger was an untouchable tv classic, by remaking something that shouldn't have been remade in the way it was (wtf is Depp supposed to be?  Captain Jack with a dead parrot on his head?) Hollywood ruined another franchise. 

Also Danny you seem to like every movie you see... movie critics are supposed to hate everything they see so you can easily tell when something really good comes along. 

Oh really?  What like the Transformers?

[Howard_Casto]

Pretty much, yeah. 

I'll gladly admit that I was excited when that film came out...  mainly because the franchise hadn't done anything good in 10 years or so.  After a couple of months I went back and re-watched it realizing that it wasn't all that good, border lining on awful... and then the sequel came out and I was done with it. 

Also bad critic's reviews are bad, so that woman doesn't count.  On top of that she's a woman... I sincerely doubt she was into transformers growing up.  That's kind of the problem, younger/broader audiences don't remember the original material so they don't understand how awful the new version is.  Like that (now thankfully dying) trend of remaking the slasher movies.  New Line would have made a ton more money just re-releasing the old Nightmare on Elm Street films at the theatre. 

[danny_galaga]

It tends to be that most movies I go to see are ones I'm interested in. So the scores will TEND to be fair. To explain though, a 2.5/5 is about where I want my money back. People may not realise this, but movie critics are compelled to watch everything whether they are interested or not. They have a list of things they tick off (I assume after the movie, bit hard to see during it  ) . Did it have this, this, this and this? Does it have three acts- a beginning, a middle and an end?  Yes, yes, no, yes, yes. Add up a score and there's your review. Just add some flowery twaddle to make it seem like you were straight assessing the artistic merit of it. It must suck being a critic because you can't just relax and have fun.

It's quite telling that if you look at Rotten Tomatoes, the reviewers aggregate is 25%, and the audiences is 68%. The average score being 3.6/5- not a million miles off from my own score. Poles up asses if you ask me  Movies are made for audiences, not reviewers, no?  I don't normally look at review sites, because I don't want to be pre-empted one way or the other. This feels a bit like a combination of pretentiousness, and a sort of emperors new clothes where the reviewers are afraid to admit a movie can be fun.

Not to say I'm right and they're all wrong mind you. And you are right, I do seem to be rating movies higher than I used to. Maybe I'm learning to just enjoy stuff more without thinking about it too much. If  I'm looking for some philosophy, I generally don't turn to Hollywood. Hollywood is about entertainment. I was entertained (",)

Mind you, I'm not TOTALLY relaxed about every movie. Even I found The Hangover III to be a turd 

[kahlid74]

It was too long and Johnny Depp has been playing the same character in every movies he's been in for the last 10+ years.  It's Captain Sparrow, no wait it's Tonto, no wait, it's just a dude acting drunk.

It was blah IMO.

[hypernova]

Poles up asses if you ask me  Movies are made for audiences, not reviewers, no?  I don't normally look at review sites, because I don't want to be pre-empted one way or the other. This feels a bit like a combination of pretentiousness, and a sort of emperors new clothes where the reviewers are afraid to admit a movie can be fun.

In a fairly decent local paper, prior to the release of a movie, the reviewer said he would "wait until the reviews came out" (and that is almost verbatim) before going to see a movie.  At that point, I KNEW critics were full of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- and just echoed what someone before them said.  I had always had my suspicions, but that confirmed it.  I think many of them are afraid to speak their own mind.

edit:
That said, what is up with Disney spending enormous wads of cash on movies that don't have a foot in the door yet?  John Carter and now this?  Apparently this cost some 250 million to produce. 

[Well Fed Games]

It was too long and Johnny Depp has been playing the same character in every movies he's been in for the last 10+ years.

Haven't seen it, but this is what I was afraid of... growing tired of his shtick. Depp does it well, he just does it a lot.

[Howard_Casto]

 Movies are made for audiences, not reviewers, no?

Big blockbuster films are made for the largest audience possible.. aka morons.  Once in a blue moon though there is a film that is actually good AND appeals to the less than intellectual masses.  That is the role of the critic... to say "Hey you guys that aren't mouth breathers.... this is actually a good one!" It is impossible for a critic to know what you will personally enjoy, so they don't do that.  They'll look for plot holes... look for good acting, thoughtful humor, ect... and list these things giving you examples of how the film is constructed.  Then they'll go on to give their personal opinion based upon that. 

A good critic should be able to recommend a film they don't care for, because they can see that it is a good example of a particular genre, even though they don't care for that genre.  Likewise they should be able to give a low score to a film they got a kick out of.  It isn't about what they like, it's about what's good.  I'm not saying that all, or even most critics operate this way, but the good ones do. 

Don't misunderstand... I was just teasing you a bit, but since you got all serious on me I thought I would give a little insight into my train of thought. 

[yotsuya]

A good critic should be able to recommend a film they don't care for, because they can see that it is a good example of a particular genre, even though they don't care for that genre.  Likewise they should be able to give a low score to a film they got a kick out of.  It isn't about what they like, it's about what's good.  I'm not saying that all, or even most critics operate this way, but the good ones do. 

Don't misunderstand... I was just teasing you a bit, but since you got all serious on me I thought I would give a little insight into my train of thought.

Roger Ebert was great at that. Every time I read his reviews or his essays, I always got a sense of WHY he felt the way he did.

I'm a cinephile, so I don't "DO" summer blockbusters (yeah, I know, I know), but my brother-in-law is Joe Six-Pack and goes to see everything that comes out. If he didn't like a movie, well, it has to be really bad, or he doesn't get it. The studios love guys like him.

[danny_galaga]

 Movies are made for audiences, not reviewers, no?

Big blockbuster films are made for the largest audience possible.. aka morons.  Once in a blue moon though there is a film that is actually good AND appeals to the less than intellectual masses.  That is the role of the critic... to say "Hey you guys that aren't mouth breathers.... this is actually a good one!" It is impossible for a critic to know what you will personally enjoy, so they don't do that.  They'll look for plot holes... look for good acting, thoughtful humor, ect... and list these things giving you examples of how the film is constructed.  Then they'll go on to give their personal opinion based upon that. 

A good critic should be able to recommend a film they don't care for, because they can see that it is a good example of a particular genre, even though they don't care for that genre.  Likewise they should be able to give a low score to a film they got a kick out of.  It isn't about what they like, it's about what's good.  I'm not saying that all, or even most critics operate this way, but the good ones do. 

Don't misunderstand... I was just teasing you a bit, but since you got all serious on me I thought I would give a little insight into my train of thought.

Well colour me 'Moron'