Don't get the hate at all. Great villains, great locations, set pieces, incredibly stylish cinematography and set design. How does this only have a 6.5?? I get Armie Hammer wasn't the best choice for the role but everything else was top notch and most importantly, the movie was very entertaining.
shareCould be that you are high on meth.
The movie sucked. Depp was playing the usual character he plays, just with a crow on his head. And the Lone Ranger was a pansy. Even in the cheesy 1950's shows, The Lone Ranger was a bad-azz. Here, he was just sad. He wasn't a bad-azz and he wasn't funny.
This and Waterworld
shareI liked it. Saw it three times in the theater just to support it.
shareI loved it, too.
shareI never felt bored while watching The Lone Ranger. To me, that matters a lot. Tonto was funny throughout the movie, and the the scenes involving the trains at the beginning and towards the end were cool. At 150 minutes, the movie can seem like a daunting task, but if you've got some time to spare, give it a shot.
shareI agree. Normally I find it difficult to watch a movie for two and a half hours. I don't always like Johnny Depp but I thought he made a good Tonto. He was really deadpan. I've rated 'The Lone Ranger' 7/10.
shareI liked it. I suspect it would have done better without old Tonto at the fair inserts especially given the long running time. But I thought Depp was actually good in the role and it was an interesting way to play it.
shareI saw it at the theater and thought it was great. The audience loved it too, and clapped at the end.
There were a lot more successful movies that year, but none had as good an ending sequence for pure film-making and audience enjoyment like The Lone Ranger did.
I think the main reason people didn't like it was the unusual mixture of tones. Most people like comedies to be humorous throughout, and not mixed with gore or serious messages.