MovieChat Forums > The Lone Ranger (2013) Discussion > Unwatchable

Unwatchable

posted 9 years ago by Eldo7777
13 replies | jump to latest

This mess of a movie is on TV now and I've actually tried to watch it a couple of times but I just cant make myself hang on much longer than 5 minutes.It gets my vote for one of the worst movies ever made,mostly thanks to Johnny Depp,who I usually like and thought was a good actor in a lot of his roles. His interpretation of Tonto is simply horrible,that is, unless he was deliberately going for satire.Overall,this bunch of crap has sullied everything the Lone Ranger ever meant to a couple of generations of kids.

[–] Mhjm6 9 years ago

Your loss, Gloomy Gus.

[–] Film_Guy76 9 years ago

Wrong it is fathomable unwatchable

Heil to pure cinema.. Death to digital lesser kind

[–] doughboyjonesmkii 9 years ago

I don't think this is a bad movie per se, I just think it's a bad Lone Ranger movie. The only thing that really gripes me is how they reduced the LR to a dopey, bumbling sidekick and made it all about Tonto. On its own terms it's an enjoyable western, I just detach it from the LR name and have fun.

I'm genuinely convinced that every movie would be better with Arnold Schwarzenegger in it.

[–] Cyclo Rider 9 years ago

No. John Reid (The Lone Ranger) is clearly the main character and his character develops from beginning to end.

Immense character development here, his progression makes sense, and it's a direct result of the traumatic events he faces in the film.

Great movie.

[–] wooody 9 years ago

DITTO!

It was in cable last night. I can understand why the film disappointed many viewers. It is an acquired taste...a tad quirky, lengthy and offbeat for some however I love it. My favorite film of that year.

[–] justanicknamed 9 years ago

There was no development in this movie. Reid was a good-two-shoes, loser putz the entire movie.

One of the things which made Clayton Moore's Lone Ranger so enjoyable that was that he was a noble bad-azz. He didn't do it for the money or the woman's affections, and didn't look like a special needs kid while fighting.

I wanted to like the movie, but it was bad. I think there is a reason why John Carter and Battleship are shown on cable more than The Lone Ranger is.

[–] Cyclo Rider 9 years ago

I'm sorry you missed the climax of the film with John Reid chasing the villains down and firing his six shooter while triumphantly riding his white horse on top of a moving train. His actions were absolutely heroic in foiling their villainy.

There was more development in his character from beginning to end than any title character in recent memory. And he was even brave in the beginning to confront the armed outlaw Butch in the railcar after he'd just killed two guards.

[–] justanicknamed 9 years ago

I'm sorry you missed the climax of the film with John Reid chasing the villains down and firing his six shooter while triumphantly riding his white horse on top of a moving train. His actions were absolutely heroic in foiling their villainy.

I saw it. It was typical and totally  worthy.

There was more development in his character from beginning to end than any title character in recent memory.

Just because it is legal in several states now does NOT mean you should be smoking pot 24/7, m'kay?

And he was even brave in the beginning to confront the armed outlaw Butch in the railcar after he'd just killed two guards.

So, which is it? He was developed through the entire movie or he was already brave?



Go back to what I said before, "One of the things which made Clayton Moore's Lone Ranger so enjoyable that was that he was a noble bad-azz."

I was just watching one of the movies from 1958. While it is typical 1958 story and drama, Clayton Moore's portray was still way, way better than Hammer's. He was never a candy-azz who was laughable. Even at the end of this movie, there was never any feeling that Hammer's Lone Ranger was a bad-azz.

I usually try to not get too hyped about a movie one way or the other. I heard a lot of bad stuff about this movie, but I was willing to give it a chance.

I almost wish I hadn't.

[–] silvercometred1 9 years ago

I don't think this is a bad movie per se, I just think it's a bad Lone Ranger movie. The only thing that really gripes me is how they reduced the LR to a dopey, bumbling sidekick and made it all about Tonto. On its own terms it's an enjoyable western, I just detach it from the LR name and have fun.

That I agree on. The movie should have been titled "Tonto - and his stupid white man sidekick who wears mask."

[–] funstuf 9 years ago

Your loss, not as bad as the critics would have you think, I found it quite comical, but with an underlying sense of loss for the Native people of America.
I give it 7/10, but I must admit going in was not expecting much, so was gratefully surprised.

[–] darogr 9 years ago

It was on last night and I really tried, but lasted only until I saw Johnny Depp.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 9 years ago

WTF? That is the most asinine reason to hate a movie. You know Johnny Depp. We all do. He's a superstar. It's easy to crucify him and the film for using him if you're going base everything prior expectations.

[–] timbob-478-937623 8 years ago

When I first heard it was coming out I thought Johnny Depp would make an awesome Lone Ranger. Then I saw the first trailer of him with that awful cracked make-up on his face, and said I'll wait till it comes on TV. Why on earth did they not have him in a semi-serious role as Kemo Sabe and have a real American Indian as Tonto. Looks like the Box Office agrees with me, it tanked.