There is very little point going into depth about why and how The Lone Ranger is total and complete arse. Because it is, and what any review really needs to focus on is how wonderful the reviewer is for enduring through 149 minutes of brain-meltingly awful cinematic excrement, just to be able to inform you, the reader; that the film is so inexcusably terrible that thesauri were found lacking the words to accurately describe. Ordinarily, I’d be so angry that the rest of the review would be thousands of words about just how bad the film was, listing each and every single flaw and error, discussing the senseless plot, all the gaping holes in logic, the terrible acting, horrible Ennio Morricone-rip-off soundtrack, characters, script, editing, special effects, stunts and action choreography, action sequence design, pitiful costumes, complete lack of originality, totally unfunny attempts at comic relief, and c. ad infinitum… but I don’t even want to give this pathetic and misguided attempt at commercial success (as the film and all those involved clearly had no interests or motivations beyond making some cash) any more time than necessary. Maybe I’ve grown. Maybe I’ve reached such weary disillusion with the film industry that I no longer have the motivation to care. Maybe The Lone Ranger was just that fucking bad.
The shameless (or is that shameful?) Pirates of the Caribbean meets Wild West idea was so unbelievably unoriginal. I had low expectations (that were freakin’ close to the mark), but figured that at least Johnny Depp would be funny, and that the team of Gore Verbinski/ Jerry Bruckheimer would at least deliver on some inventive and complex action sequences like they generally do in the Pirates franchise. I was wrong. The Lone Ranger has no redeeming features. None.
So in summation: I deserve a pat on the back for seeing this film so that you don’t have to.
While this isn’t worthy of a review review of its own, I felt that I should include an imdb review and post titles relating to this film as I feel that it gives a good working understanding of the level of intellect that actually found this film enjoyable. My favourites are ‘…Depp portayed his character with the usual humorous persona he always does’, ‘…once it gets going, it gets good.’ and the absolutely brilliant and poetic ‘How come this movie costed more than $200 million’.
My responses are thus:
Yes, Depp’s humorous character persona portrayals are always done…um…humorously, except when he is being dramatical.
Once it was gone, it got even better.
Yeah. Why for it costed such moneys?