| Author |
Message |
|
| marantzo |
 Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:56 pm |
 |
|
|
Guest
|
| So far, all the reviews of The Lone Ranger that I have read, are all negative. I'm very disappointed. Most of them say it's a mess. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Syd |
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:26 pm |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 12921
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
| Despicable Me 2's getting decent reviews. |
_________________
I had a love and my love was true but I lost my love to the yabba dabba doo, --The Flintstone Lament |
|
| Back to top |
   
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Syd wrote: Despicable Me 2's getting decent reviews.
The one I read gave it 4 1/2 out of 5 and said it was even better than the original. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:54 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| As a big-budget Hollywood flick, "THE LONE RANGER" has some dark and subversive qualities that make it an odd combination of glitz and gloom. I liked it. Ignore the critics, the movie is fun and smart. And it features the best Sergio Leone, Ennio Morricone homage I've ever seen. It's main flaw is it tries to cram too much into its overly long running time. It could have been tightened up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Syd |
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:09 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 12921
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
marantzo wrote: Syd wrote: Despicable Me 2's getting decent reviews.
The one I read gave it 4 1/2 out of 5 and said it was even better than the original.
I saw it this afternoon, and it's about as good as the first and in some ways even better. Kristen Wiig is the voice of Agent Lucy Wilde and the character is a delight, and the minions are always a lot of fun. Wilde and Gru make a great team. |
_________________
I had a love and my love was true but I lost my love to the yabba dabba doo, --The Flintstone Lament |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marc, thanks. I might go to see it after all, but it's so damn long. 
So many of the films now are longer than 2 hours. Some are good that way but most are just too long and it often spoils films that could have been much better. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:51 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
marantzo wrote: Marc, thanks. I might go to see it after all, but it's so damn long.
So many of the films now are longer than 2 hours. Some are good that way but most are just too long and it often spoils films that could have been much better.
On the basis of most of the reviews I would skip THe Lone Ranger immediately, but given Marc's comment and this review from the eloquent Matt Zoller Seitz, one of the only published critics I genuinely respect, I will see it (albeit not without trepidation).
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-lone-ranger-2013 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:55 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:08 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6958
Location: Black Hills
|
| Have read him at Salon - he's good. That's good news for ebert's site. |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:38 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Meanwhile, Seitz's and Campbell's support has done nothing for The Lone Ranger's box office. The word "tank" has to be redefined to describe how horrible the take has been thus far. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| We're reviewing more reviews than film in CURRENT FILM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:59 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Marc wrote: We're reviewing more reviews than film in CURRENT FILM.
Oh, shut up, you prig.
But here's my take on Much Ado About Nothing anyway.
I prefer the Branagh/Thompson version, but this Joss Whedon b&w movie is offhand and charming although a little slapdash for my taste. I liked most of the performances, but Alexis Denisof as Benedick did next to nothing for me, which severely damaged my liking for the film since so much depends on this character. Denisof's readings often missed the mark IMO, but Amy Acker was fine as Beatrice, and I really liked Nathan Fillion's Dogberry (though not as much as Michael Keaton's in the Branagh version) and Reed Diamond's Don Pedro (more than Denzel Washington's in the you know what). Movie was more than okay but not all that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:05 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
I'm hoping to see it soon.
Don't care for Sietz.
The Lone Ranger sounds like a fucked up movie that doesn't know what it wants to be and is failing as a result. Hope it sinks like a stone. The original radio show was decent, and clearly they don't want to adhere to it for a lot of reasons. But who wants to see a "subversive" Lone Ranger? Didn't Lenny Bruce's "Thank You, Masked Man" satisfy that need? |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:44 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| To be completely honest, if I were spending money on The Lone Ranger, I wouldn't get within ten feet of it. But since it's part of the SAG film society, I will be there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Joe Vitus wrote:
Don't care for Sietz.
It's Seitz. But what in the world do you have against him? I'm really interested. IMO he's one of the only really intelligent critics alive and probably the only one I usually agree with. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
