I was pretty amazed to read there is apparently a scene where
the antagonist cuts out and eats another characters heart
in a film that is heavily branded as Disney.
That noise you hear in the background is Walt spinning in his grave.
Pretty funny as well, given they won't release the PG rated Studio Ghibli film Only Yesterday in the USA, despite the fact they own the rights to it there, because it has references to puberty in it, but they will have that in the 12A rated Lone Ranger.
put aside the notion that children shouldn't see this film. No one should. "The Lone Ranger" is a movie for the whole family ... to avoid. It represents 2 1/2 of the longest hours on record, a jumbled botch that is so confused in its purpose and so charmless in its effect that it must be seen to be believed, but better yet, no. Don't see it, don't believe it, not unless a case of restless leg syndrome sounds like a fun time at the movies.
I've also heard the same comments that this movie is definetely NOT suitable for young children. Yes it's Disney, but for a Disney movie there is STRONG gore and violence in The Lone Ranger.
However does that mean it will be a PG here or a 12A, has it been classified yet?
I've also heard the same comments that this movie is definetely NOT suitable for young children. Yes it's Disney, but for a Disney movie there is STRONG gore and violence in The Lone Ranger.
However does that mean it will be a PG here or a 12A, has it been classified yet?
12A for "moderate violence and injury detail". I'm guessing that some of these reviewers are being a little on the sensitive side.
12A for "moderate violence and injury detail". I'm guessing that some of these reviewers are being a little on the sensitive side.
Could be like the Dark Knight, where there's a lot of implied violence (or more likely it's just people expecting a child's movie and getting something more adult - also what happened over here with The Dark Knight).
Or, having not seen the reviewers/reviews, it could be conservatives trying to blame the media for gun violence, because despite the fact other countries get the same media, it has to be that and not the open access to guns...
Could be like the Dark Knight, where there's a lot of implied violence (or more likely it's just people expecting a child's movie and getting something more adult - also what happened over here with The Dark Knight).
Or, having not seen the reviewers/reviews, it could be conservatives trying to blame the media for gun violence, because despite the fact other countries get the same media, it has to be that and not the open access to guns...
It's a reasonable complaint in a film heavily branded as Disney though. I doubt anyone would care about the violence if it had the Touchstone or Miramax logo at the start.
It's a reasonable complaint in a film heavily branded as Disney though. I doubt anyone would care about the violence if it had the Touchstone or Miramax logo at the start.
The Avengers was a Disney movie, and somebody had their eye stolen.
And I think Filmyard Holdings would be upset if the film was branded Miramax, seeing as Disney sold that company and library several years ago, after the Weinsteins left to found TWC.
I could buy Avengers and POTC as Disney, but this one sounds like it's got stronger content. I have little interest in this film beyond how funny the Mark Kermode review will be, I'm just going off what the reviews are saying.
Speaking of slaughter, The Lone Ranger is one of the most amazingly violent summer movies – especially PG-13 summer movies – released in recent memory. One character eats another one’s heart. Not one but two train wrecks lay waste to bystanders and railroad workers. A roomful of fat cats is blasted into splinters while gunmen try to shoot an unrelated fugitive. And the decimation of an army of Indians by minigun is punctuated by the first-person stabbing of their chief. For a film with a protagonist whose ethos is one of disarmament, it’s fairly disturbing to see that the filmmakers interpreted that to mean actually removing people’s arms (or other body parts). Of course, when time comes to vanquish the “real” villains, the characters learn the spectacularly wrongheaded lesson that “justice” is better meted out at the bottom of a canyon under an exploding train car of silver than, say, in the court of law that Reid was fighting to defend throughout the rest of the film’s running time.
I could tell it was going to be a stinker from the trailers but I don't like seeing what sounds like such a violet film come from the Disney company. That's sad, I think.
I also used to love Johnny Depp but to me he has not made an even semi-decent film since Public Enemies and I've gone off him as a result. I totally agree with whoever said he is a lazy actor. This seems to be true. In one way I don't blame him for just having fun and doing what he wants but I wish he'd step away from Burton and Bonham-Carter and take on some different roles. He's an amazing actor when he wants to be and it's disappointing to have to sit back and watch him churn out turkey after turkey.
I think I'll check out the Lone Ranger out of pure curiosity to see if it is indeed as bad as it looks, but I won't be paying money to see it...
I'm sad at this because I love the first 5 Disney's so much- Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, Bambi.
I know that a Disney film conjures up an image of a family friendly movie, but i don't think that Disney should be solely associated with making that kind of movie if i'm honest, the acquisition of Marvel and Star Wars shows that they're starting to go after more mature audiences too. Would there have been this much of a furore over the scene from Star Wars Episode 3 where Anakin Skywalker has his legs chopped off and burns next to a river of lava if it had been released under the Disney banner? And technically Face/Off is also a Disney movie (released under their Touchstone company).
I really can't see The Lone Ranger being as violent as some of these reviewers are saying, if it had been THAT bad then the BBFC wouldn't have said it only contained "moderate violence" and rated it a 12A, because they're normally quite harsh on violence, with quite a few of the stronger PG-13's getting a 15 rating over here, and since the film hasn't been cut for the UK i'm inclined to believe that reviewers are being overly sensitive just because the movie starts with the Disney logo. Take the logo away and i bet the violence wouldn't have even been an issue.
I know that a Disney film conjures up an image of a family friendly movie, but i don't think that Disney should be solely associated with making that kind of movie if i'm honest, the acquisition of Marvel and Star Wars shows that they're starting to go after more mature audiences too. Would there have been this much of a furore over the scene from Star Wars Episode 3 where Anakin Skywalker has his legs chopped off and burns next to a river of lava if it had been released under the Disney banner? And technically Face/Off is also a Disney movie (released under their Touchstone company).
Seeing as Disney just took over distribution rights to Iron Man (and the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe), I wonder how families will react when they pick up the Disney film "Iron Man" and discover it has IEDs and an f bomb...
I know that a Disney film conjures up an image of a family friendly movie, but i don't think that Disney should be solely associated with making that kind of movie if i'm honest, the acquisition of Marvel and Star Wars shows that they're starting to go after more mature audiences too. Would there have been this much of a furore over the scene from Star Wars Episode 3 where Anakin Skywalker has his legs chopped off and burns next to a river of lava if it had been released under the Disney banner? And technically Face/Off is also a Disney movie (released under their Touchstone company).
I really can't see The Lone Ranger being as violent as some of these reviewers are saying, if it had been THAT bad then the BBFC wouldn't have said it only contained "moderate violence" and rated it a 12A, because they're normally quite harsh on violence, with quite a few of the stronger PG-13's getting a 15 rating over here, and since the film hasn't been cut for the UK i'm inclined to believe that reviewers are being overly sensitive just because the movie starts with the Disney logo. Take the logo away and i bet the violence wouldn't have even been an issue.
Personally I could have lived with Revenge of the Sith being Disney, it's still a fantasy fairy tale even with that scene. I'm not against movie violence and don't care what Touchstone releases, I'm talking about the Disney brand here.
I dunno, just seems like they want to have their cake and eat it here, it's very cynical; violence that appeals to teens, while they market it as a family film. You're right about the logo, that's all it is really.
I may get The Lone Ranger on Disney movie reward points when it hits dvd just to see what the fuss is about, but I'm certainly not paying to see it
Walt Disney Studios have a new boss who joined the company too late to squish Lone Ranger.
Disney Studios have been on the wrong track recently, a string of mostly bad very expensive films. Maybe new guy Alan Horn can change things.
Presumably he'll be drawing a red line through The Lone Ranger, which does indeed look like Disney's latest doomed attempt to kickstart a franchise.
Currently getting thrashed at the US box-office by those despicable minions. A lowly $50m predicted for the opening five day holiday period (wed- sun).
Apparently Despicable Me 2 could draw as high as $150m. Like, wow.
Didn't the Lone Ranger have real trouble getting funding a few years back and was delayed in production due to this? I took that as a the film being doomed from even before the start. I'm very surprised it ever went ahead. It has had "turkey" written all over it since it was first conceived.
It's very hard to lose money these days, I doubt it will be a loss leader for Disney (but I doubt it will do amazingly well), as Depp's name is still a big pull, and it's not being released internationally for a while so "flopping" in the US might help draw attention to it.
Even After Earth, which has been universally derided as a failure, looks like it will break even, only needs $71m more. With a couple of major territories having only just opened, a few more to go, it might do from box office, and it will definitely do it from VOD/Home Media...
I was surprised that out of all the actors in the world they couldn't find a native american to play Tonto but instead got Johnny Depp to role out his Captain Jack again
I was surprised that out of all the actors in the world they couldn't find a native american to play Tonto but instead got Johnny Depp to role out his Captain Jack again
There aren't many (I can't think of any) famous Native American actors and they needed somebody big to pull people in.
Based on most - almost all? - other reviews, it's interesting that Empire gives it 4/5. Although Empire can be very kiss-ass with some films when expectations are high, TLR was not one of those films, seeing as it already had disaster written all over it. It's not as if they're generally sucky to Johnny Depp either. The Tourist and POTC 4 got bad reviews. Maybe it's not actually that bad? http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=135308
Based on most - almost all? - other reviews, it's interesting that Empire gives it 4/5. Although Empire can be very kiss-ass with some films when expectations are high, TLR was not one of those films, seeing as it already had disaster written all over it. It's not as if they're generally sucky to Johnny Depp either. The Tourist and POTC 4 got bad reviews. Maybe it's not actually that bad? http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=135308
Comments
in a film that is heavily branded as Disney.
That noise you hear in the background is Walt spinning in his grave.
Pretty funny as well, given they won't release the PG rated Studio Ghibli film Only Yesterday in the USA, despite the fact they own the rights to it there, because it has references to puberty in it, but they will have that in the 12A rated Lone Ranger.
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/lone-ranger
http://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/article/The-Lone-Ranger-review-Lawman-turns-antihero-4642814.php?t=9ee2720ae147b02379
OUCH!
However does that mean it will be a PG here or a 12A, has it been classified yet?
12A for "moderate violence and injury detail". I'm guessing that some of these reviewers are being a little on the sensitive side.
Or, having not seen the reviewers/reviews, it could be conservatives trying to blame the media for gun violence, because despite the fact other countries get the same media, it has to be that and not the open access to guns...
It's a reasonable complaint in a film heavily branded as Disney though. I doubt anyone would care about the violence if it had the Touchstone or Miramax logo at the start.
The Avengers was a Disney movie, and somebody had their eye stolen.
And I think Filmyard Holdings would be upset if the film was branded Miramax, seeing as Disney sold that company and library several years ago, after the Weinsteins left to found TWC.
Disney Studios have been on the wrong track recently, a string of mostly bad very expensive films. Maybe new guy Alan Horn can change things.
From the Comic Book Resources.com review:
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2013/07/03/review-the-lone-ranger/
I'm sad at this because I love the first 5 Disney's so much- Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, Bambi.
I also used to love Johnny Depp but to me he has not made an even semi-decent film since Public Enemies and I've gone off him as a result. I totally agree with whoever said he is a lazy actor. This seems to be true. In one way I don't blame him for just having fun and doing what he wants but I wish he'd step away from Burton and Bonham-Carter and take on some different roles. He's an amazing actor when he wants to be and it's disappointing to have to sit back and watch him churn out turkey after turkey.
I think I'll check out the Lone Ranger out of pure curiosity to see if it is indeed as bad as it looks, but I won't be paying money to see it...
I know that a Disney film conjures up an image of a family friendly movie, but i don't think that Disney should be solely associated with making that kind of movie if i'm honest, the acquisition of Marvel and Star Wars shows that they're starting to go after more mature audiences too. Would there have been this much of a furore over the scene from Star Wars Episode 3 where Anakin Skywalker has his legs chopped off and burns next to a river of lava if it had been released under the Disney banner? And technically Face/Off is also a Disney movie (released under their Touchstone company).
I really can't see The Lone Ranger being as violent as some of these reviewers are saying, if it had been THAT bad then the BBFC wouldn't have said it only contained "moderate violence" and rated it a 12A, because they're normally quite harsh on violence, with quite a few of the stronger PG-13's getting a 15 rating over here, and since the film hasn't been cut for the UK i'm inclined to believe that reviewers are being overly sensitive just because the movie starts with the Disney logo. Take the logo away and i bet the violence wouldn't have even been an issue.
Is it bad that I think that quote just made it a lot more interesting?...
Seeing as Disney just took over distribution rights to Iron Man (and the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe), I wonder how families will react when they pick up the Disney film "Iron Man" and discover it has IEDs and an f bomb...
Personally I could have lived with Revenge of the Sith being Disney, it's still a fantasy fairy tale even with that scene. I'm not against movie violence and don't care what Touchstone releases, I'm talking about the Disney brand here.
I dunno, just seems like they want to have their cake and eat it here, it's very cynical; violence that appeals to teens, while they market it as a family film. You're right about the logo, that's all it is really.
I may get The Lone Ranger on Disney movie reward points when it hits dvd just to see what the fuss is about, but I'm certainly not paying to see it
Currently getting thrashed at the US box-office by those despicable minions. A lowly $50m predicted for the opening five day holiday period (wed- sun).
Apparently Despicable Me 2 could draw as high as $150m. Like, wow.
Even After Earth, which has been universally derided as a failure, looks like it will break even, only needs $71m more. With a couple of major territories having only just opened, a few more to go, it might do from box office, and it will definitely do it from VOD/Home Media...
There aren't many (I can't think of any) famous Native American actors and they needed somebody big to pull people in.
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=135308
So one star worse than Attack of the Clones then?
So why not make the Lone Ranger the focus rather than the sidekick
AFAIK, Depp has only about an eighth of native American ancestry (one great-grandmother)-
to all intents and purposes, he's a white actor.
There's no reason why they couldn't have cast a NA actor
like Rudy Youngblood (Apocalypto) as Tonto.
Total Film have yet to put their review up for Lone Ranger but it will be interesting to see what they say about it!
is he as good at comedy as Depp tho ?