The Lone Ranger seemed to have all the ingredients to become a huge franchise like Pirates of the Caribbean was. But something went wrong. What exactly?
The first huge flaw is the pacing. It takes forever for this movie to really put the gears into motion. I don't mind a movie taking its time to set up events, but an hour and a half. That is too rich for my taste. But then you do get rewarded for your patience. Only too bad that I gave up watching it after 80 minutes. Mrs. P. convinced me it became better later, so on her judgment, I gave The Lone Ranger a second chance. And I am glad I did because then I truly began to enjoy it.
What changes in the second part then that makes it significantly better? Action. There is very good and spectacular action, something Gore Verbinski knows how to direct. His failure, though, like in the sequels of Pirates of the Caribbean, lies in his storytelling. He has not been able to reproduce the skills he displayed in the first Pirates and Rango (which was brilliant). Sure, he was not helped by an awful script. And maybe his needing almost three hours to tell a simplistic story for all of his movies (except for Rango, which was magnificent), where not even depth is given to characters, is something he should take to heart. But it does make you wonder why it took him so long to bring you this splendid action.
Here is my suggestion. Watch this one as a mini series. First 90 minutes to get a taste of who's who and some of the events. And then take a break. Do something else and then come back to watch the rest. Your overall experience will be so much better and more rewarding plus will save yourself from major annoyance.
No comments:
Post a Comment