REVIEW: “The Lone Ranger”

Lone Ranger poster

“Pirates of the Caribbean” set in the old west. It’s an unavoidable comparison. It’s also a very accurate description of Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer’s “The Lone Ranger”. Johnny Depp again takes center stage and is the ringleader of this wacky and sometimes absurd action adventure. The ingredients are all here. A charismatic and eccentric lead, a fun and action-packed story model, and a filmmaking team who has experienced success before. Maybe that’s why the end result is so disappointing.

As a kid I loved the old television reruns of The Lone Ranger starring Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels. Well let me say that it didn’t take long for me to see the mammoth sized differences between this film and the great original material. I mean to call this film a reimagining would be a gross understatement. There is almost no similarity between these film and the classic story other than the name and some of the basic cosmetics. There is the white hat and white horse. There are silver bullets and the black masks. There are also a few familiar names and familiar plot points. But you’ll be hard pressed to find many other resemblances. Who knows, maybe that’s where the first of the film’s many missteps begins.

Lone Ranger 2

Now I wasn’t expecting this to be an ultra-serious tribute to this classic character. Again this is from the makers of “Pirates of the Caribbean”. But I also didn’t expect it to be so drastically different and so blasted silly. It starts with the Lone Ranger character himself. Armie Hammer seems completely lost at times playing a character who is a bumbling oaf from the first time we see him until the final credits. The character has good intentions but he’s a far cry from the heroic masked administrator of justice I was hoping for. Hammer’s performance doesn’t help. He struggles through a ridiculous and sometimes numbingly lame script that drags him through a plethora of slapstick and oddball humor that admittedly works on occasions. But more often than not it lands with a thud and Hammer just can’t sell it.

The nuttiness isn’t just confined to Hammer and the lead character. Johnny Depp’s Tonto is in many ways a Native American Jack Sparrow. He channels his famed pirate character in a variety of different ways and I found myself laughing out loud on several occasions. But he also has his share of ludicrous, over-the-top moments. And that can be said for the entire film. It has several eye-rolling moments that are so insanely absurd that they’re impossible to digest. But it also sharply turns in other directions. “The Lone Ranger” has some jarring tonal issues. One minute horses are standing up in trees wearing cowboy hats and the next has a character cutting out and eating a human heart. The movie is literally all over the map.

But perhaps it’s biggest sin is that it’s just so boring in the middle. It starts with a some promise and there are hints of a good story throughout the picture. But soon the film bogs down in a mire of drab and pointless plot. There’s an underwritten and poorly serviced romance. There are throwaway characters such as Helena Bonham Carter’s ivory-legged brothel head whose story would better serve on the cutting room floor. Then there is the film’s general snail paced way of telling the main story. It takes way too long and it becomes a test of endurance just to make it through the arduous 2 hours and 30 minute running time.

Lone ranger 1

But I have to say that the big finale saves the film from being a total disaster. The huge set piece is quite the spectacle and I remember perking up the moment that the William Tell Overture suddenly kicked in. The ending almost feels like its own little short film. It doesn’t feel anything like a Lone Ranger sequence and there isn’t a semblance of realism to be found. But it is insanely entertaining if you can accept its cartoonish and exaggerated approach and go with it. For me it was easily the best part of the film even with its absurdities.

There are some beautiful locations and some of the action is really good. There are moments where the wacky humor works very well. I also enjoyed seeing an assortment of my favorite supporting actors (William Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, Barry Pepper, and James Badge Dale) even if their roles aren’t particularly well written. But in the end “The Lone Ranger” loses itself in its overbearing insanity and bloated, uneven plot. It never feels like a western and it never knows when to end. What really stinks is that this could’ve been a really good summer movie. Instead it’s $250 million dollars worth of mediocrity and a waste of some really good talent. I may be wrong but I would think Disney would want more from such an investment.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

K & M Commentary – That Odd Thing Called Taste

typewriter-banner 1

There is something all of us possess that highlights our own special uniquenesses. It’s this odd thing called taste. Our wide variety of tastes show themselves in a wide variety of ways. Just think about it. One person may love 19th century classical music while another loves 1980’s hair metal. One person may only read crime novels while someone else only reads biographies. I know some people who love Italian pasta while others hate it and would prefer a thick-cut ribeye steak anytime. I could go on and on but you get the point.

Our tastes are just some of the things that set us apart from each other and our tastes are defined by an assortment of different things. They help to reveal our own unique personalities, our own unique voices, our own unique preferences, and our own unique passions. We may share specific tastes but an individual’s collective tastes help to give them an individuality that can often times be fascinating.

I’m especially drawn to people’s different tastes when it comes to movies and television. There’s such a widely varied gamut of likes and dislikes when it comes to these areas of entertainment. I also love how a person’s passionate taste for something helps identify them. For example I know that Ruth at Flixchatter adores British cinema and the many great actors that come from the U.K. Mark at Marked Movies is all about Robert DeNiro and his many great films. Lady Sati over at Cinematic Corner is incredibly passionate about “Game of Thrones”. I could go on and on.

But for me there’s an even more fascinating way to look at our different tastes when it comes to movies. It amazes me how two people can look at one movie and have such drastically different responses to it. Tastes can so wildly vary that one person may despise a film with all their being while another person adores the film and is passionate in their defense of it. There was a time in my immaturity where I would get frustrated when someone disliked a movie that I thought was brilliant. I know, it’s a silly notion but it’s true. I just couldn’t grasp how a movie that gave me such a wonderful experience could be such a pain for someone else. Movies are a funny thing.

It all comes down to this – movies are subjective. They have the uncanny ability to effect every soul differently and appeal to specific tastes in various ways. Movies can scare one person but not another. They can make one person laugh while another sits stone-faced. They can bring one person to tears while another rolls their eyes. There’s just a unique quality about movies that is directly connected to our individuality. What works for one doesn’t always work for another. That’s why movie critics most often debate the writing, the direction, technique, etc. And even then the critic can’t separate his or her own individual taste if they’re being honest in his review.

Still, I can’t promise you that I won’t scratch my head or roll my eyes when I hear that you like Seth Rogan or Will Ferrell movies. I can’t promise that I won’t sit in a state befuddlement when I read a rave review of a Nicholas Sparks film or I see an Adam Sandler movie take in over $100 million. I can’t promise you any of those things. But I can say I better understand it. Like I said, taste is a really odd thing.

THE END

REVIEW: “Midnight in Paris”

MIDNIGHT POSTER

Without a doubt the romantic comedy is one of the weaker movie genres and has been for years. But sometimes we get a special gem that reminds us of just how fun these types of movies can be. “Midnight in Paris”, written and directed by Woody Allen, is a crash course in the art of making a romantic comedy. It is loaded with heart and feeling and doesn’t trudge down the same path as so many failed films of this genre. It’s a movie that captures the magic of it’s location and the inner workings of it’s characters. It’s clever and unique while maintaining a true romantic feel and sense of humor.

“Midnight in Paris” opens with a picturesque three-minute montage focusing on the beauty of Paris, France. It gracefully moves from one exquisitely framed shot to another, showing us historical landmarks, museums, cafes, and more all set to the lovely “Si Tu Vois Ma Mere”. It elegantly sets up the city of Paris as not only a central character in the film, but an enchanting and magical force whose influence is seen throughout the picture. In many ways Woody Allen is celebrating Paris. He wants us to love the city and appreciate the mystique of it’s rich history just as much as his main character does. Allen’s desire works. I was instantly grabbed and found myself totally lost in what I was seeing on the screen.

Midnight1

While Paris is at the heart of the story, the main character is Gil Pender (Owen Wilson), a hack Hollywood screenwriter who is visiting the city with his fiancée and her parents. Gil loves everything about Paris and to this day regrets his decision not to move there when he had a chance several years ago. He feels he was meant for more than writing screenplays but he struggles with confidence. He doesn’t feel comfortable in today’s world and believes he would be a better fit in the 1920s. His fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) is a spoiled momma’s girl who spends more time insulting Gil than supporting him. There is clearly a disconnect between the two. He loves Paris and she doesn’t. He’s working on a novel that he thinks will change his career and she thinks he’s wasting his time. He enjoys the small details in life while she would rather milk it for it’s benefits.

While in Paris they run into Paul (Michael Sheen), Inez’s old friend and self-proclaimed expert on everything from art to French culture to fine wines. Inez seems infatuated with Paul’s knowledge regardless of how many facts he gets wrong in his efforts to impress everyone. Needing to get away, Gil takes off on a late night walk. After getting lost, he is picked up by a group of partiers in an old classic car who magically transport him back to 1920s Paris. Here he meets many of his literary and artistic heroes such as Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Picasso, and Stein. He also meets the lovely Adriana (played wonderfully by Marion Cotillard) who he grows more attracted to with each midnight visit.

The fantasy turn of Allen’s story did feel a bit out of the blue at first but it didn’t take long before I was enthralled with what I was seeing. Gil’s golden age is recreated flawlessly from the music and atmosphere to the careful attention to detail. I loved seeing these authors, painters, composers, and filmmakers of old fleshed out through some fantastic performances. Tom Hiddleston and Alison Pill are absolutely brilliant as F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald. I also loved Marcial Di Fonzo Bo as Picasso and Adrien Brody as Dali, both in smaller but fun roles. And then there’s Corey Stoll as Hemingway who steals many of the scenes he’s in. The supporting cast is such a wonderful ingredient to the film’s charm.

MIDnight2

But in terms of acting it’s Owen Wilson that really blew me away. In many ways he plays a character that really fits him. We’ve seen elements of this performance in other roles of his but here everything is perfectly measured and controlled. Even though Woody Allen has stated he gave Wilson a lot of room to work, it’s clear that Allen has a solid influence on his performance. I’ve been really lukewarm concerning most of Wilson’s past work but he really, really impressed me here. He dials it back a bit and never allows his performance to drown out the material.

“Midnight in Paris” does call for the audience to just buy into it’s fantasy angle and if you struggle with that you may struggle with this picture. It also turns out to be fairly predictable in places. But these small gripes do nothing to kill the magic of this picture for me. This is certainly a love letter to Paris, but it’s also a lesson on living in the present. Allen reminds us that the golden age so many long for isn’t that different from where we are now. It’s a beautiful film both visually and structurally and it moves along at an almost poetic pace. Better yet, “Midnight in Paris” is a film that gives us hope for a struggling genre. I love this movie.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 STARSs

5STAR K&M

The Keith & Movies Valhalla Induction: “There Will Be Blood”

MT OLYMPUS

The Keith & the Movies Valhalla is a place of tribute for those movies that I hold in the highest regard. These are films that embody everything that is great about motion pictures. These are the best of the best – movies that I truly love and that stand above the rest. There are many great movies that won’t find their way into these sacred halls. But here you will find those films that I believe personify brilliance in filmmaking, storytelling, and entertainment. These glorious 5 star accomplishments are worthy of special recognition as the very best. Ok, enough of the high drama! In other words, these are my favorite movies of all time, ok?

BLOODFor me, no movie is driven by a more brilliant and quite frankly perfect performance than Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood”. From the moment Daniel Day-Lewis appears on screen Anderson’s grimy period vision begins to flourish before out eyes. Day-Lewis’ work here is mesmerizing and a prime example of why he is our greatest working actor today. Channeling his best John Huston voice, Day-Lewis stunningly portrays one of the most vile yet compelling movie characters ever. I can’t imagine any working actor being able to pull it off so well.

But while the lead performance is the true highlight for me, there is more to love about “There Will Be Blood” than just that. Anderson’s script is crisp and razor sharp and it gives Day-Lewis plenty to chew on. I also love all the things that bring this region specific period picture to life from the flawless cinematography to the unnerving score. Paul Thomas Anderson puts together an amazing motion picture experience that I can watch over and over. For me it’s clearly Anderson’s best film. But I’ll go even further. It’s one of my favorite films of all time so its place in the Valhalla is well deserved. What a gem!

“There Will Be Blood” is the sixth inductee into the Keith & the Movies Valhalla. But there are more amazing movies to come in the near future so stay tuned. What are your thoughts on this Paul Thomas Anderson new classic? Is it worth the accolades it’s received or is it an overrated picture? What about the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis? You now know my opinion. I’d love to hear yours. Please take time to share your comments below.

K & M Commentary – The Challenges of the Franchise Reboot

typewriter-banner 1

Even the most casual moviegoer can recognize that the reboot and remake bug has spread through almost all of Hollywood. Remakes must be the believed remedy for Hollywood’s current bouts with lack of originality and general lack of inspiration. We seem to get loads of them each year. In 2013 alone we get “Lone Ranger”, “Evil Dead”, “Carrie”, “Oldboy”, “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” and more. And there doesn’t seem to be a film that’s exempt from this current craze. I mean regardless of how obviously stupid the idea was, “Footloose” even managed to get a remake.

And then you have franchise reboots which are something different. Through recent years we’ve seen Hollywood attempt to reboot past franchises which hasn’t always been a good idea. Sensing another series of movies and a hefty profit, studios are eager to breath new life into older franchises sometimes at the expense of the property. But reboots bring up a great topic of discussion. How much leniency do you give filmmakers when they’re rebooting or remaking cherished material? How much should be forgiven or overlooked in the name of a fresh new vision?

I’ve heard some people say that only fanboys get worked up over this type of thing. Some are able to completely disassociate the new reboot from the original film or series it’s based on. Those invested find the source material sacred and feel that a serious divergence from it is criminal. I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m all for having a new vision but it has to be tempered with respect for the source material. This is an even bigger deal when you’re attempting to remake a property that has a deep and beloved history as well as a firm following.

Just last week we saw the release of “Star Trek Into Darkness“, the second film since the franchise was rebooted in 2009. The first movie was widely successful and most have really embraced it as a great reboot. Personally I can’t call it great because of its mangling of some key points in the source material and its redefining of some big characters. Yet others, many of them Star Trek fans, have given the movie a pass for this. Am I too attached to the original material? Are they too flippant with it? I think the answer lies in the overall quality of the movie. Even with its flaws, “Star Trek” is still a fun and highly entertaining film. It’s a lot easier to overlook blemishes or freedoms when the overall product is so strong.

But there are examples of reboots (or in this case an attempted reboot) that can’t overcome the altered vision of the filmmakers. 2006’s “Superman Returns” was the vehicle that would get another Surperman franchise up and running. While the film had a good box office showing, infighting and dissatisfaction with the film and the Superman character scratched the planned sequel. That was a good idea because “Superman Returns” was a reboot that didn’t work in large part due to the treatment of the characters. It’s an okay movie up until the end where the source material is flushed and a new more modern twist had me and many others checking out. This “vision” from the filmmakers helped kill this franchise before it got started.

These same liberties have also killed other franchises particularly in the superhero/comic book genre. “X-Men: The Last Stand” was an atrocious trampling of the X-Men’s near 50 year-long history. Killing Cyclops within the first 5 minutes of the film on top of several other lesser but equally uncalled for liberties ended up burying the franchise. “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” was hoped to be the first of several X-Men origin films but the absurd obliteration of these characters and their history proved to be a bad move. In the end it was a bad movie and the “X-Men Origins” idea was canned. Once again the sacrifice of the rich source material for new visions didn’t pay off.

There’s a fine line that a filmmaker must walk when it comes to rebooting new material. For some it just comes down to whether or not it’s a good movie. For others, the film’s appreciation and respect for the source material is part of what makes the movie good. Do I think filmmakers should be stripped of any creativity and vision when rebooting a popular property? Absolutely not. A simple rehash of what’s already been done offers nothing new or fresh. But when you have a beloved series, book, comic book character, etc. the history should always be respected. And if you the filmmakers choose to drastically alter that, don’t be surprised if there aren’t those who take issue with it.

Film Fans, Let’s Introduce Ourselves…

HANDSHAKE

During the 15 months that I’ve been doing this crazy blogging thing I’ve met an amazing assortment of people from all over the world. While I love writing about movies and sharing my thoughts with others, perhaps my favorite thing about blogging has been the fellow movieoholics I’ve met. But I got to thinking, even though I’ve learned a lot of things about a lot of people, there’s still some cool stuff that would be fun to know.

So consider this a chance for a more proper introduction and not just for me but for all of the other movie fans that choose to share. Here’s the way it works, I’m tossing out 5 easy questions. I’ll answer them to let you know a little about me and then you do the same in the comments section below. Simple stuff but it’ll also be great for us all to know a little more about each other and share our blog sites (for those who have the).

Here we go. Here are the 5 easy questions followed by my answers:

1. WHAT’S YOUR NAME & WHERE ARE YOU FROM?: Keith (Never would have guessed that, huh?) from South Central Arkansas, USA

2. WHAT’S YOUR BLOG’S NAME & LINK (if you blog): Keith & the Movies –
http://keithandthemovies.com (That’s more obvious than the first question, right?)

3. WHAT ARE 3 OF YOUR FAVORITE FILMS (Not necessarily your top three, just three of your favorites)? : “Casablanca”, “Night of the Living Dead”, “The Empire Strikes Back”

4. WHAT ARE 3 OF YOUR NON-MOVIE RELATED INTERESTS? : Major League Baseball (Go Rangers!), Anything about Paris, theology

5. WHAT IS ONE FUNNY OR INTERESTING MOVIE-RELATED FACT ABOUT YOU? : I’m a Humphrey Bogart nut. I have almost all of his movies (even the smaller forgotten ones) either on DVD or VHS. I have a life-sized Bogart cardboard cutout standing in our bedroom next to my side of our bed (what a great wife I have). Heck I even have a certified copy of Bogart’s death certificate. Idiotic? Yes I know.

Now you know a little about me. It’s your turn. I hope you’ll jump in and leave your answers in the comments section below. Let’s all get to know each other a little better!

THE END