 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great to hear all the positive buzz about Lone Ranger. Sounds like it's one heck of a score. I wasn't planning on seeing the movie, but I'll definitely check out the music at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IGNORE THE CRITICS! Fantastic film. Fantastic score. The last time I enjoyed a film and it's score together nearly as much as this was The Return of the King. I loved almost every second. Sure, it could have left out the rabbits, the unnecessary framing sequence, and not had the Ranger himself be quite such a reluctant hero (though the latter would surely be adjusted to more confident throughout in the now highly unlikely sequel), but all in all, wonderful. The critics have never got it more wrong. So glad my fondness for the character meant they never had any effect on my choice to see it. Only the speed at which I had to get to the cinema because of their successful, and grossly unfair, hatchet job.
I'm not as perhaps over-familiar with Zimmer's work as some on here, which probably worked to my advantage, as I continue to listen and really, really enjoy this incredible score. It's crammed with great sounds, melodies and orchestral colour with influences broadly and proudly displayed, leading to the most exhilarating version of the famous William Tell Overture yet.
One classical piece I do hear though, is Dvorak's Largo in the track 'Home'. And yes those Morricone moments are there. As Joan says the Fonda and Bronson showdown from that film is referenced in the "swirling orchestrations". It's the three note sound I remember just as that piece in Once Upon a Time is about to start, which at the same time has a jingly sound on top of it, not dissimilar to the pocket watch motif in the second and third of the Dollars Trilogy. But there's also Zimmer's use of the electric guitar at the start of 'Ride'.
What a great shame we won't get a series. I'd look forward to more adventures of the Lone Ranger and Tonto much more than those of Jack Sparrow and co. And more scores like this to go with it.
Ruddy marvelous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 3, 2013 - 10:29 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
IGNORE THE CRITICS! Fantastic film. Fantastic score. The last time I enjoyed a film and it's score together nearly as much as this was The Return of the King. I loved almost every second. Sure, it could have left out the rabbits, the unnecessary framing sequence, and not had the Ranger himself be quite such a reluctant hero (though the latter would surely be adjusted to more confident throughout in the now highly unlikely sequel), but all in all, wonderful. The critics have never got it more wrong. So glad my fondness for the character meant they never had any effect on my choice to see it. Only the speed at which I had to get to the cinema because of their successful, and grossly unfair, hatchet job.
Ruddy marvelous.
@
Paul
Agree, the film was rather unfairly maligned.
I think it is too long for sure, but other than that, I think the issue was that people wanted a more comic book approach with less violence, and it is rather (realistically) violent. Occasionally it is more violent than required by the story. The flashbacks from SF could have been entirely lifted out. Other than these quibbles, it is really not a terrible film, or a bad one, it is rather entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As there seems to be a reasonable opinion around that at the very least, this movie isn't half as bad as these critics said it was, does anyone have any theories as to why there was SUCH a downer on it?
I remember seeing at least one remark that had the words "anti-american", I'm pretty sure. And the film both ups the importance of the native american, as well as painting the US Cavalry in a bad light. But these have both been done before anyway so I'm at a loss. This film is way better than ANY Star Wars prequel, and for me the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.
So. What gives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 3, 2013 - 11:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
As there seems to be a reasonable opinion around that at the very least, this movie isn't half as bad as these critics said it was, does anyone have any theories as to why there was SUCH a downer on it?
I remember seeing at least one remark that had the words "anti-american", I'm pretty sure. And the film both ups the importance of the native american, as well as painting the US Cavalry in a bad light. But these have both been done before anyway so I'm at a loss. This film is way better than ANY Star Wars prequel, and for me the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.
So. What gives?
@Paul,
not sure really, maybe people like more popcorn fluff? Although Iron Man 3 and Star Trek were pretty violent and dark too. Though you could say that the violence of LR is more 'natural and realistic' ie, on earth and historical referenced events that happened. So realistic violence is less palatable to some people. The simplest answer is the length of the picture at 149 minutes it is probably about 29 minutes too long for most people. I really think cutting out SF frames would have cut out around 20 minutes or more, (not sure how long those scenes are) and that would have improved the pace of the picture, the straightforwardness of the narrative. This would have netted better reviews and more viewers I think. Just a guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
