Gave them a second chance and they improved.

Gave them a second chance and they improved. Apr 3, 2017 23:10:28 GMT Salzmank likes this

Quote

Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 3, 2017 23:10:28 GMT

Apr 3, 2017 22:35:15 GMT Salzmank said:

Apr 1, 2017 10:56:38 GMT joekiddlouischama said:

All of your comments here were great, Joe. I greatly appreciated reading them. There's no need to respond to all of them--your points are first-class and need no elaboration--but I'd like to make one point and then back you up on another.

First, as for The Wild Wild West remake, I of course advise you to see it yourself and make up your own mind, but I find it a plodding, plotless mess of a movie (which is too bad, as the TV series is great fun). The only enjoyable aspects of it, in my opinion, were the proto-steampunk technology and Kenneth Branagh's scenery-chewing, wildly over-the-top performance as Dr. Loveless. (But, then, I like Branagh's performance in just about anything.) The picture wreaked of a studio trying and failing to make a quick buck by cashing in on a nostalgic franchise.

Second, as for The Lone Ranger, I believed the reviews (more fool I!) and didn't see The Lone Ranger in theaters, but I did see it afterwards, and it's quite good. Not excellent, I don't think, but for a big-budget, popcorn movie Western made in the year 2013--really first-rate. And the climax, drawing on sources as disparate as Buster Keaton and the Marx Brothers, was a thing of wonder. Probably too long, as is Verbinski's wont, but I really enjoyed every moment of it.

Thanks for the assessment of The Wild Wild West, and I doubt that I will disagree if I actually take a look at it. And I am glad that you also enjoyed and appreciated The Lone Ranger. As you indicated, the film's blend is not perfect, but it manages to tap into some rich cinematic veins and offer more sophistication, depth, and vitality than one would have expected from a summer studio blockbuster.