10 Years On: The Lone Ranger Again

Well folks...it's the ten year anniversary of The Lone Ranger (2013)! Why do I still care about this? Well, no one else was going to honor the decade mark of one of our greatest modern blockbusters. Or...um...a really big movie that had no impact culturally, critically, or commercially. But it's really good, I swear. I'm also curious to look at this again based on two things we're now dealing with in 2022: 1) the complete and utter unbankability of its two principal stars and 2) its notorious absence from Disney+...or anywhere.

To be honest, I had trouble even finding an image that wasn't dead

For better or worse The Lone Ranger has become a sort of poster child for one of Norwegian Morning Wood's primary ambitions - to dissect mainstream popular culture to find out why certain properties hit big and why others fall by the wayside. The latter is obviously far more interesting to me, and there isn't a movie made in the past ten years that better shows this phenomenon. Why didn't The Lone Ranger succeed?

It reunited at the time still major A-lister Johnny Depp with Gore Verblinksi yet again after Rango (2011) and the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. That series was still riding so high it cranked out Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) a few years later. I mean, neither that or On Stranger Tides (2011) were any good, but they were still making money. And it's clear that Verblinksi's ability to wrangle both complex character work and an astounding amount of callbacks with period action is what made the original trilogy great. Anyone notice how no other modern pirate movies are any good? There is a lot of lightning in a bottle here.

The Lone Ranger had this star and director pedigree. It had the momentum of Armie Hammer, then a fresh face ready to breakout. He started with The Social Network (2010) and J. Edgar (2011), but soon was one of the better parts of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015) and perhaps his most notable work, Call Me By Your Name (2017). It was really ready to peak.

It was a western, of course, which isn't always the most popular genre these days, but they still do reasonably well enough. But it was also a heavy, HEAVILY revisionist western that touts less the glorious, God-driven conquest of the West by righteous Americans than elucidates the wholesale slaughter and treachery bestowed upon the indigenous peoples of this continent in order for our nation to claim its destiny. So, it's got a unique spin. Not only that, but it's based on a very popular pre-existing property with a classic score to fuel its action - there is little that beats the William Tell Overture.

Actors, directors, genre, context - it also adds action. Some of what I might say is the best train action...ever in a movie. That's the one thing that folks might still talk about, but the adventure sequences are legitimately phenomenal. There are thrills, turns, danger, building upon highs and lows and heavily based in character. It's a tremendous achievement. It's what Verblinksi did with ships but with trains. It just works. Everything in this movie works.

But it failed. I suppose there are cracks everywhere. It was maybe one white-faced character (ironically playing redface) for Depp too many. Verblinksi lost cred because of going over budget and reshoots (for the record, I still have NO idea why this is ever considered a bad thing, like who cares. Base your judgment on the text). His assurance as a director fell further with A Cure for Wellness (2016), which I still think is pretty good until the ending is overburdened with stupidity. Hammer always seems appealing but actually lacks the charisma to carry a movie. Getting by on the skin of his teeth, if you will. And no one actually wants to see a movie about why American history is bad on the Fourth of July.

And all that based on a previous IP, thing? Well, my dad wasn't really lining up for this movie and he was Hi Ho Silver's prime fan in his youth. It tended to stray really far from the source material, and mostly just aped its music and setting to tell its own story. I mean, that sounds perfect, right?! Well, all of the goodwill it had built up was squandered pretty fast. Ultimately, while I really liked it, I can see why maybe the masses wouldn't. Hence why the only thing we talk about these days are those trains.

As if The Lone Ranger couldn't sink any further, though, now we have some problems with its cast. We were already squint-eyeing Depp for this since he justified his casting by saying he was like 1/64th Cherokee. I mean, whatever, we can all do ancestry.com. The Depp / Heard trial this year was a huge event and even though officially the outcome was pretty much "They're both abusive idiots" it's easy to take that any direction you want. You can say that Heard was an out of control maniac (funny, most men seem to be doing that online), or you can say that Depp was a toxic vortex. Both are probably right, but everyone has been distancing from Johnny over the last few years. It doesn't help make people want to revisit a notable career misstep.

And Armie Hammer. Man. Maaaan...every story in the past year is crazier than the last. His wealthy family cut him off, he's selling timeshares in the Cayman Islands, he expressed violent sexual fantasies, and has been credibly accused of sexual assault. And he apparently likes eating people? Or wanted to? I really don't think that Armie Hammer ever ate anybody. That's his character from Sorry to Bother You (2018). But it doesn't do The Lone Ranger any favors. It is unbelievable that this doomed movie has found a bigger mess for itself.

I was really excited about Disney+ because I can't find this film on streaming anywhere. I thought, "Oh, Disney+ will just automatically have every Disney blockbuster, money in the bank!" This thing is not on there. It might be an attempt to continue distancing the studio from two actors who are now box office poison. Or maybe it's because it was just a complete flop that no one is really proud of. Maybe it's simpler than that, apparently it had a contract with Starz that only expired last November. But that is getting to be eight months ago now. Where is our Lone Ranger, Disney?! I want to see the trains!

There is a special kind of hell for this movie. I should just buy the DVD. But as much as I love it, I kind of don't want to give Depp and Hammer residuals, you know? Maybe I can take solace about my money going to Verblinski, or Helena Bonham Carter, Tom Wilkinson, or James Badge Dale, William Fichtner, or anyone else who is awesome in this. Yeah, there aren't a lot of great female roles. That's unfortunate.

Part of this then becomes Death of the Author-type stuff. Can we separate the artist from the work? Man I'd like to. The Usual Suspects (1995) is a really fun movie, folks. Both Depp and Hammer are terrible, but I don't think either are Spacey or Cosby level rapists. Right? I dunno, maybe post something in the comments if I'm wrong. Or we can talk about where exactly that line is. Can we laugh at Louis CK? Can we laugh at old Louis CK? No one for some reason seems to have any issue at all with Mike Tyson. I don't know, I don't have the answers and I struggle to reconcile the fact that I love this movie with the crimes of the people involved in its creation. Trains go fast.

It also occurs to me that the current year is 2022, not 2013, so it hasn't been ten years yet. But these idiots are still in the news right now, so I wanted to get this out. Next July we'll have to do a big bash!

Against the Crowd Blog-A-Thon 2018

We here at Norwegian Morning Wood are always very excited to jump in on someone else's great idea, so here's our First Ever participation in Dell on Movies' 2018 Blog-A-Thon.

Here are the rules, as per that site. I should note that I was turned on to this by the blog, Surrender to the Void.

1. Pick one movie that "everyone" loves (the more iconic, the better). That movie must have a score of 75% or more on rottentomatoes.com. Tell us why you hate it.

2. Pick one movie that "everyone" hates (the more notorious, the better). That movie must have a score of 35% or less on rottentomatoes.com. Tell us why you love it.

3. Include the tomato meter scores of both movies.

4. Use one of the banners in this post, or feel free to create your own.

5. Let us know what two movies you intend on writing about in one of the following ways:
Comment on this or any ACB 2018 post on this site
Tweet me @w_ott3
E-mail me: dellott@yahoo.com

6. Publish your post on any day from Monday August 20 through Sunday August 26, 2017.

So, let's get into this. My choices were instantly easy, because I just saw a movie that was highly recommended to me that I thought I'd love but I hated and there is of course the old staple that I love that no one else does.

Let's begin!

Movie Everyone Loves: Eastern Promises (2007)
Rotten Tomatoes: 89%
Director: David Cronenberg
Stars: Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, Vincent Cassel

Hidalgo himself, Viggio Morgenstein!

I enjoyed every single actor and crewmember involved in this and was pretty excited to watch it for the first time in the year 2018. Totally late to the party, but hey, I acknowledge that, and I sat down to enjoy some great Russian gangsters. A few weeks later I'd struggle to even recall the plot to you. It's all over the place with a large amount of characters that wouldn't be a problem, but tend to be able to stand in with each other. It's a sprawling, multi-decade narrative puzzle that never quite comes together, but it's really hampered by having no one character to anchor the film. Is it Viggo? Naomi? Anyone else? Every character feels on the periphery of their own movie.

Maybe that's the point - creating a world that we get as lost in as the characters. It IS Cronenberg and we shouldn't necessarily expect a traditional narrative, but I did not care about what happened. There are some great scenes of tension, especially in the first half, and the naked sauna fight is some spectacular choreography. Other than that it feels like a big MacGuffin race that never pays off.

Movie Everyone Hates: The Lone Ranger (2013)
Rotten Tomatoes: 30%
Director: Gore Verblinski
Stars: Armie Hammer, Johnny Depp, Tom Wilkinson

This train don't stop for no one

You know that I always appreciate moments to rant about how much I love The Lone Ranger. This is the kind of movie that popular nerd crowds always want out of a blockbuster. It's bombastic, clever, politically intriguing, has a strong message, doesn't care about Hollywood rules, and doesn't have any superheroes in it. Yet it's reviled.

There's this public domain aspect that Patrick H. Williams just critiqued better than I ever could. He essentially says what I've been hammering for years - that even though these properties have superficial name recognition, no one actually knows or cares about the historical narratives associated with them. We don't need a gritty revisionist Lone Ranger when no one can remember the last Lone Ranger and why this would be new, different, or we should care.

It's easy for me to get past all that. I don't care about the cultural context, although if you read this site, you'll know that's integral to our greater relationship to a given film. All this texture got in the way of text with The Lone Ranger and we ignored what should have been a riotous good summer blockbuster. It's iconic, fun, exciting, full of important stakes, epic in every sense of the word, and leans on the William Tell Overture with aplomb. I've ranted in much more detail over the years, so check that out if this is your first time snooping around here.

This was fun - feel free to scrooch and spread this on your own site for the Blog-A-Thon! And read Dell on Movies and Surrender to the Void!

Three Years Gone: Revisiting The Lone Ranger. Again.

Ever since its premiere three years ago, my obsession with understanding the abject failure of The Lone Ranger (2013) has somewhat consumed me. It's such a curious story to me because it seems to get at the overblown failure of most modern blockbusters, although on paper there's no reason why it should have failed, and after having seen the thing a few times now in the past three years, there's also no real reason to think it's even a bad movie.

This really reminded me of The LEGO Movie (2014).

So, to place this film in context, the only reason it exists at all is The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003), which was somewhat improbably successful (there has been a surprising dearth of imitator pirate films in its wake), and led to two gargantuan sequels, the first of which, Dead Man's Chest (2006) soared to become at the time, only the third film to cross the billion dollar worldwide mark at the box office. At World's End (2007) is surely the most insane of the trilogy, but perhaps also the best. That film juggles an insane amount of plot, ridiculous action, a full-on movement towards the surreal, and finds room for plenty of call-backs, deeply embedded character symbolism, and rich yet totally insane characters.

In many ways, The Lone Ranger feels like a Pirates of the Caribbean movie set in the Wild West. Much of the same team returned, from director Gore Verblinksi, to star Johnny Depp, but also producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and writers Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot. From there they really just supplanted trains for ships and cowboys for pirates and massive deserts for endless oceans and you got a film there.

There's no reason to expect that the old adventure-style Lone Ranger would be that well-received, but when's the last time a swashbuckling pirate movie was treated seriously? This is in the wake of Cutthroat Island (1995) and hell, even Muppet Treasure Island (1996). The thing of it is, The Lone Ranger acts like a version of Pirates of the Caribbean where all the elements are refined, simplified, and executed with a sharper brilliance and knack for expansive yet idiosyncratic storytelling.

It was ostensibly dragged down by development hell, a damning overblown budget, and a simple lack of interest in the source material, even though it's a Lone Ranger movie exactly as much as Black Pearl is an amusement park ride movie. There are many more factors rumbling around, though. Some of these were discussed at the time, and it's interesting how much Despicable Me 2 (2013) triumphed that weekend, although by now that films' content is fairly blurry to me.

Clearly the second-best Tonto ever.

We're still in the middle of this, but in 2013 we were really knee-deep in Johnny Depp "Wacky Character" exhaustion. Even though he virtually disappears into Tonto the way he does into Jack Sparrow, he crafts a distinct character, playing him as eccentric without being aggressive or a buffoon. There's a lot of pain to his Tonto; pain that's essential to the story and his own character arc. Still, in the marketing material this seemed a whole lot like "Oh whatever!" It's tough to get up and amped for another white-faced Depp character (he plays an amazing high amount of them). As 2016's Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) just proved, we're still in eye-rolling mode for his antics, regardless if they do or do not have merit.

It's also very plain to see that no one cares about either Old West action epics or big-budget adaptations of pulp material. John Carter (2012) is plain evidence of both these elements, even if it starts as a Western and ends as a Fantasy. Everything from Wild Wild West (1999) to Cowboys & Aliens (2011) suggests the genre's instability. While this weekend's Legend of Tarzan (2016) opened ten million higher than The Lone Ranger, it's also still a drastically underperforming template to base a genre around.

Now, one important thing is the overblown budget. Not only was this a oft-repeated means of knocking down the film (for some reason. I'm not sure why anyone cares about budgets or source material. The only thing worth caring about is the film itself), but it would have actually been profitable if it cost less, and not much of the purported $215 million appears on screen. It earned a mind-bogglingly low $89 million stateside and $260 worldwide, but truth be told, this film failed more as a cultural black hole. I remember seeing Lone Ranger LEGO sets, as if that'd ever take off. Something about that whiff is just sad and desperate.

I have suggested this before, but I'll say again, that the biggest reason for its failure is that he central conceit of the film is a huge blow to the myth of American manifest destiny and a reminder of our blood soaked and treacherous history of industrial corruption and Indian genocide. Maybe it wasn't the the greatest film to come out Independence Day Weekend. These are some really important concepts, though, and part of the thrill of watching this flick again is its boldness in addressing some relatively unpopular sentiments.

In this way its themes surpass PotC, although it still has some tonal issues with its tendency to switch between brutal heart-eating action set-pieces, addressing genocide, and silly horses in trees. The dueling train finale is very much the equal if not superior to the Maelstrom of At World's End, in part because it juggles less pieces of plot, offers more of a focused goal (even if that goal is actually non-existent - they blew up the bridge anyway!), and is a bit more grounded in reality. The triple villains also echo the big bads of At World's End - like the establishment, over-arching villain (Cutler Beckett / Latham Cole), the rogue gross dude (Davy Jones / Butch Cavendish), and the instrument of government oppression, a man torn by honor (Captain Norrington / Captain Fuller).

Verblinski also seems really into his repeated character motifs, such as the pocket watch that symbolizes Cole's greed and corruption and crow/seeds that signify Tonto. Repeated viewings give greater meaning to Cole fondling the pocket watch near the beginning of the film or Tonto exchanging seed for dead men's belongings. They become elements equal to Barbossa's Apple or Will Turner's sword that add little cohesive details to everything else wacky going on around it.

Its length is surely bloated, but its imagination and characters are pretty solid. The middle is certainly a slog to get through, but it's also the richest in theme and meaning. Armie Hammer still isn't great for some reason, even though I find myself liking him and his inherently noble characteristics work well for the role. There's something off about the casting, though, perhaps just a lack of charisma or actual reason to cheer for the character, even though he has a well-developed an intricate arc from prude to rude. Then again, perhaps that's why the film routinely states that this the wrong brother, wrong hero, and wrong protagonist leading everything.

On that note, like I mentioned earlier, there are certain things that don't really make sense. Why does John Reid wake up at the top of an impossibly tall wooden tower in the middle of the desert? Why is "nature out of balance" with these mysterious elements like carnivorous rabbits that are never exactly addressed? Finally, the end train conflict actually only exists to serve as action for the sake of action, since the same result would have taken place regardless if Tonto and the Lone Ranger had done anything (they blew up the bridge, meaning that no matter what Cole would have plummeted with his silver to his death). I suppose Tonto distracts him enough so that he doesn't see the missing bridge and slow down. And they rescue John's brother's widow (which, it's also totally weird that he's hooking up with her), although that's treated as more a side consequence to their assault.

What works is that all of this can be explained by the bookending Tonto narrator structure, which proves many times to be an unreliable narrator. He embellishes, skips around, and fully admits to lies and story changes. It may be a cheat, but Verblinski and Depp execute fairly effectively, with a layer of cheekiness that winks at its audience expecting a straightforward story and instead turns a lot of typical blockbuster elements on their head.

All this is not necessarily to say that The Lone Ranger is a great movie. There are many issues, most of which I dug into here. It's certainly no worse than any PotC movie, though, and probably the best summer blockbuster of 2013, or at least right under Pacific Rim (2013). I'm most curious about how or why its legacy got so unjustly maligned.

What do you think?

Hello Jupiter Ascending, or Why Do Blockbusters Fail?

I am always impressed by a few directors who get to keep on making movies. Tim Burton tends to churn out more crap than gold these days, but they're at least fairly successful and moderately well-liked by their intended mass audience. M. Night Shyamalan is one who had one to many absolute failures (critically, financially, and culturally) to keep his auteur vision going, but he even seems to be failing enough as a journeyman blockbuster director for people to stop giving him work. Then there's the Wachowskis.

The Wachowski Siblings, Andy and Lana, seem to have this mysterious carte blanche in Hollywood after The Matrix Trilogy. Sure it was a pretty significant movie event with each one of those three big aspects pumping hard (critical/commercial/cultural), but when do we stop believing in a director's ability to give us a good movie again? I actually don't have much of a problem with Speed Racer (2008), although it seems to be universally derided. The plot is incomprehensible, but the production design is amazing and it's also fabulously well-cast. Needless to say, though, I'm in the minority.

They followed that bomb up with Cloud Atlas (2012), which is also fine in its own right. It just cost $102 million to make, which is absurd for a big dense film with multiple timelines and plots. It always felt more like a passionate personal thinking project than anything that anyone would actually enjoy. This combined with Speed Racer and the latter disappointing Matrix sequels, which exchanged indecipherable philosophical quandaries for earned resolutions (then discarded all that while Neo fought Smith like Dragon Ball Z), and you've got a pretty lackluster string of what was once a pretty awesome post-Bound (1996) career going.

He's a space wolf!

That brings us to Jupiter Ascending (2015). I'd like to point out that even though the marketing effort for this thing has been pretty strong, in my head I called it Jupiter Rising so often I had to double-check the title to make sure I was right when titling this post. Jupiter Ascending is just really clunky, and apparently really on-the-nose, given that Mila Kunis' character has the awkward and not-prophetic-at-all name of Jupiter. Whatever. The movie looks kind of cool, even if it also seems really dumb and silly, and I like enough of what a lot of the Wachowskis have done (even if no one else really does) to give it a shot. But we're not here to discuss whether or not I'm going to see this film.

We're here to discuss if everyone else and their neighbor is. They're not. Why?

On the surface this seems like a total win. You've possibly got an Academy Award-winning actor playing the villain (Eddie Redmayne - who is no where near any of the marketing [probably to not hurt his Oscar chances...]), two likable leads who are peaking right now in Kunis and C-Tates, directors who have competently handled complex big screen genre material before (regardless of their inability to communicate mainstream ideas, they can handle the hell out of action sequences), and a plot that beckons towards a classic hero's journey in an original sci-fi opus. This should be the next AVABAR (2009), right? I am compelled by the question of why it's not. Why does this look stupid when AVABAR didn't? And AVABAR was an extremely stupid movie after the fact, but how come it looked so cool going into it (and parlayed that into $700 million)?

Last year I was writing this article about how ridiculous and pathetic March 2014 was, and I got talking about how Noah (2014), despite containing some interesting subject material and a possibly experimentally dark direction for a blockbuster to take, will get no audience at all almost solely on the basis of its inaccessible source material. There was another recent film that I am always fuddled by, that found itself in a similar position, which was Gore Verblinksi's The Lone Ranger (2013). To add to this discussion, I also want to talk about The Rock's Hercules (2014), which was by all means a pretty fun and thrilling film that just bombed to hell. Why?

I think it's interesting how critics tend to groupthink and then pile on films like these early, which tends to set the tone for how a film is talked about. None of these are exceptionally poorly constructed, at least not to the extent that the three-piece slaughterhouse of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014), Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014), and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) were, and those were all pretty successful films financially. I would solidly argue that Hercules is a better film in every possible way than Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which came out around the same time. It has a more artfully constructed tone, a better understanding of its own themes, a cognizant plot, more compelling characters, and more charismatic performances by its leads. If critics are picking movies to jump on, how come they jump on The Lone Ranger but not The Amazing Spider-Man 2?

Also you can't have a Hercules movie that debunks the
Hercules myth. No one thinks that Hercules actually existed.
I hope.

Perhaps it's just because the big difference between the films I've listed as successful Summer 2014 films (and thank goodness, most of the actually successful films last year were pretty damn good as well) is that franchise tag. There's something to be expected for dumb loud flashy action films that are intended for the 13-year old boy in all of us that just wants to see shit smashed together. Noah was insistently more darker and thought-provoking, although it was still filled with scenes that made no sense. Perhaps there's a key there, that when a movie takes itself as serious as Noah, it shouldn't have scenes of Ham saving a chick in the city and bringing her back only to have her trampled and killed because of Noah with no repercussion to any character moments later. Sorry, SPOILER, but seriously, if you see it coming and have hope that a likable character will do something that makes sense, you're mistaken. When movies that purport to take themselves as serious art pieces trip up, it's amplified much more than when Transformers makes piss and fart jokes with robots.

Critics aren't that useful, though, right? Something like only 50% of moviegoers go frequently, and presumably some percentage of those people would be the real cinephiles who are hunting down online news and critical opinions. Again, this critical consensus isn't that influential directly, but it helps set the narrative. When enough influential critics get on board against a movie, and this is sometimes years before a film comes out - so it's more the entertainment news reporters, but when enough of them lambaste a film's early, troubled production it becomes difficult for any smaller critic or reporter following up or transmitting the news to form a divergent opinion, lest they be ostracised by the critical community. Infrequent moviegoers, while they may not be researching a film themselves, probably have a friend who is, and they can see that off comment on Facebook that embeds itself as a negative opinion. Therefore this narrative is formed before something even comes out. Battleship (2012) is a solid example of this. Its subject matter was deemed far too stupid and unwatchable before it came out, even though it's no worse than any Transformers movie.

And I should clarify at some point, that I don't think these are necessarily good movies, but I just don't see them as any worse than other blockbusters who gain much more money. Actually I do think some of them are much better. But why are these narratives chosen? If you look at my list of "Competently-made-yet-universally-hated" Blockbusters (Jupiter Rising Ascending, Noah, The Lone Ranger, Hercules, and Battleship), I think the inherent problem in each is the source material. There's just no one out there who gave a shit about the story of Noah's Flood, or The Lone Ranger and Tonto, the "untold true story" of Hercules, or a two-hour advertisement for the U.S. Navy. It's that groan factor. You hear "Hey, they're making a big-budget epic about Noah's Ark!" "Awww maannnn. That sounds dumb." That's my gut reaction, to be honest. And I keep using Transformers, just because it's easiest - but why, when we hear "Hey, they're making a big-budget epic about Robots that are also Trucks!" is our reaction "Oooohh maaann!!"

Maybe it's just intrinsic. Enough people either saw the cartoon show to get a vague idea of the personalities and mythology involved while it was cheesy enough that we could easily picture a live-action treatment being exciting and awesome. This blinds our thought process to the fact that the film itself is still wretched, but that's not even important anymore. It's flashy enough to get a long life on television and home streaming and has just the right level of plot skimming that it's not even important to clue into. It's also generally a lot more cheery and digestible.

That's also a factor in each of these films. Noah, The Lone Ranger, and Hercules in particular had a maudlin air about them, even if the latter two were able to splice in some decent character humour that's virtually lost in a sea of self-seriousness. The same can almost be said for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but most Transformers tend to be decidedly cheery, or at least mask their pain in sex and chrome.

Also Johnny Depp fatigue doomed this movie.

I have actually thought about The Lone Ranger a lot, because on the surface that movie had everything going for it, but you never felt like you bought in. It had an extreme level of commercialisation with every plug and tie-in possible (who out there bought The Lone Ranger LEGOs expecting it to be like Harry Potter or Star Wars?). It was trying so hard to position itself as THE film of Summer 2013 but it just never had a shot.

Again, maybe this was intrinsic. It had early accusations of racism, fairly true accusations of anti-Americanism, bland what's his face...Armie Hammer, variances in tone, and a complex subtext that frankly, refuted all of this, but was tough for an average filmgoer to comprehend. It also simply came out smack in the middle of a very long summer where every single weekend there was a film trying to loudly proclaim it was the end-all finale of ALL EPIC BLOCKBUSTERS EVER. Things became more noise than diversified voices, and all the commercialisation wasn't clever or a fun reminder like Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) bobble-heads. It was an irritant.

If we're contrasting with Guardians, it's also because that seemed to be a movie that "got it" while The Lone Ranger appeared like another line in a long, reviled copycat Hollywood system, even though to be honest, structurally The Lone Ranger is far more innovative and its subtext is far more subversive. But that's another good question - what does it take to take charge of a nation's culture for a few weeks?

Hey 2013, what film was your Summer film anyway? Man of Steel? How do you judge what the fan community wants? Was it Pacific Rim? But the critics and even the regular public rejected that one. Was The Lone Ranger not geeky enough? It was certainly no lesser of a film than Man of Steel, in many ways it was far superior. For some reason the appeal of seeing Superman on screen in a serious adult treatment or seeing giant robots clobber giant monsters has a far better initial sound than the idea of seeing The Lone Ranger. Even with the William Tell Overture! It's bullshit. Sorry this got so sidetracked about me liking The Lone Ranger. No one talks about this film anymore, or Noah or Battleship. They're without conversation. They won't appear on T-shirts thirty years from now.

Let's get back to that question - are they not nerdy enough? Is there something intrinsic to these films that fails to inspire a devoted fanbase that will keep it alive through conversation and references for years to come? Maybe it is that seriousness. Then again, our benchmark, Transformers: Age of Extinction isn't influencing any nerds. Quick, name Stanley Tucci's company. Or character. Or any line he says that isn't this. Any reader of this blog understands that I'm constantly concerned about our lack of culturally significant original films.

I wish this movie was as good as "Four Five Seconds."

Which brings me all the way back to Jupiter Ascending. Why did you title your movie so stupidly, Wachowskis. All you needed to hear is "Wachowski" and "Jupiter Ascending" and you could predict this film's fate. It's so sad. By all regards, this film is bonkers insane, and as one of those entertainment journalists (is that what I am? I'm only comfortable with that in really REALLY loose terms), maybe I'm to blame in part for its incoming failure by automatically looping it in with Noah and Battleship as total failures. It just looks so damn stupid. If you break down what I said up there a bit more, Mila and Chan are only successful in comedies, the directors have abused their fans' trust for far too long, and the one good thing about franchise filmmaking is that you already have some understanding of character going in, so when Robert Downey, Jr. smirks, you know why. It's engrossing. Who the hell knows what any of these people in Jupiter Going Up are doing or why we should care. It's all sound and fury signifying nothing.

So maybe I'll be totally wrong. Jupiter Ascending becomes the highest grossing movie of the year and wins seventeen Oscars next year. No. That won't happen.

But will you see it this weekend? If not, stream The Lone Ranger.

The Way We Were: The Flicks of 2013

If you're on the Internet this time of year looking at movie sites, no doubt you've come across one or two "Best Of" lists. I struggle with this concept each year, because it's tough to define what really makes a great movie. Is the best movie of the year the one that made me reflect the most about myself? Was it the most fun I had at the theater? Or is it the film that accomplishes the greatest technical achievements?

My general rationale regarding what makes a movie great is its cultural staying power - which is impossible to measure in a year anyway. Even though back in the day There Will Be Blood (2007) probably got the most cultural cache, and No Country for Old Men (2007) got all the awards, who knew that in December 2013 we'd be talking the most about The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)? Does this make it the best of the three aforementioned slow moving westerns released in 2007? No, but there's never any telling with these things. It's all subjective and bonkers.

For these reasons, I've split up my favourite films of the year into three big divisions, because I'm going to the movies to get different things out of each. First we have the Blockbusters, where I'm looking at who did and did not succeed at the big spectacle (and sometimes I enjoyed the "failures" much more than the "successes"), who surprised me, and what I thought was genuinely interesting. Let's begin, counting down from no particular set number:

Blockbuster Division:

#5: Oblivion

Oblivion would have been a much better film if it had come out like thirty years ago so that it could innovate and inspire every sci-fi movie to follow instead of appearing to rip them all off. Still, even though it's a far cry from Tom Cruise's high sci-fi watermark in Minority Report (2002), it was a surprising film full of gorgeous landscapes, a likable Cruise, and even if most of the plot elements were largely lifted from dozens of other films, it was competently executed.

#4: The Lone Ranger

I loved the fact that Disney based their entire non-Marvel summer around The Lone Ranger, but Verblinski and Depp were more in a mood to make an anti-Blockbuster, pulling the rug out of its audience's feet with completely boffo shifts in tone, some of the greatest train sequences of the year (or ever), and a general disregard for big movie conventions, despite its identity as such. Racist and un-American? You got it.

#3: Iron Man 3

It took me a while to realize what Iron Man 3 did for superhero films. I'd be curious if it has as general an effect on the genre as something like The Dark Knight (2008) did. While The Dark Knight pushed everything to be "dark" and heady, Iron Man 3 asks why superhero movies can't be exactly like early 90s action movies. It both takes the suit off the Iron Man and the piss out of the Mandarin. While the fanboy in me was outraged at first, I eventually grew to appreciate Shane Black's postmodern take on the pomp and pointlessness of antiquated archrivals and their unnecessary place in the hero narrative. The result is far more interesting than Iron Man 2 (2010).

#2: Pacific Rim

Originality may be a stretch here, for Pacific Rim does borrow liberally from mecha, kaiju, and many anime genres, but still, this was the biggest, best original sci-fi of the year. It gets big points for the best world-building of the decade, its refreshingly multi-cultural cast, its relenting coolness, and Charlie Day. No other big studio film had as much fun with itself or gave its audience so much to play with this Summer.

#1: Furious 6

How did this Happen? Not only does the plot of Furious 6 run pretty tight, despite a complete disregard for physics (who cares), it changes the narrative of every movie that comes before it, which is impressive in a franchise largely written off seven years ago. From the Rock to Diesel's incredible headbutt, tank chases and runways that stretch from London to Manchester, Furious 6 announced itself as able to play with the big boys in a big way. When every other movie this summer tried so hard to be cool, this rose above the rest and lived it, baby.

Next we have what I'm calling the Prestige Division. These are the kind of high-minded films I'm betting we'll see on many end-of-year lists, but I've probably thrown in a few wacky choices. I'd consider these to mostly be thought-provoking dramas, but a single genre definition essentially eludes the collection I have here:

Prestige Division:

#8: The Way Way Back

This movie tends to come along every couple years. Sometimes it's called Superbad (2007), sometimes it's Adventureland (2009), but it always tends to be tough to get sick of. The Way Way Back takes itself slightly more serious than either of these two, and thanks to Sam Rockwell sliding into a perfect role (he tends to have a lot of those), and Carell caring less and less about stardom, this one works.

#7: Side Effects

I can't stop being a Soderbergh junkie, and this, supposedly his final theatrical film, brings everything you could want from the man. The narrative juggles and switches protagonists like no film since No Country for Old Men (2007), and continually threads a mystery between who to believe and who is full of shit. It's tense fun with a slight critique of Big Pharma for being huge dicks. Rooney, Jude, Channing, and Catherine are all must watches.

#6: American Hustle

Hustle, even amidst criticisms of being "Scorsese Lite," is a damned fine bit of filmmaking. David O. Russell essentially combines the casts of The Fighter (2010) and Silver Linings Playbook (2012) in a slick ABSCAM piece that has tremendous fun with itself. Is it a comedy? That's a question that rages across a lot of flicks this year, and Hustle, while probably not as groundbreaking as Silver Linings, is just as enjoyable.

#5: 12 Years A Slave

Steve McQueen finally brings instant acclaim to his filmmaking abilities with a brutal look at slavery in its nadir in the 1840s. It's not only a portrayal designed to shock audiences into recognition and remembrance of slavery's horrors, but a critical examination of black identity, the survival of hope among hoplessness, and the corrupting influence of the peculiar institution. Spoiler alert: this one gets all the awards come March.

#4: Inside Llewyn Davis

Somehow Llewyn stands out among Coen Bros films, which grows more difficult with each subsequent film they release. Biting bitter comedy flicks in and out with splashes of irreplaceable wit in an otherwise exceedingly sad film. "Please Mr. Kennedy" should be the song of the year and with John Goodman's presence turning The Artist (2011) and Argo (2012) into Best Picture winners, can he go three for three? 

#3: Wolf of Wall Street

If Goodfellas (1990) had never existed, I may have listed this higher. Any breakthroughs this may make in narrative Scorsese already accomplished with his seminal gangster flick. Still, Wolf is crazy good, with the kinds of overflow of sex and drugs we've always dreamed of seeing on screen. At its heart, though, it's a tortured an uncomfortably funny tale of a man who can't do anything but make money, at the expense of everyone around him, including himself. There's not a better fable to tell in an age where the financial sector regularly screws over the entire world.

#2: Gravity

Picking between these last two was very difficult. They both get a lot of points for using their medium really well. Gravity provides a reason to go to the theater again during a time when the entire industry is whining that they're losing out to Netflix and home viewing options. It's a nauseating, dizzying turn through space with a ridiculous performance out of Sandy Bullock that genuinely works best when paying for a premium 3D IMAX ticket. Finally, a film that makes the trip worthwhile. As soon as other studios learn this, everyone can get a slice of that Gravity pie.

#1: Spring Breakers

Even though it's an incredibly important film for the medium, Gravity really didn't have the story to push it to the #1 spot. I'll give that to Harmony Korine's gritty dirty Spring Breakers, which feels like a dream when watching it. It's bathed in neon excess, Britney Spears rhythms, guns, cash, and a lot of delusional dreams, both broken and half-fulfilled. James Franco's "Spring breeeeaaakk" breathy whisper echoes throughout the slow scene construction over and over again, and unpredictable craziness flows at every turn, not only because it was primarily filmed with real spring breakers interacting with four hot Disney starlets. It crawls and oozes like only it can and remains the trippiest flick of the year.

Finally, we have a smattering of movies that don't really belong anywhere. I doubt you'd find these on any "Best Of" lists, but a handful were the most fun I've had at the cinema in years. In favor of continually eschewing any regard for form or convention, here are the downright funnest flicks of the year:

Fun Division:

#6: Warm Bodies

I'm basically at the point where I'll reward a movie for just not sucking. That's Warm Bodies, which takes what could have been a pretty stupid Twilight-esque premise and eschews any sort of expectation that could come along with that. The Zombie genre has been deconstructed time and time again by now, but perhaps never better than in this romantic comedy. The hokey ending be damned, this was a nice surprise.

#5: Don Jon

Otherwise known as Jersey Shore: The Movie, Don Jon showcases Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a competent and confident filmmaker, pushes a love of porn and girls in some new exciting directions (seriously), and offers a smooth ride from beginning to end. I'm still not sure what it is about this trashy sub-culture that attracts so much adoration from the general public looking it, maybe it's just how ridiculous yet commonplace their generally accepted behavior is within their own communities. I dunno. I can't stop watching, though.

#4: This is The End

I would put this at the top of my list for the whole year, but I understand there's a pretty heavy caveat - just about all enjoyment of this film depends on whether or not the viewer is pretty familiar with the culturally accepted social personas of the actors involved, as well as whether or not the viewer enjoyed Pineapple Express (2008). I'm a big supporter of both, so I had more fun watching this flick than any other single movie this year. Since it's so dependent on buying into that quasi-fictional world though, it's ultimately held back from being a truly great comedy. I also really didn't buy that Backstreet Boys reunion.

#3: You're Next

Probably the greatest marketing for any movie all time, You're Next proved to be the best kind of horror film - small, scary, fun, and effortlessly iconic. There were a lot of pretty good horror flicks this year, notably The Conjuring and even Insidious: Chapter 2, but James Wan can't get all the credit for reviving the genre. This little renegade movie needs a whole lot more attention than it's been given so far.

#2: Pain & Gain

Auteur Michael Bay's greatest film, and notably one of the most insane experiences at the cinema this year, Pain & Gain presents a non-stop assault on the senses, but not in that normal explosion-driven Bay way. Is the American Dream completely delusional? What's the price for success in a world that restricts the working class and rewards the liars and cheats? What's the best road to the top - honesty, steroids, theft, murder, or cooking hands on the grill? These are the big questions that I'm not sure Bay is even sure he's asking, but Pain & Gain contemplates them all pretty thoughtfully while serving up constant insane nonsense. It's a spectacle.

#1: The World's End

What's more to say? The fourth of four end-of-the-world comedies to premiere this year, and the second on this list, The World's End caps the Cornetto Trilogy and doesn't disappoint at all, in fact there's a good argument to be made it's the best of the three. Without a lot of fluff or other goofiness in the kind of film that could easily slip up, this flick provides laughs, some of Simon Pegg's strongest character work, and an answer to the hundreds of man-child alcoholic films that began with Will Ferrell and have accelerated through Todd Phillips' Hangover series. Every inch of this movie is covered in brilliance and it's thoughtfully the best outright comedy of a year full of pretty great ones.

Actor of the Year:

This was a pretty tough call this year. Tom Hanks had a few high profile roles in Captain Phillips and Saving Mr. Banks, but despite his admirable best efforts, both those flicks were kind of shitty. 2013 will always be remembered as the year everyone started treating Matthew McConaughey with more respect between Mud, Dallas Buyers Club, and The Wolf of Wall Street, but none of those flicks were really mainstream. Therefore I'm kind of torn between James Franco and Dwayne The Rock Lobster.

Now, The Rock starred in one of the biggest films of the year, Furious 6 as well as Pain & Gain, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, and Snitch. The thing is, though, only the first two of these films were really that notable, and neither especially because of Dwayne. Franco had a little bit of everything this year - big blockbuster potential with Oz the Great and Powerful, indie cred with Spring Breakers, a comedy blast with This is The End, and a bizarre domestic drama, Homefront. Not only that, but he appeared in small films such as The Iceman, Third Person, and Lovelace, and directed three additional festival films. He was also roasted on Comedy Central. Now, Franco may have the same lack of widespread cultural influence that the Rock did, but for sheer volume and diversity he gets our Actor of the Year award, with Dwayne a close second.

Actress of the Year:

This was also a very tough decision. Jennifer Lawrence just like last year has awards buzz from American Hustle, won the Academy Award for Silver Linings Playbook, and starred in one of the biggest films of the year, Hunger Games: Catching Fire. I'm also looking at Amy Adams, who had a slice of big budget blockbuster with Man of Steel, and two smaller great films in Her and American Hustle.

This duel, however, is coming down to the two starts of The Heat, Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy. Besides the success of The Heat, Bullock owned Gravity, and McCarthy added a supporting role in The Hangover Part III and provided a lot of the success of the year's first hit, Identity Thief. I'm not going to question the cultural impact of Gravity, however, and Bullock will get our Actress of the Year Award.

Scenes of the Year:

#11: When Oz's head finally makes its appearance in Oz the Great and Powerful, there's a lot of clever pay off there that encapsulates the entire movie and this douchebag's journey from Kansas to Oz.
#10: Pick any train scene from The Lone Ranger or The Wolverine. Why were trains in this year?
#9: Much of Star Trek Into Darkness fell flat, but Kirk and Harrison's (c'mon if you don't know who he really is by now) space jump saw Abrams briefly find a moment to equal the thrill and excitement of Star Trek (2009)
#8: There's not much more to say about the powerful hanging scene from 12 Years a Slave - McQueen lingers uncomfortably long on Northrup's body - if you don't get the point after the first thirty seconds, maybe another thirty will do.
#7: There were two big SPOILER-y superhero scenes that changed a lot in the genre this year - the first upends everything Superman is supposed to be about when Man of Steel kills Zod. The second is when Tony Stark finds out about Trevor Slattery and everyone's idea of what makes a supervillain is completely upended.
#6: Michael Cera has always seemed like kind of an enigma, but his brief turn in This is The End blows by ridiculous into a super-insane coke-fueled, Rihanna ass-slapping glory.
#5: Did you hear the apocalypse was cancelled? The best moment in Pacific Rim may be both of Gipsy Danger's Kaiju exterminations in Hong Kong (a double tap and a sudden massive sword, respectively), but when Idris Elba tells us that they're cancelling the apocalypse - damn if we don't buy his conviction.
#4: Gravity lets you know what kind of innovative, unique movie it's going to be from that first, exhaustive opening scene scrolling through the infinity of space.
#4: Smaug Awakes in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - it's as if this whole crummy cash grab was worth it - Smaug is an incredible character and Peter Jackson offers us a rare pay off that's really worth it.
#3: Say what you may about Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, and many will point to the absurd obligatory battle scene, but for me, nothing beats the moment where the family says goodbye to Doby.
#2: It's hard to pick a scene from Spring Breakers. The most famous scene is surely James Franco serenading his masked beauties to the tune of Britney Spears' "Everytime," but I dig the crazy tension and character turn when the ladies make him fellate his own gun.
#1: You knew this was coming. Leo, on Quaaludes goes into the cerebral palsy phase in The Wolf of Wall Street. It's horrifying, hilarious and full of powerful character moments all at once. Scene of the year.

Trailers of the Year:

I always like dishing on trailers as their own special artform. Let's begin with films that came out this year:

Gravity - This first teaser still scares the shit out of me. In just 90 seconds the trailer demonstrates the inescapable fear, loneliness, and terror of the whole film, as well as a brief showcase of the crazy good effects. Seeing just this in 3D IMAX for the first time was more memorable than the Man of Steel that followed it.
Don Jon - Trailers have the unenviable task of capturing the spirit of a film, grabbing our attention without spoiling big moments, and getting our butts in seats. Don Jon provided a memorable trailer based on a simple man's routine that's interrupted by a unique woman that shows a lot of story but leaves the viewer intrigued for more. And the music's perfect.
Hunger Games: Catching Fire - I give this a lot of props because I didn't see The Hunger Games (2012), and have no desire to see Catching Fire, but this trailer really made me want to check it out. It's mostly the intriguingly conniving dialogue between Don Sutherland and Philip Seymour here that catches my fancy, hinting at some brains behind this bippity YA adaptation. You have my attention - thanks, trailer.
The Wolf of Wall Street - Even if the film itself is really just Goodfellas meets Boiler Room (2000), the trailer presents itself as wildly original. It's got a fine slice of insane douchebaggery on display, exhibits Leo's totally unhinged performance, and presents the film's irreverent tone set to the intense thumping of Kanye's "Black Skinhead" - a match between clips and song made in heaven to perfect demonstrate the theme of this flick. MORE IS NEVER ENOUGH couldn't be a better thesis for this flick. Completely engaging and instantly re-watchable, it's a nigh perfect trailer.

There is aother set of trailers that came out in 2013 for films premiering in 2014. Let's wrap up the year in movies by dishing on them:

The LEGO Movie - I can't think of a worse idea for a movie than LEGOs. I mean, I love LEGOs, but the point is to play and build with them, not watch them on a screen. This trailer gets a lot of credit then, for just being damned funny ("The 2002 NBA All-Star Team...") and hinting that maybe, just maybe this won't suck.
Captain America: The Winter Solider - Could probably go without seeing the Helicarrier go down, but as far as cookie cutter Marvel superhero flicks go, this seems solid. More than Thor 2 (2013), this looks to push Cap's ideals as far as they go, especially through S.H.I.E.L.D., which seems like a nice little dose of Civil War. I'm intrigued more than I should be.
Godzilla - This is another movie that really needs to prove in its marketing material that it won't suck. The trailer succees with a kind of urgency that is usually lacking in previous campy Godzilla films, GINO (1998) included. It wisely sticks with just shots of shadows, and destruction, mostly around one scene, which aptly demonstrates just what kind of film this wants to be - a badass realistic interpretation of the Big Tokyo Stomper. Walter White can't hurt.
X-Men: Days of Future Past - How the hell were they going to pull this one off? While holding back a lot of his hand, Bryan Singer helps us remember how he started all this superhero nonsense - with damned good character work. This trailer doesn't need a big explosion at its climax to let us know it's a big shouty important movie - merely one man saying to his younger self, "We need you to hope again." It understands where its drama is and promises a hell of a ride by way of character, not set pieces. If that holds, that'll be about the best we can hope for.

The Road to a Blockbuster: The Despicable Ranger Rides into Independence Weekend

Normally this post hits on Fridays, but considering the big big flicks are dropping today, we've got a special Wednesday edition of the Road to a Blockbuster. In this segment of NMW we attempt to hit on the big cultural, critical, and commercial impact that each big movie will have on the population. Will we be quoting and jazzing over these flicks next year? Ten years from now? The Weekend of the Fourth of July, which will forever be known as Independence Weekend, has had some of the biggest and greatest movies of all time, from Back to the Future (1985), Independence Day (1996), and Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011). How will The Lone Ranger (2013) and Despicable Me 2 (2013) stack up? Let's discuss:

The Lone Ranger seems intent to capitalize on the success of the Pirates of the Carribbean franchise, which is only really connected through its studio, director, star, and purported scope. Fifteen years ago if you had told me that the biggest Independence Weekend Movie was a retooling of a 1930s radio show that was primarily seen as a follow-up to a multi-billion dollar grossing quadrilogy based on a theme park ride, I may have punched you in the face on my way to watching Armageddon (1998).

The most interesting thing about The Lone Ranger as a movie is the simple fact that its existence signifies that just about any property can be transformed into a giant event movie full of enormous scope and spectacle. I can't imagine what the creators of the radio show would think about this big nuttiness on screen, surely it's more than they ever could have foreseen. It's really wild. There is also no discernable story here, it just seems like Johnny Depp and one of the twins from The Social Network (2010) are having a raucous time in the wild west. It's also possibly the only film that has been more heavily promoted this year than Man of Steel. Ultimately, the Big Blue Boy's opening was underwhelming (yeah it was considering the hype and how heavy the marketing was), and this will likely be more of the same - if the product just isn't that good, people won't show up.

Truth be told, the fact that Armie Hammer played both the Winklevoss Twins in The Social Network is more astounding the more you think about it, and he's certainly a competant actor who deserves a big A-list career. He needs to be really memorable in The Lone Ranger, though, because as of now, this movie is all Johnny.

Depp has had a wacky career of his own. Almost similar to Brad Pitt, he graduated from an outstanding small movie actor in the 90s to one of the last great stars who can headline a movie on his own. It's a shame that instead of deep, high quality roles like in Ed Wood (1994) or even Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), he's basically resigned to loud, quirky characters under thick layers of make-up. Like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). And Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007). And Alice in Wonderland (2010). Dark Shadows (2012). Which brings us right up to The Lone Ranger. It's tough to be critical of his collabos with Verblinksi, though, considering if not the success of every Pirates movie, then certainly the success of Jack Sparrow, the Jester of Tortuga. Not to mention Rango (2011) is one of the best films of the past decade.

Speaking of great animated films, Despicable Me 2 would seem to threaten if not The Lone Ranger this weekend, then certainly the prospects of Monsters University (2013). The first film was cute and entertaining, if not totally great. If anything though, it gave us the Minions, who seem to be a continuous source of old school wackiness. Most notably, this tiny little film from the animation studio out of Universal Pictures is now a vibrant franchise that has secured an Independence Weekend Release.

There is no real coherent story that is apparent in the storyline of Despicable Me 2, either, besides Gru apparently being called on to save the world and the Minions being goofy, but that seems to be about it. That's really all this flick comes down to, which is fine. I don't think this will enter the annals of animated film history, although it should add to its own legacy and will probably do well in theaters. The marketing material hasn't done a thing to differentiate itself from the first film, which is as good as it is bad. It's great news for fans of the first installment, which promises more of the fun, but at the same time it's not offering anything new. Ultimately I can picture myself catching this, but I can wait till it's on USA in two years. Actually, I think the first one just snuck on to ABC Family.

While Despicable Me 2 has effectively narrowed the kid's market, even though Monsters University had a surprisingly good hold, this weekends is really all about The Lone Ranger. I am still curious about the inherent racism in Depp's performance, but he's apparently a Comanche, so whatever. Here's another spoilerific article defending the film's racism. It's certainly a debatable subject, and I'll wait to reserve judgment until I actually see the thing and how Depp portrays his Native American character. Still, he's effectively working in redface (is that alone a racist term? Indianface? Jeez that sounds worse), no matter what his tribe says. Ultimately, Tonto just needs to be a fully fleshed out character in a good movie to really be accepted. If anything, Depp and that stupid dead crow on his head ought to enter the cultural lexicon.

Lastly, it's widely known that The Lone Ranger is related to the Green Hornet (he's his great-uncle, specifically), which just means I really want to see a Seth Rogen cameo.

Will you be high-hoing Silver this weekend?