Review: The Lone Ranger
There was a lot of talk before The Lone Ranger was made about how they could be spending $200m on a western. Rumors of werewolves in the story were popular. But no… as we should have known from the even-more-expensive Pirates 3 from Gore Verbinski, that a lot of CG could be spent trying to look authentic.
The issue of how the “talent” is maneuvered in the choice of what they can and cannot do by “the studio” is always a fun conversation. The theory from the art side is that the more freedom allowed to the artist, the better and that all studio interference is stupid and about marketing not filmmaking. Not true. Obviously. Time after time, we see artists who have a big enough hit to force the studio hands off of their throats (for the most part) with some pretty big budgets… and as often as not, the results are a mess.
Where do Johny Depp, Jerry Bruckheimer, and Gore Verbinski fit into this at Disney? Anywhere they want. Verbinski has taken himself out of the ongoing Pirates situation, but still, Disney is Depp/Bruckheimer’s bitch for as long as Disney believes they can deliver billion-dollar movies. Disney now has a best-of-all-studios run of six billion dollar movies… 2 from Marvel, 1 from Pixar, and 3 from Depp/Bruckheimer.
Now… I think that opening a review of a movie’s artistic merits with 3 graphs about money is pretty gross… as a rule. And I don’t think that The Lone Ranger was “just about the money.” In fact, pretty much the opposite. I’d say that Lone Ranger is a mumblecore blockbuster… three guys with a lot of cool ideas who are enabled by cool modern equipment so they can practically make the movie in their back yard. Except these guys’ “cool equipment” costs some poor schmuck (Disney) $240 million so these three could treat a massive film like a backyard shoot.
The movie uses a wraparound device of an Indian and a little kid in a museum in 1933, which was, I think, a lovely idea. And its execution worked, for the most part. But even that loses its charm as we pass the 2-hour mark and it becomes clear that the movie wants to put a belt for a 26-inch waist on a film with a 54-inch gut.
Magic requires the suspension of disbelief. But there are only so many times you can ask for disbelief to be suspended before an audience simply suspends belief as well. That is The Lone Ranger.
Verbinski, Depp, and Bruckheimer (assisted by some very good commercial writers), took a very basic story about a hero in a mask, his sidekick-modernized-into-his-better, and basically seek to do an origin movie, climaxing with their first super-heroic triumph. But then they embellish and embellish and embellish to the point where they seem to be covering something up. The size of the piece pokes at human nature’s tendency to doubt an oversell, as in “it must be crap if they are trying so hard to prove to us that it’s something more than crap.”
Depp’s Tonto is more a variation on Ben Kingsley’s Watson in Without A Clue, in which Watson creates Holmes as a frontman or Rhys Ifans’ Earl of Oxford in Anonymous, who writes the plays, etc, that make a dumb actor, William Shakespeare, into a legend. But not quite enough so.
This speaks to the second giant problem with The Lone Ranger. It’s too f-ing cool for school. It avoids entertaining you a lot of the time. It’s not enough to just do what the audience expects and to keep going like a bat out of hell, which would be massively entertaining given the skill level of everyone involved.
I don’t blame Armie Hammer for The Ranger being a 1-D character… or a dominant Depp, for that matter. I blame an unwillingness of the filmmakers to say, in full voice, that the pure, stuffy old-fashioned fusspot can be as good and cool as the funny, mystical Indian. If you want to do a buddy movie, you have to create an audience connection to both buddies, not just have one occasionally deliver in an action sequence. The Ranger is the Pirates‘-Keira-Knightley of this film, but it’s as though the writers couldn’t come up with a way to like him without him having a crush on Tonto or having Tonto trying to get into his dress.
The best way I can think of to illustrate this too-cool problem is with a small spoiler. It’s not significant since it’s not really a secret of the film and as a plot point, it goes nowhere.
“The Girl” in the film is married to and has a kid with the-guy-who-will-be-the-Lone-Ranger’s brother even though we are told that she and The Ranger were an item first. Now, there is something potentially interesting and harshly realistic about this in a movie. Robert Altman or Walter Hill or Andrew Dominik kinda thing. But in this giant action film, there is no time for that. So we, as an audience, are left with this complex emotional baggage to manage ourselves, which adds nothing to the overall movie because of its thin execution. It becomes a distraction, not am enhancement. I know that the people who made this film could make that relationship interesting. I even bet that Ruth Wilson (who plays The Girl) can act, though there is zero proof of it in this film. But there is no room for doing it right, so the very thing that makes it an interesting idea turns it into an irritating loose end.
There is hardly a sequence in the film that is not overstuffed to the point of audience disconnect, whether with relationships or action.
A few things seem to have had some good old fashioned movie-movie potential, but must have been poorly considered ahead of time and really should have been cut if they couldn’t make it into a PG-13 movie. For instance, cannibalism by the main bad guy. I am all about the villain taking a beating heart (or other organ of choice) out of a heroic character and eating it right there while it pumps. But if you are going to do it, you gotta do it. Even in the old days, if you couldn’t show that sort of thing, you signaled the audience in a visual way without really threatening to show something ugly. Here, the act of rough surgery has clearly been cut out of frame and the whole cannibal element removed, though it is still referenced as though the audience has experienced its ugliness. This leaves the audience’s only clear point of reference being an oblique speech by Helena Bonham Carter (another special effect who was massively wasted by this film).
Oy.
I don’t hate this film because there are so many things that I love about this film. Depp is still a very interesting actor to watch. James Badge Dale and William Fichtner are both excellent, beyond reproach. Verbinski makes absolutely beautiful and unique images. I bet there is an 1:45 minute movie in there which is actually quite entertaining.
But one last example of what’s so wrong with this film.
The final action blow-out sequence starts with the clarion call of The William Tell Overture. Great! Finally, Verbinski & Co are going to tailor something in the film to size. I was legitimately excited that we were about to get a roughly 9 minute sequence of action, light on dialogue to the point of being nearly a silent film, all old-school stunt-y stuff with just enough modern technology to make it great. (The Overture is usually around 3 minutes, so I assumed a multiple, but a modest one.)
But after a minute or so of what I was so wanting to fall in love with, the overture started blending into Hans Zimmer’s score, which was fine movie-wise, but forfeited the integrity of the segment that was initially suggested. Then the action got so complex and over-the-top that it went from thrillingly Buster Keaton to disinteresting like an TV ad for a first-person shooter game.
There was so much going on that the 60 seconds they kept running on talk shows, of The Ranger & Silver leaping down into a train car just before a tunnel would knock them off the train, lost context and was less exciting in full than it was on talkshows. (My experience is that with good movies, even action movies, the clips are never as good as the actual scenes in the films.)
For me, the disappointment of this film was not that it was the worst film ever made or some money grab by Disney or Depp or Bruckheimer or anything like that. In fact, I think those arguments are simplistic, played out, and lazy. It is way too easy to start beating on a film that truly disappoints with idiotic comparisons like Heaven’s Gate, which shares almost nothing with this film other than being set in the old west.
The disappointment for me is that we could have had a truly great, fun, Western. They are so rare in recent decades. And this group had the talent and the money and clearly, the freedom, to make of it what they wished. And they tried so hard to make everything as smart and hip and cool and special as they could that they screwed the pooch by never knowing when to say when.
Nothing is easy. But this wasn’t that hard. Not for this group. And as soon as you open your mouth to say, “But they had to make something really big because of the budget and…” you are no longer talking about making a movie, you are talking about selling a commodity.
A great, fun, silly, western with Johnny Depp as Tonto that cost $120 million would have sold more tickets than this one will, no matter how big the explosions or how many CG stunts. Opening weekend has nothing to do with the movie. But the second weekend and onwards do. And people are so happy just to like the movies they are seeing. They don’t need to be geek approved or critic approved or in some box. They go because they like the advertising and after weekend one, they go because they hear their friends and family liked it.
You know, Rango was slow and demanding for a cartoon, but it was taking its time and breathing and it was beautiful. It’s hard to imagine that the guy who delivered this puffed-up bloated film will look back in a year and feel great about this 2.5 hours. That guy is too smart and has taste that is too good for that. I admire the ambition, but I am saddened by the perspective the whole team clearly lost along the way.
Nicely written. Very thoughtful review.
Someone needs to see Ruth Wilson opposite Idris Elba in LUTHER, stat.
Ruth Wilson’s Alice Morgan (LUTHER) is one of the sexiest sociopaths ever.
Pete: I don’t know about you, but her sexiness really sneaked up on me. I was kinda shocked when it finally hit, because we’re certainly not introduced to the character in a sexy situation. I just remember at some point being surprised that I had become attracted to her.
Wilson is so great in Luther. Can’t wait for season 3. And her sexiness is definitely sneaky, though she makes an immediate impression on the show. Right away you know this is a talented actress delivering an exceptional performance. She holds her own with Idris.
Well here is some consolation for you Dave. Apparently Kevin Hart’s stand up film Let Me Explain on 876 screens will do about $5m while Lone Ranger on 1 gazillion screens will do just about double that figure today. In a word…wow. And the minions shall take over the world. It’s not very often that Disney gets it’s ass handed to it.
I hear so much about simultaneously insane and dull this movie is, and then I remember At World’s End and I understand. That movie had some weird shit in it, yet I struggle to remember any of it. I had to rack my brain to remember the stone crabs and multiple Jack Sparrows. It was eccentric and it was occasionally interesting, but it all felt so inconsequential at the end.
It is a masterpiece.
The filmmaking and cinematography in Lone Ranger is so far beyond anything out there, it’s unreal what a bunch of buzzkils you’d have to be to not worship it.
The finale is INFINITELY BETTER than ANYTHING Spielberg has done since JAWS.
Terrific, measured review, Dave, one of your best in a while. The bile being hurled at this and the passionate defenses (by Lex, among others), almost make me curious enough to see it. Almost.
Not that Lex has much credibility but he just lost it all with that last line.
Saw The Lone Ranger with World War Z at the Drive-In. TLR was definitely the better film. How’s that for damning with faint praise?
TLR suffers from some serious bloat. You could chop out all the 1933 stuff and have a much better film.
“You could chop out all the 1933 stuff and have a much better film.”
This is the biggest misunderstanding I’ve seen in all the negative reviews. It’s key to the entire movie that the story is being told from the point of view of a senile, traumatized, half-insane man whose way of life has ended so he’s retroactively making himself the hero of his youthful exploits. Without that, the fantasy elements and tonal shifts do not make as much sense.
This review represents the unifying Poland Principle, which is: the man could suck the fun out of French Toast. This movie is fine for what it is, and that’s a modern day western with all sorts of truths about white people, and power corrupting. It also has a soul, which has been sorely missing from a lot of these films. It might not be for everyone, but this sort of fun is for me. If you enjoy Depp being Depp and Armie Hammer, then go have some fun. If not, go see “Before Midnight.” That’s a movie, which deserves hundreds of words being written about it.
Lex is also right above. It’s an amazing looking film.
It’s funny.
For as long as I can remember, critics en masse have routinely ganged up on certain movies whose very existence seems to deeply offend their delicate sensibilities.
Whether it’s “Heaven’s Gate,” “At Long Last Love” or, uh, “Howard the Duck,” the near universal sound of “Ewwwwwwwwww!” emanating from their reviews would be comical if it didn’t seem so rehearsed and calculated for maximum effect.
At times like this, I even begin to wonder if some of my critical brethren (and sisthren?) may have actually written their scurrilous pans before seeing the actual movie.
After finally catching up w/ “The Lone Ranger” at a matinee this afternoon (it was a near-full house and the audience was clearly eating it up), I began to think that perhaps everyone who loathed it must have seen a different movie than me. (Or not seen it at all.)
My “LR” was more ambitious–and definitely more interesting–than 90% of today’s so-called tentpoles.
Is it perfect? Hardly. Some of the tonal shifts, particularly in the first half, could give you whiplash. But I enjoyed it (a lot) more than any of “Pirates” films–and not just because the plot actually makes sense.
I’m sure that Depp and Verbinski will recover. Not so sure about Armie Hammer, though. He’s pretty terrific here (and how refreshing that they didn’t cast yet another iconic American role w/ an Aussie or Brit!), yet I wonder if his nascent career will be able to survive a movie so universally derided. It’s gotta be tough booking gigs when your only starring vehicle is fated to go down in Golden Turkey history as “Summer 2013’s Biggest Bomb.”
I just got back from it (invited by my DP to a guild screening on the lot) and, surprise, I dug the hell out of it. Yes, every single criticism is valid, but if you loosen your belt and accept it as a live-action cartoon set in some parallel universe (a la “Lois & Clark”), it’s a heckuva lotta fun.
Lex is right: Verbinski really knows how to make an epic-looking picture. Monument Valley has never looked more spectacular, and there are one or two stunt shots that were (and this is a term I never use) freakin’ awesome. The allusions to classic westerns (especially ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST) are fun, and when the WTO kicked in at the climax, I sort of went Woo! internally. As for Depp, it’s another wonderfully eccentric turn by a man who is simply sui generis as an actor.
So yeah, it’s a corporate theme park ride from a bigger-is-better producer that good-naturedly mocks its source material and doesn’t know when to quit (though for a 149″ movie it moves along smartly), piling on the whipped cream and syrup until you’re about to die from sugar shock…but what can I say? It worked for me.
That said–it still shouldn’t have cost $250 million+.
Howard the Duck is a terrible movie though…loved it as a kid. Now, I could barely get through the first half hour without shutting it off.
A Howard the Duck movie actually true to the comic would be amazing, and will probably not happen because of the first movie’s reputation. At least with Disney owning Marvel there’ll be no more Donald Duck lawsuits.
Haven’t seen it yet, but even the supporters admit The Lone Ranger is plenty flawed. It would seem that some are just a little more forgiving than others when it comes to those flaws. Hardly means critics unfairly had their knives out for it prior to even seeing it.
Movieman, Armie Hammer is going to be fine. There are rumors that he’s going to be Ant-Man. He’s a hell of an actor, and adding him to the Marvel Cinematic Universe would be tremendous.
Outside of that, the critics are taking out their knives Paul. It’s maybe overlong, I had no problem with the length, but they are taking their knives out because they love to go groupthink on something. It’s whatever with critics though. Hopefully, it can be big internationally, that’s all that matters anyway.
Finally, I watched Howard the Duck as a kid, and can still enjoy it as an adult on another level. What I cannot enjoy is fucking ID4. The revelatory discussion you folks had about that movie, made me ill. Not only is it horribly jingoistic on every single level. It’s fucking nonsensical from start to finish. I am no fan of James Cameron’s Avatar, but I will see those sequels in a theatre before sitting through an ID4 sequel.
Calling Independence Day ‘jingoistic’ is so wonderfully hilarious. It’s like calling a Tyler Perry production a black film.
Yes. Yes it is.
It’s called Independence Day. The entire story revolves around Americans fighting aliens on the fourth of July. Calling it jingoistic makes it feel like they were trying to hide that fact. I mean, from the trailer alone when Bill Pullman screams THIS IS OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY!, was there any doubt what you were about to see. When you saw the word INDEPENDENCE DAY in the title, were you under the delusion that you were about to watch a movie that would feature a global conflict against aliens?
Cinema Sins and Honest Trailers both did an Independence Day bit and made fun of the thirty seconds of screen time devoted to British and Russian pilots. But again….
It was called Independence Day.
Is Attack the Block jingoistic because they didn’t feature any Americans in their alien battle? Or is it just an alien movie set in England?
Does the “other level” you can enjoy Howard the Duck refer to heckling it?
Just because the film is called INDEPENDENCE DAY doesn’t suddenly mean its plot and theme is off limits…
But really, THIS: “The Lone Ranger also demonstrates the industry’s franchise obsession, origin story laziness, over-reliance on bloodless violence, and its inability to prevent running time bloat. These are not small problems, and there is no sign that they will be riding off into the sunset anytime soon.”
http://www.vulture.com/2013/07/lone-ranger-is-everything-wrong-with-hollywood.html
Doesn’t mean it’s off limits. It just means using it as an example of jingoism reads like a junior high school student writing a report on the subject and finds the shallowest example.
Could you make a movie called Independence Day about Americans fighting Aliens and not have it be jingoistic? I’d kill to see that movie. Probably the most boring two hours of your life.
Oh man Christian, i can’t do another “everything wrong with Hollywood article.” Armchair assholes. This is the same ideology Finke applies to everything.
Ang, yes, sorry, but you can still call something out on it’s bullshit, and that movie is so bullshit. It’s also the world’s INDEPENDENCE DAY in that movie, but only AMERICANS can save the world. I agree though, fuck all of these what’s wrong with Hollywood articles and seriously, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE AND THIS MOVIE? It’s nowhere near being a great film, but it’s a fun fucking time. It’s a fun movie. Reading David’s review above, shows in glaring detail how the fun of it all, was just missed by him.
If you want to get pissed off by Hollywood, then get pissed off by the lack of fucking diversity. Why some people are acting like “The Lone Ranger” is the greatest cinema sin of the year is fucking bewildering. Seriously, this sort of bullshit, nonsensical ass reaming of one movie each Summer has to stop. It’s tired.
JS, speaking of diversity, I was wondering why they didn’t reinvent The Lone Ranger as an off kilter character and have Depp play him and have someone of American Indian descent play Tonto? You’ve taken one of the most iconic non-white roles and given it to a white guy, and then you relegate the Ranger to basically a second fiddle in his own story. (Pure assumption. I have not seen it yet.) I for one would have loved to see Michael Pena, (he’s Mexican I know, but I don’t know any American Indian actors that may fit the role, but I’m sure a good search would have given us a few.)
Did Disney want to avoid the obvious criticisms that some of these politically correct groups would lobby at them if a person of color seemed to be something of a servant to a white guy? Does this mean that we can’t make movies with Blacks and Hispanics as maids and gardeners anymore?
And I ask that question as a black guy.
JS, imagine a Superman movie where people laugh at Superman in his costume everytime he appears – and then expect audiences to see him as the Hero. That’s the problem with TLR – the snarky, “What’s with the mask” gags, redolent of evey tv ad or cheap snarky cartoon. All the way up to mocking “Hi Yo Silver” – what’s the point of making a big budget family film hero post-ironic? TLR wants it both ways, but gets neither. Played relatively straight with the attention to old movie West as Verbinski shows, then you could have had something.
Christian, as Lou pointed out, a lot of the framing of this movie has to do with the way Tonto remember things. Of course Tonto would be freaked out by “Hey Yo Silver.” It’s his memories. Also, I watched the TV series, have listened to the serials, and this movie is a lot better than the 80s Lone Ranger movie. Seriously, the ending, Silver, and Tonto were perfect to me. It’s not great, but it’s fun. It’s not the films fault, that you don’t like people goofing on big hats and suits. It reminded me of BTFF 3 in that way.
BD, if we can get Michael Pena in more movies, that would be a good thing. Oddly enough, “The Lone Ranger” is that rare movie that features a character with a penchant for frilly things. He’s a cowboy criminal transvestite.
BTFF 3?
Yes, it is the film’s fault for dumb sub-ironic “Hey that feller’s wearing a mask” every other scene. Hinging a 300 million dollar film on hopes kiddies will say, “That’s Tonto’s memories, so I don’t take any of the three hour film seriously” isn’t a wise bet. And audiences are contradicting you.
and have Depp play him and have someone of American Indian descent play Tonto? You’ve taken one of the most iconic non-white roles and given it to a white guy, and then you relegate the Ranger to basically a second fiddle in his own story. (Pure assumption. I have not seen it yet.) I for one would have loved to see Michael Pena, (he’s Mexican I know, but I don’t know any American Indian actors that may fit the role, but I’m sure a good search would have given us a few.)
Depp “claims” Nat Am heritage, which is one reason why he took the role.
Mexicans playing Natives hasn’t sat well with Natives, unless the actor knows his Native heritage. It would have gone over worse than Depp if he didn’t.
I don’t care if Wes Studi is in his 60’s, he was my choice. He could have played the Freeman/Hackman sage role to Depp’s Ranger.
Wes Studi would have been awesome. Just checked a list and there is Adam Beach, but maybe because of Cowboys and Aliens bombing, they did not want that association. I see Benjamin Bratt, Graham Greene who was great in Die Hard 3, and Lou Diamond Phillips. Depp is also on the list, so I guess he qualifies.
I third Wes Studi. Or what about another The Last of the Mohicans alum, Eric Schweig?
Yeah, some real A-list Disney wattage here guys. 🙂
maybe next Depp can play Sacagawea in kabuki. (probably the only way a flick about one of america’s greatest explorers will ever get made)
Hey they’re probably as well known as Armie Hammer.
“Back to the Future 3,” Joe. Also, Christian, am I supposed to care that audiences are contradicting me? Not enough people are seeing a movie I LOVE in “Before Midnight,” and that’s my problem? Really? What kind of argumentative framing device is that? “PEOPLE AREN’T SEEING THE MOVIE! HA! YOUR FAULT!”
You are also bugged by one aspect of the film, that’s your prerogative. It doesn’t bug me and let’s point out why the movie isn’t doing well: DESPICABLE ME 2. They are both, technically, family films. Families are going the animation route.
Oh yeah, Armie Hammer stole the show in a BP nominee. People should know who he is.
As JS said upstream, I’m a little boggled by the chummed-up frenzy in critical waters over Lone Ranger. I haven’t seen it yet, but people I trust both online and in the real world have liked it enough that to me, something stinks. Critics and movie bloggers seem to be a twittery gang these days, largely talking each other into so-called consensus and then reinforcing that at all turns (with notable exceptions like our own DP, who I find reliably personal and esoteric in his takes.) It should not be so easy to predict which movies will get blasted and which will get loved, but damn if it isn’t, weeks in advance. I do think a lot of people buy in to whatever narrative, especially if it is negative or reinforcing of a predisposition toward or against a film maker or actor, and then go in looking for that, which I guess is the opposite of what good criticism is. Was there any chance in hell TLR was going to be spun as anything other than a failure, either critically or at the box office, short of a 90 million dollar opening? There’s no such thing as an objective standard, but I’m feeling context and expectations are holding way too much sway these days.
i don’t know if people would know armie well enough as ‘that guy from the social network’, but is it possible people are just getting a bit weary of Depp in kabuki/makeup mode, enough so that when choosing what to see there’s the slight ‘not Johnny Depp in fucking kabuki AGAIN’ factor creeping in — not that they’d think of it as ‘fucking kabuki’ exactly, but after a seemingly endless string of whiteface/makeup turns with sparrow/willywonka/madhatter/barnebus and now this seeming sparrow-in-whiteface variation, i just wonder if there’s a bit of Depp fatigue, the shine going off the kabuki box office penny a tad
Sometimes it feels like maybe a critic is 15% disappointed with a blockbuster right after seeing it, but it balloons to 50% by the time they sit down to write their review. And a lot of people have a masterpiece-or-crap mentality that doesn’t cut much slack toward a flawed but basically okay film, especially if it cost a couple hundred million.
And the Lone Ranger editor says it better than I did over in the quote unquote section.
Just wanted to weigh in. I saw it yesterday, and I hated it. I don’t know why LexG or anyone else would think it’s a masterpiece. I wish LYT’s interpretation of the story via Tonto’s 1933 POV was there, but I don’t think it was. If you’re going to do something with an unreliable narrator, then there should be a point to it. It isn’t there in this movie. (I actually think Tonto comes off as the most reliable character, so I really don’t get the point of the 1933 parts. This definitely isn’t like Big Fish.)
I didn’t care about the characters or the story. They took 53 minutes for act one, and I still didn’t understand what it was the main character wanted. (Obviously there’s a moment with his brother that is supposed to clarify things, and it does finally launch the narrative, but I didn’t care about it. And what did the character want before that? I don’t know.) What was at stake? A silver mine? Um… okay.
As other people have said, the tonal shifts are all over the place. I’m fine with some of the over-the-top cartoony, action-adventure violence, but some of the more realistic violence felt awkward and out of place. The comedic bits were… whatever. I didn’t laugh. The audience I was with didn’t laugh that much. I thought it would’ve got a much bigger response, but it didn’t. Maybe it was the weird shifts in tone that cut the comedy down? I do think cutting to Johnny Depp for a reaction shot got tired after a while. (And what was up with the rabbits? That seemed to be from a completely different movie.)
The tech specs are very good. It did look nice. The art direction and set design were good. The CGI was for most part good. The action sequences were fine. Though at this level of production, I would hope the tech side of things are top-notch.
But the story just doesn’t add up to anything. It was all just kind of… pointless.
I know the Howard the Duck conversation is phasing in and out of this thread, but I have to say, I admire the movie’s insanity. It’s not every day you see a movie where John Barry does the score as seriously as when SPECTRE was about to start the next World War in You Only Live Twice while space vaginas are being beamed in from a telescope as Jeffrey Jones almost vomits up all the scenery he’s consumed. I do have to say, Thomas Dolby (Yes, THAT Thomas Dolby) would’ve had a hit love song in “Don’t Turn Away” if it was the love theme to ANY movie but Howard the Duck…
Yancy… my disappointment was multiplied by how not crap it was… and yet, they were so unwilling to cut anything to a consumable size and shape that the audience is forced to work too hard to eat what is meant to be a bon bon.