Here is the Super Bowl spot.

In my opinion, it's nowhere near as good as the second full trailer, which was awesome.

I saw this not too long ago. Over, it wasn't too bad. They could've toned down the humor a little bit...you don't need to crack a joke or do some kind of "sight gag" every 15 minutes.

Pretty faithful to the TV series.

* One nit I caught was when the Lone Ranger wanted to know what "Kemo Sabe" meant.

According to the TV series it means: "Trusted Friend".

The movie says, "Wrong brother"

* In the comics, the Lone Ranger (as a teen) saved Tonto's life...they did not visit this idea in the movie.

* It was nice that they put an actual historic event within the film...the REAL story of the Transcontinental Railroad....as in...how it REALLY happened.

* It was REALLY nice to hear "The William Tell Overture" in this movie....TWICE. One of my favorite pieces of classical music.

* It was nice that they didn't do this movie EXACTLY like the TV series. I thought the TV series was too sanitary. This movie has a lot of real-life situations in it.

* It was cool that they did this movie as a narrative...and not as a straight out movie.

One nit I caught was when the Lone Ranger wanted to know what "Kemo Sabe" meant. According to the TV series it means: "Trusted Friend". - John Lang

I don't know, John, it could also mean "horse's rear end". At least according to the classic "Far Side" cartoon, anyway. "The Lone Ranger, long since retired, makes a disturbing discovery." LOL!!

And I watch an internet critic's Midnight Screening series of reviews, and he and his friends did not like this one too much. Or Prometheus, or Man Of Steel, or After Earth, either. That's their opinions of course. I love watching them tear apart bad movies, it's very entertaining. And I know that it's one more flick I never have to bother with, because their tastes almost exactly coincide with mine. I think that's cool!

* How did "Red" (the lady with the ivory leg) reload her weapon?

* When John Reid is on the train, the window in front of his seat is closed. However, when he tosses the doll to the little girl, the window is open.

* On the same note...why didn't he just GIVE her the doll instead of tossing it?

* Was the warrant for the arrest for Cavendish a publicity stunt or did Mr. Cole REALLY want Cavendish dead so he could have all the money for himself?

* Why did Tonto put John Reid on that wooden platform?

* Why didn't Dan Reid tell his brother, (a prosecuting attorney) about the treaty violation? (the railroad tracks running through Comanche Territory)

John may be a wuss, but that doesn't make him a bad attorney.

* In the barn scene, Someone takes Rachel out of the building while the guy with the bonnet on his head is talking with her. The Lone Ranger enters and asks, "Where is Rachel & Jonathan?"

Well...Rachel was right there a few seconds ago.

Why did the Lone Ranger take Cavendish to Mr. Cole...seeing that Mr. Cole is one of the people building the railroad...and they are the ones who staged the false flag attacks on the homesteaders and made it look like the Comanches attacked...which they didn't...they only made it to look like they did...just to seize their property via the US Calvary.

MY MISTAKES:

Dan's Sister-in-Law is Rebekkah...not Rachel.

The woman held hostage in the barn was not Rebekkah...it was the Mexican maid

Been a rough couple of summers for Disney, first John Carter, now this. How much money have they lost?

Yeah, but add in all the Marvel superheroes movies that made money, and they probably made more than they lost.

How come no one came looking for the little boy in the "Wild West" Exhibit? He was there for nearly two hours. Additionally, he was still there when the carnival was closing!

I finally got around to watching this and I am at a loss as to where the onslaught of negative criticism for this movie was coming from. This movie was no worse than the vast majority of films last year, possibly due to my opinion that 2013 was largely lackluster in the theater, and any basic issues the Lone Ranger had could be said about most movies of the last decade. It baffles me to no end that this movie had such publicly harsh reviews while movies like Pacific Rim were relatively well received. Perhaps something else was going on that the media felt the need to be less objective than they already are?

Having said all that; however, the Lone Ranger certainly had its fair share of problems, but I didn't think it was near as bad as the critics lead us to believe, which is one of many reasons why I don't read movie reviews by people who get paid to do them. I'll agree that the dialog needed some more fluidity, and that a few of the plot points were a bit contrived, but things like Tonto's 'look' and his strange behavior was explained in the movie! I felt the narrative-style of the story was fairly well done, and the action sequences were much less choppy than on The Hobbit.

I recommend watching this movie, if only to see what all the fuss is about, and form your own opinion. You may find that it actually does have some entertainment value to it, or you may not...

I wanted to see this film when it came out, but was a bit scared off by the word-of-mouth, and by the desire for me and my friend to see other things. I saw it just now on your recommendation, Andrew.

I think I'd rather have a dog fart in my face than see it again.

I can't imagine how the creators thought this would be a good movie or how its titular character was a valid incarnation of the legendary hero. The character is a naive, know-nothing milquetoast goody two-shoes, completely inept in the ways of gunfighting and the ways of the West, and is treated like a walking joke, the centerpiece of a film that itself can't decide if it wants to treat the Lone Ranger mythos in a properly respectful tone, or as a goofy, denigrating satire. This, along with its unjustified two and a half hour length, the overly deconstructed and unnecessary 1933 framing sequence, the cartoonishly implausible stunts and the unsubtly anachronistic references, which include everything from a watch made by Sears & Roebuck (which didn't exist until 24 years after the film's main time setting) to an old Indian chief saying "What's with the mask?", made it a thoroughly unenjoyable experience for me, and I'm glad I dodged the bullet of paying ten bucks on this when it was in theaters.

I remember reading how the 1981 film The Legend of the Lone Ranger was a critical and box office bomb. I was surprised by this, because when I saw in theaters as a nine-year-old, I remember liking it. The tragic origin story of the Ranger, his friendship with Tonto, the buildup in which he sharpens his gunfighting skills and befriends Silver, the wonderful turn by Christopher Lloyd as the villain, the final confrontation, and of course, the perfect use of the William Tell Overture. Granted, I can't say whether I would like it as much today because I haven't seen it since then, but I remember that it treated the source material with respect and felt like a good western action film.

This to me was only somewhat better than Pacific Rim, which I didn't like either.

I guess I owe you an apology then Luigi, since you watched on my recommendation

This to me was only somewhat better than Pacific Rim, which I didn't like either.
This is basically what I was getting at. The Lone Ranger certainly won't be on my rewatch list anytime soon, and I too am glad I didn't pay theater prices for it, I was just curious how one movie could get so publicly lambasted and others, like PR, wasn't. Perhaps it was due to the LR being based (using that term loosly) on a known character and PR just being a mish-mash of several mediocre (IMO) things? There's very little middle ground with this film it seems.

Hey, opinions vary, Andrew. There's always a risk involved when you watch a film on someone's recommendation. It's not like running into a burning building.