Seems like a remake of this movie:
The Revenant Movie
- Thread starter infowarrior1
- Start date
dicknixon72
Pelican
blck said:SamuelBRoberts said:
NewMeta
Kingfisher
Went into this having never seen the trailer or ever heard of it (didn't even know Leo was in it going in, truly fresh introduction).
Was boring for the first 10 minutes until he got mauled by the bear, then it all changed, it ended up being one of the sickest movies I've seen all year.
Was boring for the first 10 minutes until he got mauled by the bear, then it all changed, it ended up being one of the sickest movies I've seen all year.
Whatever you think of Tom Hardy you have to admit he's a hell of an actor too. Didn't recognize him initially when I saw it and was surprised he carried off that thick accent so well. I don't think i've ever seen him give a weak performance.
Does it beat "Jerimiah Johnson" or "Seraphim Falls"?
I'm definitely intrigued.
I'm definitely intrigued.
HonantheBarbarian said:
Yes, it's far better. The production qualities, the technology, the cinematography, the acting, and the philosophical messages are all much, much better.
Judge for yourself.
Wasn't as good as I expected, I'd say it was about a 7.5
chadverdad
Chicken
For me it was an excellent film embodying indomitable will and perseverance. Also really brings to life the inhospitable, harsh conditions of the wild. I mean we know how men lived long ago, how people survive winters, but the films portrayal made the feeling visceral. I found myself questioning my chances in such conditions, thinking about the level of comfort I've become accustomed to.
Most of the complaints I heard were something about the movie being too long, too boring in some parts. Yes, it could have been shortened considerably, but I felt that it would have taken away from the feeling of prolonged struggle and endurance (which was what the movie was about to me). My opinion is that not every scene in a movie needs to directly contribute to the advancement of the plot, and I feel that may have been the source of frustration for a lot of people. The other main complaint was about the plausibility of certain situations mainly concerning the main character's repeated survival after calamitous events. Personally I didn't think there was anything too crazy. But the main purpose of pushing those boundaries was to highlight the extent to which his will was being exercised and tested, and I think the audience is supposed to feel that strain. Personally it was draining for me.
As for the acting, I thought it was excellent. I'll start with Leo, because I feel too many people are viewing his performance as a labored effort to obtain an oscar, which is pretty unfair. He gave a phenomenal perfomance, especially with the physical aspects. Hardy was quite good, almost unrecognizable in his role. The one minor issue I had, which was more the writing than anything, was his villainous character was bordering on cartoonish, coming close the archetypal callous bad guy (instead of the multilayered character he started out as) especially towards the end.
My opinion is that your level of immersion will determine your enjoyment of the film. If your attention span is weak, if you find yourself labeling things as "plot holes", if you become agitated by "showy" or "pretentious" symbolism, or if you are analyzing dicaprio, the actor instead of the character he's playing (presumably to determine if he is deserving of an award), you may still appreciate the film but you certainly won't be blown away. Overall I thought it was one of the best films I've ever seen.
Most of the complaints I heard were something about the movie being too long, too boring in some parts. Yes, it could have been shortened considerably, but I felt that it would have taken away from the feeling of prolonged struggle and endurance (which was what the movie was about to me). My opinion is that not every scene in a movie needs to directly contribute to the advancement of the plot, and I feel that may have been the source of frustration for a lot of people. The other main complaint was about the plausibility of certain situations mainly concerning the main character's repeated survival after calamitous events. Personally I didn't think there was anything too crazy. But the main purpose of pushing those boundaries was to highlight the extent to which his will was being exercised and tested, and I think the audience is supposed to feel that strain. Personally it was draining for me.
As for the acting, I thought it was excellent. I'll start with Leo, because I feel too many people are viewing his performance as a labored effort to obtain an oscar, which is pretty unfair. He gave a phenomenal perfomance, especially with the physical aspects. Hardy was quite good, almost unrecognizable in his role. The one minor issue I had, which was more the writing than anything, was his villainous character was bordering on cartoonish, coming close the archetypal callous bad guy (instead of the multilayered character he started out as) especially towards the end.
My opinion is that your level of immersion will determine your enjoyment of the film. If your attention span is weak, if you find yourself labeling things as "plot holes", if you become agitated by "showy" or "pretentious" symbolism, or if you are analyzing dicaprio, the actor instead of the character he's playing (presumably to determine if he is deserving of an award), you may still appreciate the film but you certainly won't be blown away. Overall I thought it was one of the best films I've ever seen.
azulsombra said:
I've been wanting to see it for the cinematography alone. 40 percent of the Revenant was filmed a new cutting edge camera which isn't for sale....just rental at this point.
http://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/
Penta Sahi
Kingfisher
Quintus Curtius said:
The Wire said:
An interesting note about how this film was shot. It was done almost entirely with natural light, except for one scene.
http://petapixel.com/2015/12/21/the-revenant-was-shot-almost-entirely-with-natural-light/
Film/movie/camera buffs will know just how big a deal this is. But not having to deal with artificial light allows the director to not worry about light placement or filming a scene a certain way because of the limitations placed by the location of the lights.
Of course this has to do with the advancement of technology. This movie as it was shot would probably not have been possible even a decade ago (or it would have been really hard), but camera sensors and editing software/techniques have come a long way since then. We could expect more movies to be shot like this in the future, but mark Revenant as one of the first higher-profile movies to be shot this way.
Penta Sahi said:
I didn't know that. Thats actually a huge deal. The first thing I thought was the dynamic range on the cameras are so huge and the article basically restated that; "concluding that the sensitivity of film wasn’t enough for dimly lit scenes — especially at dawn and dusk". I know from photography film doesn't handle dim scenes as well as digital and movie making is the basic same principals.
Good to hear the praise, planning on seeing this soon
We're ten days in bro
NewMeta said:
We're ten days in bro
DiCaprio, whilst we know why he says it, it's still disappointing:
http://dlisted.com/2016/01/08/leona...-are-the-most-persecuted-people-in-the-world/
http://dlisted.com/2016/01/08/leona...-are-the-most-persecuted-people-in-the-world/
la bodhisattva
Kingfisher
Teedub said:
In the world? I'd humor acknowledgment of that statement if sjw's had the conviction and intellectual honesty to admit what culture(s) are "responsible" for the persecution. Until then, words are wind, faggots.
Best movie I've watched in a long time. A red pill must-see. I was engrossed & this comes from a man who has fallen asleep in just about anything I've watched for more than an hour in the last 4 years.
I agree wholeheartedly with Quintus.
I agree wholeheartedly with Quintus.
Went to a late night screening yesterday. Thoroughly enjoyed the film. Well worth making a trip out to the theatre for the big screen experience instead of waiting for it to come to Netflix. There are many beautiful scenes that showcase the awesomeness of nature. One scene (not relevant to the plot, no spoiler) where we first hear and then see a herd of Buffalo on the run is a remarkable piece of cinematography.
I thought Tom Hardy was outstanding in his role. He delivers a profound but restrained performance. He didn't over do it and turn his character into too much of a frontier times caricature.
@QC: I had read your post about the masculinity of this film before heading in to watch the screening and had a good chuckle as I settled into my seat at the theatre. The coming attraction trailers I saw last night were for the latest Michael Moore film, where we see him acting like a complete clown, looking worse than ever and then some new movie that stars Helen Mirren as a 5 star general wrestling with ethics.
I thought Tom Hardy was outstanding in his role. He delivers a profound but restrained performance. He didn't over do it and turn his character into too much of a frontier times caricature.
@QC: I had read your post about the masculinity of this film before heading in to watch the screening and had a good chuckle as I settled into my seat at the theatre. The coming attraction trailers I saw last night were for the latest Michael Moore film, where we see him acting like a complete clown, looking worse than ever and then some new movie that stars Helen Mirren as a 5 star general wrestling with ethics.
Nemausus said:Went to a late night screening yesterday. Thoroughly enjoyed the film. Well worth making a trip out to the theatre for the big screen experience instead of waiting for it to come to Netflix. There are many beautiful scenes that showcase the awesomeness of nature. One scene (not relevant to the plot, no spoiler) where we first hear and then see a herd of Buffalo on the run is a remarkable piece of cinematography.
I thought Tom Hardy was outstanding in his role. He delivers a profound but restrained performance. He didn't over do it and turn his character into too much of a frontier times caricature.
@QC: I had read your post about the masculinity of this film before heading in to watch the screening and had a good chuckle as I settled into my seat at the theatre. The coming attraction trailers I saw last night were for the latest Michael Moore film, where we see him acting like a complete clown, looking worse than ever and then some new movie that stars Helen Mirren as a 5 star general wrestling with ethics.
Glad to hear you say this, man.
I think this should be a defining movie for us, and for the times we live in.
We got sold out, abandoned, betrayed, and stabbed in the back.
But we're going to come back and take our revenge.
One way or another.
^ blood oath
