The Revenant Movie

[Balkanite]

I thought the cinematography alone was breathtaking. According to wikipedia they filmed in US, Canada, and Argentina. No fake studio or fake snow stuff.

For some reason I'm always moved seeing giant herds of bison roaming free on the plains in movies. It would have been amazing to see those untouched herds back in the day. And trying to take one down with a one shot musket or bow/arrow to feed your family.

 

[Nascimento]

I think this is the type of movie you appreciate the more you watch it.

I really enjoyed it. I look forward to seeing it again.

Damn. I watched the trailer for the first time just now. I'm glad I stopped watching trailers a long time ago. They seriously show way too much of the movie. That bear scene should be seen without the slightest foreshadowing beforehand.

I'm glad I went into it blind.

 

[RIslander]

I just watched this movie and I thought it sucked ass. It had so much potential. The cinematography was absolutely fantastic.. . Perhaps the best of any film. The acting was great. It was red pill. The direction was very good. But the script and dialog was shit. I didn't care about any of the characters and the pacing was bad. It was over two hours of watching overly zoomed in face shots of a silent Leo grimacing in pain.

If they had spent 75% of the film developing the characters and showing what fur traders did and their interactions with the natives, it probably would of been a kick ass movie. But no, it sucked.

The movie insisted upon itself.

 

[_GQ_]

Tom Hardy is a far better actor than Leonardo Di Caprio.

 

[Suits]

Just watched this movie. Pretty disappointing film overall. It had great potential, but it failed to leave me with any sense of satisfaction upon viewing.

The thing that bothers me the most is that the bear engaged in a penetrating act with Leo without first receiving verbal consent. I think I heard Leo say "no" several times. And we all know what "no" means.

The way that the bear is issued a quick death with first having his name smeared by the media was problematic. Of course, it's important for the viewer to recognize that a lot of the events in this film occurred long before civilized society was established, but at the same time, I feel like this movie set a bad precedent.

In modern society, we would take the proper steps to rob a predator like the mother bear of his manhood and self-respect before sentencing him to death.

Pretty disappointing. A lot more could have been achieved in this film with the careful use of a safe-word and some court mandated child support payments.

 

[Beyond Borders]

Okay, I finally got to sit down and watch it. Epic movie, I thought. Sure wish I would have seen it on the big screen. The ruthlessness of Nature and the true human condition are most certainly driven home.

That being said, this was based on a true story, and if the linked article is to be believed (I didn't research further), it's a pretty amazing one at that.

If there's one thing I have little stomach for, it's true stories retold with theatrical embellishment. It's gotten so bad these days that when a movie says "based on a true story" you can be 100% confident that you have no idea what the fuck that even means (can't remember if they bothered claiming it with this one).

None of this is a surprise anymore - that's Hollywood, and I understand their purpose is to entertain. However, I feel like it could have been a pretty wicked story in its own right, without the bullshit Indian son story mixed in. It wasn't the truth and it wasn't necessary for the story to be good.

Of course, the director would have wanted the embellishments in the plot added in to both a) give a modern audience a black and white enough villian to stomach wanting his blood and b) to have a more clearcut ending.

But in a sense I feel it robs us of the truth about an incredible man, one who actually existed, and a type that still walks among us today, if you ask me, waiting to show himself when condition, environment, or red hot rage demand. I feel like the plot would have been more loaded in the real story because while you would be able to understand his thirst for revenge on an individual level, it wasn't the universal, made-for-a-movie, "justice for your son's murder" kind of revenge. That would have made the emotional depth more complex.

I'm a bit disappointed after learning they threw out a perfectly good story to create one that was more sensational and "more complete." But it is still an amazing flick and you'd be doing yourself an injustice to skip it. I'll watch it again.

I guess if they didn't round out the plot with the audience-pleasing elements, they wouldn't have had the same budget or perhaps even be able to make the flick, so I suppose you take what you can get.

 

[hydrogonian]

I got through about 20 minutes before I called it quits due to overall tone and pacing.

 

[BillyTalented]

I saw it today on the big screen.

This was fantastic. I was floored.

This is the most masculine movie I've seen in a long, long time. It's a smashingly good tale of courage, suffering, survival, betrayal, and revenge.

This is the screenplay that H. Rider Haggard or Alexandre Dumas would have written if they were alive today.

And, to cap it all off, and what really moved me as well, it has very definite mystical overtones, which seem to suggest man's insignificance in the great drama of Nature and her designs.

This is the movie that men should be seeing...not the insipid claptrap of "Star Wars" or "Mad Max."

I'm going to do a full review for my ROK article on Monday.

.

Couldn't agree more. Incredible movie

 

[Razgriz]

So I just saw this movie last night. Overall really liked it gives you a good feeling for how tough just day to day living can be in the wilderness, didn't feel like the white man was totally condemned as being the only barbaric people, all the Indians proved to be just as barbaric. the only bone I have to pick with it is this: the whole trapper crew are being hunted by the Arikara who are looking for Powaqa the chiefs daughter, early on the chief meets with some Frenchmen to trade for horses and mentions that he is looking for his daughter, later hugh stumbles upon the same group of Frenchman and then sees Powaqa getting raped, so was she with the french the whole time? Or did the French randomly find her in the forest and just chose to keep her?

 

[Grit]

I liked the movie, with some exceptions, so read on if you don't mind being triggered.

I'll start with a comparison to the Daily Mail. Often times the (tabloid) news source Daily Mail is referred to as a 'conservative' newspaper, which one glance through it and it's obviously not conservative. However if you define conservatism as 'protecting and perfectly encapsulating political correct-ness' then you get a fair match of calling this newspaper 'conservative.'

How does this relate to the Revenant? In order to maintain a Daily-Mail-esque conservatism, the settlers as well as the French had to be portrayed as equally savage as the Indians.

Not only did the movie want to convey 'equality of savagery', but it also purposely portrays all of the characters with a dreary lack of morality. Maybe this is due to the producers being Hollywood types who either have no morality, or have a childlike understanding of it, or maybe they understand it but find it more important to create 'intellectual equality'. Regardless, all of these points are revisionist history which the movie could have better dealt with.

The producers clearly don't want to remind the audience of 'manifest destiny'. You do remember that, right? From your history classes? In other words, movie producers don't want to convey any quality of the historical superiority that Europeans brought and employed in order to both conquer and build America. Europeans came to this continent with superiority. You would never absorb that from the dreariness that the political status quo must employ when making history pieces. This movie could have been a true avant-garde if, for example, the settlers are portrayed as highly religious, yet hypocritically forced to lies, cheating, and stealing to survive, all the while finding Christian justification to do so.

 

[D.C. Eagle]

I liked the movie, with some exceptions, so read on if you don't mind being triggered.

I'll start with a comparison to the Daily Mail. Often times the (tabloid) news source Daily Mail is referred to as a 'conservative' newspaper, which one glance through it and it's obviously not conservative. However if you define conservatism as 'protecting and perfectly encapsulating political correct-ness' then you get a fair match of calling this newspaper 'conservative.'

How does this relate to the Revenant? In order to maintain a Daily-Mail-esque conservatism, the settlers as well as the French had to be portrayed as equally savage as the Indians.

Not only did the movie want to convey 'equality of savagery', but it also purposely portrays all of the characters with a dreary lack of morality. Maybe this is due to the producers being Hollywood types who either have no morality, or have a childlike understanding of it, or maybe they understand it but find it more important to create 'intellectual equality'. Regardless, all of these points are revisionist history which the movie could have better dealt with.

The producers clearly don't want to remind the audience of 'manifest destiny'. You do remember that, right? From your history classes? In other words, movie producers don't want to convey any quality of the historical superiority that Europeans brought and employed in order to both conquer and build America. Europeans came to this continent with superiority. You would never absorb that from the dreariness that the political status quo must employ when making history pieces. This movie could have been a true avant-garde if, for example, the settlers are portrayed as highly religious, yet hypocritically forced to lies, cheating, and stealing to survive, all the while finding Christian justification to do so.

The movie reminds me about the "civilization" in the Great Lakes area. There was a strong notion that common civilities did not apply to those areas, as they were beyond the civil reach. The movie did a good job of showing a more realistic portrayal of frontier life.

 

[Renzy]

I saw the movie over the weekend.

The movie and cinematography reminded me in many ways of another film, Touching the Void, about a mountain climber back in the 80s who got left for dead by his partner after falling into a crevice while descending the Chilean Andes. That movie was also based on a true story, and explored themes of resilience in the face of despair in similar ways.

I thought Leo did a great job and while the film did seem to fall back on cliches about the evil white man/noble savage stereotypes, it didn't feel overdone. That being said, I read the novel (by Michael Punke) that the movie was loosely based on and preferred the novels account of Glass over the movie.

 

[samsamsam]

 

[Thomas More]

^^^ This makes me want to take up film making. I could make something this bad!

 

[Disco_Volante]

Finally saw this. Tom hardy was excellent, never would've even known it was him. I also empathized with his character more, he just wanted to survive and viewed a wounded, mute man as deadweight.

I could've done without all the 'my son' shit though.

 

[philosophical_recovery]

Finally saw this. Tom hardy was excellent, never would've even known it was him. I also empathized with his character more, he just wanted to survive and viewed a wounded, mute man as deadweight.

I could've done without all the 'my son' shit though.

Agreed. Tom Hardy absolutely stole the show, and like you I didn't realize who he was until well into the movie. His acting ability is above and beyond Leo's. He's extremely memorable. The halfbreed child thing and all of the really crazy, non sequitur dream sequences didn't seem to fit the rest. Very Deus Ex Machina, for those parts.

 

[samsamsam]

No idea why Tom Hardy did not win. Guy has talent. I liked him the The Drop also.

 

[griffinmill]

Tom Hardy was excellent. He's an actor with range. He can transform himself with aplomb. He will hopefully get the Oscar one day.

Can someone tell me what the big deal about Leo is? He has no range. He can do the whole intense, furrowed brow thing, but that's about the peak of his ability.

Great performance in Gilbert Grape, but that's about it. Compare him to De Niro in his prime and its no contest. He's highly overrated.

 

[samsamsam]

I don't think Leo is a horrible actor - Departed was on the other day, he was pretty good in that. He was good in Catch Me If You Can and others.

I think he has a good collection of movies. He just hasn't had that one film that put him over the top in terms of Oscar performance.

I think this was a pity Oscar or competition was pretty weak this year.

I mean sliding on snow and grunting doesn't impress that much.

 

[Hypno]

Have to disagree with some posters on this thread that I really respect. Leo's performance was 2-dimensional and the film really was just OK. I'll give it credit for being a worthy topic, but the storytelling was just average. And the Glass character really doesn't have much of a character arc in my view.

Also, its basically a rip-off of the film Deliverance, which is an excellent film and which I highly recommend. If you watch both films, you'll see that they are essentially the same story told 150 years apart, which Deliverance led by a young Burt Reynolds who gave the performance of his career. I could list a dozen similarities but won't because I will give away plot points but will state the obvious ones of a male who gets raped. Its not perfectly parallel, but if notice how its not perfectly parallel I think you'll see that the way the story was structured in Deliverance was better.

If you compare the two films, they are basically both about man versus nature, although man vs other man conflicts arise. Revenant ostensibly is about revenge, but its really about man versus nature. I find Revenant lacking because if you contrast the two films, the characters in Deliverance were changed by their experience while in Revenant not so much.