The Revenant (Alejandro González Iñárritu)

[Philip J. Fry]

http://dl9fvu4r30qs1.cloudfront.net/80/9f/a6afc7384cc1acb88de59c4d2d34/revenant-leo.jpg

Trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoebZZ8K5N0

IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1663202/) / wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revenant_(2015_film)) / RT (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_revenant_2015/)

Official website (http://www.foxmovies.com/movies/the-revenant)

[Henry Gale]

With the screener floating around for weeks, tempting me to not need to brave the cold / trip for this, I'm glad I waited to see this in the theatre, because whether or not you think it has anything else going for it, this thing is just glooooorious looking (and as a result, feeling). At least, that is aside from the too-obviously CGI animals, its often not-so-seamless edit-splicing, and a lot of early jittery cinematography that looks like it's shot at a frame rate it never even slows downs to.

I actually liked it more as it went. As the first, heavy on arrows-in-heads action sequence unfolded, I remember thinking to myself, "This movie has a long way to go to get me to love it." - and yet, by the end, I feel almost like I did! In the first act I couldn't help but feel like with all its group of archetypal men stranded, facing looming death in wintery landscape and looming ghost-wife flashbacks and visions (Leo's trying to take that staple away from Nolan at this point?), I couldn't help but feel like we'd covered these ideas and atmosphere pretty damn well with The Grey, but it became something more singular, unique and significantly more compelling with visceral driving force of its story (in no small part to Leo's "I'll do literally anything [4 dat oscaaar]!" commitment) and the journey it illustrates and brings various threads together with.

Also watched Knight of Cups today, and it's funny how with I didn't even think they'd both be Lubezki / Fisk collaborations between the two directors, but my biggest thought after putting them side by side was how much Revenant feels like Inarritu doing his best Thin Red Line / New World Malick riffing, and Knight, with its fragmented, even disorganized narrative threads very much has the vibe of earlier Alejandro for a lot of it. Neither come close in overall satisfaction to Birdman or To The Wonder for me, though.

Either way what a pretty day for movies. Job(s) most well done, Lubezki and Fisk!

The last shot is kinda silly though, right?

The blood trail leading to the river felt so much (and rightfully) like it was going to be the last shot, and the greenscreen-ish look to Leo's surroundings in the actual final one make me think it might've originally been. (Test / studio screenings, perhaps. Not that the one they went with is exactly tidy.)

[amberlita]

This makes me so happy:


684863663010787330

[Ezee E]

Oh yeah, I'll be watching this one a lot in the future.

[Ivan Drago]

With every challenge Iñarritu sets for himself nowadays, he keeps making great movies out of them. Sure, his dialogue is still theme-spouty (Tom Hardy's character feels more like Bad Guy McObvious to me), but after the first act where it's most prominent, the beautiful cinematography and DiCaprio's amazing performance primarily tell the story, making this the most visceral and lyrical work of his entire filmography, and a new favorite of mine for the year.

Also, this needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible.

EDIT: Also also, I hope this made sense. Trying to get back into the review-writing groove.

[baby doll]

Iñárittu is to Tarkovsky what Will Smith is to NWA. One telling difference is that in The Mirror and The Sacrifice it's ambiguous whether the shots of floating dames represent dreams or not, while in The Revenant it's explicitly clear that they do. In other words, unlike the critical citations of other filmmakers one finds in the films of Godard and Rivette, or the application of a principle one finds in the films of Resnais (many of whose late movies are Lubitsch-esque but don't make specific visual quotations), Iñárittu's appropriations of Tarkovsky and Sokurov in The Revenant and Godard in Chacun son cinéma and Birdman merely domesticate those filmmakers' styles for a mainstream audience. (Compare the graceful moving back and forth in time in Sokurov's Russian Ark with the clumsy time lapse transitions in Birdman.) That's not to say Iñárittu's films aren't entertaining (they usually are, even when they're being pretentious--which is often), but he's far from being even half as great as the art movie titans he compulsively alludes to.

[Skitch]

Wow, I kind of have the opposite reaction as most. A thumbs up for sure, but the longer it went, the more my score dropped. Theres a fantastic collection of great scenes that kept me in all the way through, but its mired by the easily cutable 30 minutes that interrupts the flow. Its frustrating. While Hateful Eight will be a blu-ray in my collection, I doubt I'll revisit The Revenant, and yet I'd totally give it the Oscar for cinematography this year. I just wasnt all that entertained. Im also not very familiar with Inarritu's work, but he seems to be channeling Terrance Malick, favoring long slow shots of nature to set mood over actual character building. I know I'm throwing rocks at a hornets nest with this opinion (and in all honesty I'll take ten Inarritu's over Malick), but I just dont feel it. Tom Hardy deserves Oscars abroad, but not for this. Hes just an asshole from beginning to end with zero arc.

Its a fine film I guess, but feels Oscar snobbery baiting to me.

[[ETM]]

Haven't seen this film yet, but I already kinda want Fury Road to take away all of its Oscars.

[EvilShoe]

I didn't care for this all that much. It's visually stunning, but wasn't very captivated throughout. Maybe because I dont buy DiCaprio as a rugged mountain man.

[Spinal]

Tom Hardy owns this movie. I don't know what you guys are talking about.

Well, Hardy and Lubezki.

[DavidSeven]

Leo's going to grunt his way to an Oscar, huh?

The film isn't without its virtues, mostly on the formal side of things. The images are striking and leave an impression. I've found that, visually, the film settles well in the mind. I was being flippant about DiCaprio, but it really is an impressive physical performance. Movie Leo gets haunted by dead wives like Real Leo dates blonde models, though.

Ultimately, however, it's too tonally relentless for me to love. Misery, misery, misery. The characterizations, dialogue and narrative seem like pretty rote business to me. Obviously, these elements are mostly just setup for Iñárritu to get into the lush filmmaking and bolster his "visionary" cred. Even if his intentions are transparent, it kind of works -- it's often an enveloping piece at a sensory level. Yet, the film feels like it's straining at times: straining to prove how deserving of statues it is by being so unrelenting in its ugliness and showy aesthetics; straining to prove this is all really "important" because they can stage it better than you can. Does any of it, including its inevitable and painfully foreseeable finale, add up to much? I'm unconvinced. It's an intense experience but one that feels too consciously manufactured solely for late February recognition.

[Dukefrukem]

This is DiCaprio's year.

[ledfloyd]

About an hour into this I looked at my watch and thought, "Ugh, another hour and a half of this?"

The movie feels like an overly-serious portrayal of one man's never-ending suffering. I guess Iñarritu thinks that's profound?

Also, Leo would crush it on Fear Factor.

[Sven]

One actor in this film succeeds in commanding a portrait of concentrated testosterone in harrowing circumstance, playing a man defined by difficult choice and survival instinct infused with a compromised spiritual headstrength, uncannily capturing the vigor (and brio) of a man perpetually flagellated on the rocks of purposelessness beyond simple survival.

The other actor in this film pants and spits and lurches around in a semi-believable impression of a struggling actor. Gruntwork, really.

Hardy's part makes this movie watchable.

[ledfloyd]

Yeah, Hardy definitely outperformed Leo.

[Mal]

I enjoyed the shit out of the first hour... and then somewhere along the way of another near death scenario... I just stopped caring. Leo is good but this movie isn't deep. And if it wasn't pretty even less would be written about it.

[transmogrifier]

Oh yeah, I'll be watching this one a lot in the future.

And I can safely say I'll never watch this again. There's nothing there that rewards repeat viewings for me. It's a practical filmmaking challenge with no real emotional undercurrent or thematic unity. It's simplistic world-building through gruntwork and a layer of grime. It's technically accomplished but that's about it.

[Stay Puft]

I'll echo DavidSeven's sentiments on this. Give the location scout an Oscar, for sure. Lubezki captures some great stuff, and there are some good moments throughout. I loved the part with the meteor. Just, sure, why not.

Otherwise, ouch. Agree with the last couple posters that Hardy is better than Leo. Also, to go back to baby doll's post, Innaritu quotes from his contemporaries a lot as well. The opening setpiece feels like it was ripped straight out of Cauron's playbook, and he lifts from Malick's The New World almost explicitly on a couple occasions. I don't have a problem with any of that per se, but that it's all in service of such a dull revenge story makes it feel like prestige pic posturing. I found the movie increasingly boring and difficult to sit through, and that idiotic closing shot left me howling.

I'm not really convinced of the merits of its aesthetic goals, either. Like, I'm reading about the film now and the difficult shoot and all the stuff Leo did, and I can't see why it matters. For example, Inarritu said he and Lubezki decided to only shoot in natural light, for "maximum realism" and all that, but then he fills a bunch of those images with bad visual effects and CGI animals. That bear attack was like... gosh. I really didn't know what I was watching sometimes.

[transmogrifier]

I don't even think the cinematography was all that great - the extreme close-ups become wearying and artificial after a while.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I don't even think the cinematography was all that great - the extreme close-ups become wearying and artificial after a while.

I would agree with that - so many sweaty faces in wide-angle lens.

[number8]

This sucked.

[Sven]

Bear sequence reminded me of the fistfight in They Live.

[Skitch]

I would agree with that - so many sweaty faces in wide-angle lens.

Oh and the breathing fogging up the camera! WHY? Yeah, the more I think about it, the more negative I become on the whole film.

[number8]

Inarritu is winning accolades using his amigo Cuaron's schtick, since the whole gritty intersecting stories thing didn't pan out.

[Dukefrukem]

Inarritu is winning accolades using his amigo Cuaron's schtick,

I agree with this. But I thought it came out equally awesome.

[number8]

Cuaron assembles his long takes out of well composed and emotionally appropriate visuals, rather than a series of nostrils.

I guess they both like their equally hacky symbolisms, though.

[baby doll]

Like, I'm reading about the film now and the difficult shoot and all the stuff Leo did, and I can't see why it matters. For example, Inarritu said he and Lubezki decided to only shoot in natural light, for "maximum realism" and all that, but then he fills a bunch of those images with bad visual effects and CGI animals. That bear attack was like... gosh. I really didn't know what I was watching sometimes.One gets the sense with Iñárritu that he thinks doing something because it's hard is a justification unto itself. I can't imagine there's anybody on the planet who can tell, or cares, if this film was shot with natural or artificial light; the only thing that matters is what winds up on the screen. It doesn't speak well for any movie if the only thing people are talking about is how hard it was to get a particular shot, rather the shot itself.

[number8]

I don't know if shooting only natural light is super impressive when your movie is 99% outdoors and mostly daytime.

Adriano Goldman shot Jane Eyre with only candles. That I was impressed by.

[baby doll]

I don't know if shooting only natural light is super impressive when your movie is 99% outdoors and mostly daytime.

Adriano Goldman shot Jane Eyre with only candles. That I was impressed by.It's a risk, in any case, as the filmmakers can't control the light. But whether it's hard to do or not simply doesn't matter. The only thing that counts is the result.

[number8]

That's kind of what I meant. Most outdoor daytime shoots are already using natural light, that's why the result isn't dramatically apparent here, whereas the experiment in difficulty in Jane Eyre actually did result in a distinct look.

[number8]

Just in case it has not been made clear, I think this movie looks flat and drab and bland to look at. Especially after The Hateful Eight.

[Spinal]

Inarritu is winning accolades using his amigo Cuaron's schtick, since the whole gritty intersecting stories thing didn't pan out.

Babel was nominated for 6 Oscars.

[number8]

Babel was nominated for 6 Oscars.

This is my Fitzgerald.

[Spinal]

This is my Fitzgerald.

Ha! :)

[Skitch]

It really didnt help that my first watch of The Skin I Live In was just before The Revenant. Gorgeous lighting, eye-popping colors...

[D_Davis]

I don't know anything about this movie, but in reading the reactions I am imagining a cross between Valhalla Rising and Apocalypto. Is that off base?

[Dead & Messed Up]

I haven't seen Valhalla Rising, but I did think of Apocalypto during this film, and how Apocalypto handled a similar premise with greater concision, focus, energy, and wit.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Oh and the breathing fogging up the camera! WHY? Yeah, the more I think about it, the more negative I become on the whole film.

Some folks on RT brought up the idea of pronounced breathing as a motif, with DiCaprio's wheezing, breath fogging the lens, and DiCaprio urging his son to "just keep breathing" at one point. Thin soup thematically speaking, but I can buy it as something beyond a single indulgence.

[number8]

I was thinking of Fitzcarraldo, and (no joke) Ace Ventura 2.

[D_Davis]

I was thinking of Fitzcarraldo, and (no joke) Ace Ventura 2.

Haha. Alrighty then....

[D_Davis]

I haven't seen Valhalla Rising, but I did think of Apocalypto during this film, and how Apocalypto handled a similar premise with greater concision, focus, energy, and wit.

I've been wanting to watch Apocalypto again.

[Skitch]

Some folks on RT brought up the idea of pronounced breathing as a motif, with DiCaprio's wheezing, breath fogging the lens, and DiCaprio urging his son to "just keep breathing" at one point. Thin soup thematically speaking, but I can buy it as something beyond a single indulgence.

It instantly reminded me that there was a camera in Leo's face and I was watching a movie.

[baby doll]

There's a shot in Aguirre: The Wrath of God where some drops of water get on the lens, but Herzog left it in because he didn't have the money to go back and reshoot it. Iñárittu having DiCapprio deliberately fog the lens for the sake of "realism" is just stupid.

[Spinal]

Hey, remember that time we argued about the blood splatter on the lens in Children of Men for days and days? I'm still on the same side. As much as I admire Lubezki, I'm not a fan of this tendency.

[Melville]

Hey, remember that time we argued about the blood splatter on the lens in Children of Men for days and days?
The glory days of match cut. That and the viking thing.

[D_Davis]

I'm a viking at remembering old topics of discussion.

[Sven]

This movie made me wanna watch the similar and infinitely greater film Ravenous.

[D_Davis]

Ravenous is better than like 90% of all other movies.

[Skitch]

Ravenous is better than like 90% of all other movies.

"You must spread some love around before polishing D_Davis' knob again."

[D_Davis]

LOLLOLLOLO! :)

[Dukefrukem]

Just in case it has not been made clear, I think this movie looks flat and drab and bland to look at. Especially after The Hateful Eight.

Yeh all those spotlights in the cabin made it look really authentic.

[number8]

What does authentic mean?

[transmogrifier]

It's just all over the place. If you want "just keep breathing" to be the main theme, don't tie it to a simplistic revenge plot. If you want to highlight the human struggle against the implacable backdrop of nature, don't do the sweaty close-ups that make it looks as if you are peering through a keyhole all the time. If you want to embrace pure naturalism, don't have the actors breathe on the camera. If you want to embrace realism and highlight the hard slog of a life facing the people out there, don't film an action sequence where the camera floats from actor to actor as they get killed and draw attention to your ever so clever cinematography. If you want a character study of a beast of a man with an iron will to live, don't cast Leonardo DiCaprio..

And so on.

[Dukefrukem]

What does authentic mean?

In my context, like a Broadway play.

[number8]

I love Broadway!

[Skitch]

I wish I could photoshop an audience watching The Revenant play and auditorium is full of fog. :D

[Dukefrukem]

I love Broadway!

Lol touche.

[Pop Trash]

I was thinking of Fitzcarraldo, and (no joke) Ace Ventura 2.

hahaha awesome!...I'm with Stay Puft and trans about this one in the sense that it feels like it is trying to be Malick/Tarkovsky/Herzog and winds-up being closer to Mel Gibson or Gladiator with some art movie flourishes. It certainly looks good and has some memorable setpieces and imagery, but I dunno, there's really not a lot to it and some of the points about Native American subjugation feels rather muddled.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm not sure this movie is powerful, but if images in and of themselves can be powerful, then this immersed me greatly its entire running time. Di Caprio gives a very committed performance, but it is a very physical one, the trials of Leonardo Di Caprio, actor. By that rationale, shouldn't Jackie Chan have won several best actor Oscars then? I exagerate, of course I do, but I'm not sure it's Leo's best so far. Still, to close with an entirely lame and cliché appraisal, this movie, in a way few others have managed in recent years, made me feel like I was there. Exiting the theater afterward sorta felt like entering into another, alien world then.

[transmogrifier]

My favorite DiCaprio performance is still The Departed. He mines a tangible feeling of loneliness in that. Gilbert Grape would be next in line.

[Watashi]

Catch Me if You Can for me.

[baby doll]

I like the DiCapprio movies where he lets himself be charming and funny (The Wolf of Wall Street being both his best performance and his best movie overall), instead of trying so hard to convince us he's a Serious Method Actor (all those movies where he's traumatized by his wife's death, including The Revenant).

[Skitch]

Catch Me if You Can for me.

Love that movie so much. Pitch perfect.

[Ezee E]

Catch Me If You Can and The Departed.

Although basically everything from Aviator-on is pretty damn good for him. I didn't see J Edgar.

[baby doll]

I didn't see J Edgar.The first hour is solid, but it the energy rapidly diminishes after that.

[Dukefrukem]

My favorite DiCaprio performance is still The Departed. He mines a tangible feeling of loneliness in that. Gilbert Grape would be next in line.

This.

[number8]

Romeo + Juliet.

[Spinal]

Apart from Gilbert Grape, I don't know that I see much difference between his performances, to be honest. So I guess that one's my favorite.

[Sven]

I have not seen a lot of Leo's contemporary performances, but his gung-ho zeal in The Aviator was addictive. Very, very compelling gusto in that one.

His performance in The Revenant suffers from the screenplay's lack of purpose and character. Kind of amazed at Hardy's amazingness, but Leo's "just get through this" motivation tires quickly.

[MadMan]

Leo dies at least four times in this movie. The bear attack is something out of a bloody horror film. Tom Hardy steals the movie. Also this is brutal, unflinching and nasty. While I thought it was great I have no desire to experience this film again anytime soon. I've had enough.

[MadMan]

Also I'll admit the last act is a mess. Plus the film is historically inaccurate at times, embellished for dramatic effect.

My favorite Leo performance is Gangs of New York. The accent sucked but he was raw and intense.

[baby doll]

Plus the film is historically inaccurate at times, embellished for dramatic effect.You're going to hate Amadeus.

[DavidSeven]

Post-Titanic, I don't really think Leo grew into the parts he was playing until maybe around Inception. Good actor for sure, but his boyishness hurt his believability for a stretch. The exception being Catch Me If You Can, where that trait was an asset.

[baby doll]

Post-Titanic, I don't really think Leo grew into the parts he was playing until maybe around Inception. Good actor for sure, but his boyishness hurt his believability for a stretch. The exception being Catch Me If You Can, where that trait was an asset.Yeah, I still don't buy him a "serious" leading man, hence my preference for Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, and The Wolf of Wall Street over the traumatized widower trilogy (Shutter Island, Inception, and The Revenant) where he simply lacked the gravitas to pull it off. Like Michael Jackson trying to unblack himself, there's something a little sad about DiCapprio trying to impose himself as a macho leading man; he should just accept who he is (i.e., the boy heartthrob from Titanic) instead of trying to be someone else.

[MadMan]

You're going to hate Amadeus.

I love Amadeus. I may excuse historical inaccuracy in film but I still note it happens.

[Kirby Avondale]

There's a shot in Aguirre: The Wrath of God where some drops of water get on the lens, but Herzog left it in because he didn't have the money to go back and reshoot it. Iñárittu having DiCapprio deliberately fog the lens for the sake of "realism" is just stupid.
Not really concerned about the 'ism of it all, but I liked that part. It was an immersive, intimate moment that kinda trumped a lot of the flashy long-takes and the (sometimes funny) melodramatic miserabilism. Oboy, 'nother 'ism.

[Milky Joe]

This was fucking awesome. Get over yourselves.

How was DiCaprio fogging the camera in any feasible way "for the sake of realism"? Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of realism?

[number8]

My candidate.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaLz_jBUUAETQb8.jpg

[baby doll]

How was DiCaprio fogging the camera in any feasible way "for the sake of realism"? Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of realism?Hence the quotation marks around "realism." Like deliberate lens flares and handheld camerawork, the fogged camera is supposed to make the movie feel like a documentary, as if the filmmakers were trying to capture a spontaneously unfolding event and couldn't go back and reshoot it.

[Milky Joe]

But that was more than just a little blood splattered on the lens or whatever. It was minutely planned that way. He almost completely fogged up the lens with his breath (cuz, you know, 'breath' is a key motif in the film), which was then mirrored in the following shot of the clouds. In terms of 'ism's it was impressionist, not realist. And totally beautiful. IMO. Had nothing to do with making the movie "feel like a documentary."

[transmogrifier]

This was fucking awesome. Get over yourselves.

How was DiCaprio fogging the camera in any feasible way "for the sake of realism"? Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of realism?

I dislike it the more I think about it. And having someone breathe on a camera lens because one main theme is to "keep breathing" (though of course, the entire film is predicated on an act of revenge, so that theme doesn't make much sense, but anyhow....) is trite beyond belief.

[Skitch]

I love 8 and trans so much in this thread. Agree, agree, agree.

[TGM]

Don't worry, Joe, I got your back on this one!

[Kirby Avondale]

I dislike it the more I think about it. And having someone breathe on a camera lens because one main theme is to "keep breathing" (though of course, the entire film is predicated on an act of revenge, so that theme doesn't make much sense, but anyhow....) is trite beyond belief.
Survival's a more fundamental theme than revenge, obviously, and the breath bits hinge on that. Not sure what you've been thinking about it then. Not sure why we should have to think all that much either. The film's tying the abstract stuff to something visceral. You can come at this one way and show a dude get brutally mauled by fake bear. And you can come at it another angle and take ten seconds to experience the delicate fucking nothing our existence hangs on.

[transmogrifier]

Survival's a more fundamental theme than revenge, obviously, and the breath bits hinge on that. Not sure what you've been thinking about it then. Not sure why we should have to think all that much either. The film's tying the abstract stuff to something visceral. You can come at this one way and show a dude get brutally mauled by fake bear. And you can come at it another angle and take ten seconds to experience the delicate fucking nothing our existence hangs on.

But it's survival for the sake of revenge, which renders the whole "survival" theme moot because there is a clear, direct, obvious goal to pursue, rather than just staying alive. And I would argue that "experiencing the delicate nothing our existence hangs on" and a film that shows the main character can pretty much survive anything are not compatible.

The film is an utter mess, from top to bottom. It's all surface braggadocio- we went out into the wilderness! We made those actors suffer! - with a bunch of "themes" jerryrigged in for the illusion of depth that the film does not earn.

EDIT: And, it's pretty hokey at its core. It has the cliche of the protagonist being nice to someone and then being spared later by that person's hitherto scary group/family, and yet again a "surprise" attack starts on the very person standing in front of the camera at the time so the audience can be jolted by a sudden arrow out of nowhere etc.

[baby doll]

Survival's a more fundamental theme than revenge, obviously, and the breath bits hinge on that. Not sure what you've been thinking about it then. Not sure why we should have to think all that much either. The film's tying the abstract stuff to something visceral. You can come at this one way and show a dude get brutally mauled by fake bear. And you can come at it another angle and take ten seconds to experience the delicate fucking nothing our existence hangs on.That's a damn fine avatar you got there.

[Kirby Avondale]

But it's survival for the sake of revenge, which renders the whole "survival" theme moot because there is a clear, direct, obvious goal to pursue, rather than just staying alive. And I would argue that "experiencing the delicate nothing our existence hangs on" and a film that shows the main character can pretty much survive anything are not compatible.

The film is an utter mess, from top to bottom. It's all surface braggadocio- we went out into the wilderness! We made those actors suffer! - with a bunch of "themes" jerryrigged in for the illusion of depth that the film does not earn.
I don't get this at all. Like, there has to be a one-track, monomaniacal goal for this to be a theme. Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? Balls?! Regardless of other shit, survival and bare subsistence is a very clear thing in this movie, from all the breath stuff to the fat squirrel monologue to all that surviving. The fact that he survives all manner of catastrophes is pretty well beside the point. The scene at issue is a bare-bones display of the delicacy of life at the margins. Profundity isn't the appeal here, the experience is. You can drag in all the other movie, but I'm not too concerned with that. I'll be off riding a mother bear into the sun set, breathing heavily.



EDIT: And, it's pretty hokey at its core. It has the cliche of the protagonist being nice to someone and then being spared later by that person's hitherto scary group/family, and yet again a "surprise" attack starts on the very person standing in front of the camera at the time so the audience can be jolted by a sudden arrow out of nowhere etc.
I didn't see much any point for the Indian subplot. But then again, I wasn't really talking about that or defending the film as a flawless masterwork.

[Kirby Avondale]

That's a damn fine avatar you got there.
I found it myself. Yours too. Let's get a room, doll.

[Milky Joe]

I didn't see much any point for the Indian subplot. But then again, I wasn't really talking about that or defending the film as a flawless masterwork.

I feel like if the subplot hadn't been there it would have prompted criticisms that the film treated the native americans as non-entities like Hollywood films usually do. I thought the dichotomy between the whites and the natives was handled really well.

I'd give you more rep if the board would let me. trans is off his rocker, just not making any sense at all.

[transmogrifier]

Search your feelings Milky, you know it to be true....

[Dukefrukem]

Post-Titanic, I don't really think Leo grew into the parts he was playing until maybe around Inception. Good actor for sure, but his boyishness hurt his believability for a stretch. The exception being Catch Me If You Can, where that trait was an asset.

He's really good in Man in the Iron Mask and Gangs of New York.

[DavidSeven]

He's really good in Man in the Iron Mask and Gangs of New York.

Good movie, but hard for me to buy him as a hulked-out 19th century thug, especially in contrast to DDL's large looming turn as Bill the Butcher.

[Melville]

I liked this quite a bit. Despite its best attempts with Leo's flashbacks and visions, it lacks the profundity of a survival story like The Grey, but it has a compelling, raw simplicity, and it's a striking historical portrait of trappers as men living at the edge of existence. I entirely disagree with the criticisms of the cinematography, which I think brought something new to the survival genre by virtue of its sheer physical immediacy; the fogged lens worked well as part of that emphasis on physicality.

[Grouchy]

I voted Yay but I kind of regret it already. Herzog/Tarkovsky/Malick pretty much defines it for me. There are very literal quotations of those three filmmakers scattered throughout the bloated running time for this. Now, I didn't hate it, and I admit to gleefully enjoying the more bloody and violent bits (Saving Private Ryan with Indians, the bear attack and the closing knife fight) but Iñárritu is just too pretentious a filmmaker... He kills his own good moments IMHO by overstuffing his films and employing out-of-place directorial quirks. I didn't see any point to the Indian subplot either except maybe conforming to a PC policy of not having them in a film only as Stormtroopers.

Still, I'll take this Iñárritu over Babel's any day.

[Morris Schæffer]

I've been trying to get into writing some reviews again, but I find it a pretty tough nut to crack putting thoughts down on the page. In general, I settle on a few basic ideas running through my head and go with that, oftentimes just sidelining into vaguely related topics, but mostly refraining from getting too specific as I often find that even spoiler-free reviews cover so much ground that pictures and a vague sort of coherence begins to form in my mind when I read them. Hopefully the writing's better than Harry Knowles. Anyhow, check it out if you like:

http://morefbiguys.blogspot.be/2016/02/a-frontiersman-on-fur-trading.html?view=magazine

:)

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_v2O8OYvCo

[Dukefrukem]

Lol!

"Pelts!"

[Irish]

I've been trying to get into writing some reviews again, but I find it a pretty tough nut to crack putting thoughts down on the page. In general, I settle on a few basic ideas running through my head and go with that, oftentimes just sidelining into vaguely related topics, but mostly refraining from getting too specific as I often find that even spoiler-free reviews cover so much ground that pictures and a vague sort of coherence begins to form in my mind when I read them. Hopefully the writing's better than Harry Knowles. Anyhow, check it out if you like:

http://morefbiguys.blogspot.be/2016/02/a-frontiersman-on-fur-trading.html?view=magazine

:)

I have to admit I lunged past your Revenant review and went straight for Deadpool. ;)

[Morris Schæffer]

I have to admit I lunged past your Revenant review and went straight for Deadpool. ;)

That's cool! :)

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1-zkIrpu8M&feature=youtu.be&a

[Dead & Messed Up]

I regret voting "yay" on this movie.

[Skitch]

I regret voting "yay" on this movie.

:) Theres a great movie in there. Its about 40 minutes shorter.

[Dead & Messed Up]

:) Theres a great movie in there. Its about 40 minutes shorter.

And better made.

[Skitch]

And better made.

:D hahaha

[StanleyK]

I'm not at all a fan of Iñárritu but I thought this was great. It's actually his first movie that didn't feel pretentious. I don't see it as aping Malick or Tarkovsky- inspired by them, sure, but it's distinct enough that I was never thinking about them while watching it (at any rate it's far better than Malick's recent output), and Leo's performance, while certainly not extraordinary, was perfectly convincing for me (it's true that Hardy's was the superior performance). Any complaints about the cinematography are insane to me; Lubezki is in top form and this movie is probably the best-looking one I've seen from the past five years. My one complaint is at the end when only two men go out after Fitzgerald. It's a pretty stupid idea and it's very obvious what's gonna happen next, although I guess it's necessary for the ending duel. But that's just a nitpick; even at two and a half hours I was thoroughly entertained the whole way through.