Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by baby doll
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?
My candidate.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaLz_jBUUAETQb8.jpg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Joe
I love 8 and trans so much in this thread. Agree, agree, agree.
Don't worry, Joe, I got your back on this one!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirby Avondale
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.
That's a damn fine avatar you got there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirby Avondale
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier
I found it myself. Yours too. Let's get a room, doll.Quote:
Originally Posted by baby doll
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirby Avondale
I'd give you more rep if the board would let me. trans is off his rocker, just not making any sense at all.
Search your feelings Milky, you know it to be true....
He's really good in Man in the Iron Mask and Gangs of New York.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSeven
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukefrukem
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.
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.
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/...?view=magazine
:)
Lol!
"Pelts!"
I have to admit I lunged past your Revenant review and went straight for Deadpool. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Schæffer
That's cool! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish