http://dl9fvu4r30qs1.cloudfront.net/...venant-leo.jpg
Trailer:
[]
IMDb / wiki / RT
Official website
Printable View
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!
[]
This makes me so happy:
Oh yeah, I'll be watching this one a lot in the future.
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.
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.
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.
Haven't seen this film yet, but I already kinda want Fury Road to take away all of its Oscars.
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.
Tom Hardy owns this movie. I don't know what you guys are talking about.
Well, Hardy and Lubezki.
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.
This is DiCaprio's year.
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.
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.
Yeah, Hardy definitely outperformed Leo.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezee E
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier
This sucked.
Bear sequence reminded me of the fistfight in They Live.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead & Messed Up
Inarritu is winning accolades using his amigo Cuaron's schtick, since the whole gritty intersecting stories thing didn't pan out.
I agree with this. But I thought it came out equally awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by number8