The frontiersman, Hugh Glass, who in the 1820s set out on a path of vengeance against those who left him for dead after a bear mauling.
Directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu
Written by Alejandro González Iñárritu and Mark L. Smith (based on the Michael Punke Novel)
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy and Domnhall Gleeson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRfj1VCg16Y
Lots of set stories about Iñárritu from this one.
Also read about earlier incarnations of this project in another thread; John Hillcoat with Christian Bale, Park Chan-wook with Samuel L. Jackson.
That trailer may be the most visually stunning thing I've ever seen. Legitimately awe-inspiring in the way that James Cameron thinks Avatar was.
Yeah, this looks amazing. What kind of lens trickery is happening here? It it just a closeup IMAX effect? There's a slight fisheye or something.
(I can't abide the Avatar hate, though.)
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on July 17, 2015, 09:18:07 PM
Yeah, this looks amazing. What kind of lens trickery is happening here? It it just a closeup IMAX effect? There's a slight fisheye or something.
(I can't abide the Avatar hate, though.)
It looks like it's just a short lens. I've noticed that in the Malick movies that Lubezski shot, and also in his still photography (https://instagram.com/chivexp), he favors using one short lens (seems like maybe around 20mm) to shoot everything. They are traditionally used for landscape, and aren't quite fish-eye, but have a bit of that effect when filming something up close. What it means is that if you want a close up, you have to get the camera physically close to the subject. Most movies use longer lenses for close ups. This movie (as with the recent Malick movies) uses all natural light. So basically the approach is to shoot the way still photographers shoot, working with the natural light and seeking images by putting the camera in the right place to capture an image that works as an image. Cinematographers are generally trained to turn off that constantly-hunting eye that still photographers rely on, in exchange for controlled setups and more typical shots that can be safely edited together and "feel like a movie."
This was also shot on the new Alexa 65, which is supposed to be like shooting on 65mm film (like THE MASTER). It means the sensor is actually much larger, and demands medium format lenses, which is also more typical of still landscape photography. They are also stopping down a lot, which means that everything is sharp/in focus, as opposed to the usual out-of-focus background. It makes for a striking look. But it's definitely coming from the work he's done with Malick and pushed to a new level with the Alberta landscape and larger action, and also clearly more planned out shots than the shooting-from-the-hip that Malick favors.
yea it feels really close to malick's style, but obviously with a much more traditional narrative and characterizations. i'm excited!
that instagram account is so cheesy.
i find it odd that as a filmmaker he's basically a genius but his still photographs are very dumb.
discuss.
Quote from: matt35mm on July 17, 2015, 10:19:27 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on July 17, 2015, 09:18:07 PM
Yeah, this looks amazing. What kind of lens trickery is happening here? It it just a closeup IMAX effect? There's a slight fisheye or something.
(I can't abide the Avatar hate, though.)
It looks like it's just a short lens. I've noticed that in the Malick movies that Lubezski shot, and also in his still photography (https://instagram.com/chivexp), he favors using one short lens (seems like maybe around 20mm) to shoot everything. They are traditionally used for landscape, and aren't quite fish-eye, but have a bit of that effect when filming something up close. What it means is that if you want a close up, you have to get the camera physically close to the subject. Most movies use longer lenses for close ups. This movie (as with the recent Malick movies) uses all natural light. So basically the approach is to shoot the way still photographers shoot, working with the natural light and seeking images by putting the camera in the right place to capture an image that works as an image. Cinematographers are generally trained to turn off that constantly-hunting eye that still photographers rely on, in exchange for controlled setups and more typical shots that can be safely edited together and "feel like a movie."
This was also shot on the new Alexa 65, which is supposed to be like shooting on 65mm film (like THE MASTER). It means the sensor is actually much larger, and demands medium format lenses, which is also more typical of still landscape photography. They are also stopping down a lot, which means that everything is sharp/in focus, as opposed to the usual out-of-focus background. It makes for a striking look. But it's definitely coming from the work he's done with Malick and pushed to a new level with the Alberta landscape and larger action, and also clearly more planned out shots than the shooting-from-the-hip that Malick favors.
You just saved me a Google search and other things. Thanks.
this is a good article:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-leonardo-dicaprios-revenant-shoot-810290
Official Trailer Released
:yabbse-thumbup: :yabbse-grin: :yabbse-thumbup:
if this doesn't win Best Cinematography well i can't wait to see the movie that wins Best Cinematography.
where we're at on that is the dp, Emmanuel Lubezki, did indeed win last year, for Birdman, and the year before that, for Gravity, and he was first nominated for A Little Princess in 1995, he's been nominated seven times, talking Oscars here, and in my opinion and in the opinion of cinematic culture since its creation another important and vital contribution from him was for Tree of Life, for which he was nominated but did not win, and if that sounds absurd well who won was Robert Richardson for Hugo, which i think is a gorgeous movie so ok, Robert Richardson this year having shot Hateful Eight on his own fancy camera.
Lubezki could win Best Cinematography three years in a row, since he's going to at least be nominated or no one's ever again going to be able to take the Oscars any bit seriously. this being a visual art and Leo being the star, there is too the possibility of Iñárritu winning best picture two years in a row, although i wouldn't guess this will win best picture, based on me guessing, it's still inarguable that his career has become the brilliant and impressive career prophesied by his debut Amores Perros. represent.
the side note here is the co-writer also wrote Vacancy, which to me is a wonderful and delightful connection, similar to Abrams having written Forever Young and Joy Ride before he became Abrams.
I keep coming back to the trailers because Lubezki a god. I remember when I first saw the trailers, I was blown away but there was a (somewhat intangible) quality to the cinematography I wasn't used to. It kinda made sense when I hooked it up to the TV and watched them again where the visuals were much more affecting.
It is very, very striking. Obviously the (digital 65mm) format contributes to it, it has a strangely natural and 'present/lifelike' look to it. A lot of period films have a sort of 'period look', an aged look which evokes the era in which the film was set in. But this ignores that, its crystal clarity and sense of motion gives it a look which I don't think I've truly come across in cinema before but it also reminds me of images I've seen in National Geographic. I guess Malick kinda pioneered this stuff in The New World with Lubezki (but his modern style is evident in TTRL) but I think The Revenant really is something else. Can't wait to see it on the big screen.
Anyway, that's the best I can do to express what I'm seeing. Matt nailed it a lot of it already.
Any other films that have done something similar/shared this look?
The Revenant es no bueno.
the bear attack is pretty amazing and tom hardy hams it up in the best possible way. there isn't much to like outside of that. lubezki's work is characteristically gorgeous (superficially, anyway), but innaritu's sensibility robs it of any real power. it's all the imagery of malick without any of the poetry. double featuring this movie with The New World would make it feel like more of a waste of time than it already is. self-aggrandized verisimilitude and silly attempts at lyricism nullify each other so as to render the whole thing an incredible bore. absolutely hated the score--blunt, on-the-nose, intrusive. and why does domhnall (what a dumb fucking name) gleeson keep getting work?
hugh glass's actual story is far more fascinating and pregnant with possible meaning and greater potential for mythologizing than what the film offers up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass
loved the nod to ace ventura 2.
Quote from: samsong on December 27, 2015, 06:07:17 AM
domhnall (what a dumb fucking name)
It's Gaelic... :yabbse-rolleyes: ...just another form of 'Donald'...
It's not a faddy, new age, made up name like 'Chardonnay' or 'Ferrari' or 'Branch' or something, just a common name in a language you're apparently totally ignorant of. Probably up to 50% of Irish people have names like that.
It's like someone ignorant of Spanish saying a name like Javier or Pablo is 'fucking dumb'.
Okay that was the weirdest fight I've seen on here in a while. I moved 4 posts. Let's be nice!
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/12/28/i-dont-care-how-hard-it-was-to-make-the-revenant
I Don't Care How Hard It Was To Make THE REVENANT
Movies should be more than prestige episodes of JACKASS.
By Devin Faraci Dec. 28, 2015
If you follow entertainment news at all you know one thing for sure about The Revenant: it was very hard to make. It was apparently a major torture session and Leonardo DiCaprio ate a bison liver for real. It was also super duper cold out there. Talking to Yahoo, Leonardo DiCaprio said:
"I can name 30 or 40 sequences that were some of the most difficult things I've ever had to do. Whether it's going in and out of frozen rivers, or sleeping in animal carcasses, or what I ate on set. [I was] enduring freezing cold and possible hypothermia constantly."
He says that shooting the bear attack scene was 'agonizing.' One crewmember told the Hollywood Reporter that shooting the movie was 'a living hell.' Every day I look at the internet and I see similar stories about how much Leo suffered for this role, about how hard it was to make the film, about the difficult locations and bitter cold and the maniacal vision of director Alejandro González Iñárritu that took the movie over budget and over schedule. And every day I look at these articles and tweets and I think to myself, 'Who gives a shit?'
Honestly, who gives a shit? This is all very interesting from a trivia point of view, and I would love to see a documentary about the making of this movie (apparently Iñárritu's desire to shoot with purely natural light meant that some days they could only shoot for 90 minutes, which is a totally fucking insane way to make a movie) but the constant harping on how hard it was to make The Revenant has really overshadowed the movie that is The Revenant. Is there even a movie here, or is the film just the byproduct of a particularly masochistic film crew spending some time in the woods?
Movies have always been hard to make. Directors have always gone out to weird places to shoot and have gone over budget and been crazily extreme in their attempts to get their vision on film. Cecil B DeMille built a whole city in the desert to shoot The Ten Commandments way back in 1923, and conditions there were not great. Over the years many filmmakers have gone out to difficult and desolate places to make their films, and while these tales of hardship are fascinating they don't overshadow the movies themselves. Fitzcarraldo and Apocalypse Now were insane, dangerous movies to make ("My movie isn't about Vietnam," Francis Ford Coppola said. "It is Vietnam.") but the films themselves stand apart from the bonkers behind-the-scenes tales. Yes, I love watching The Burden of Dreams and Hearts of Darkness, but they're complementary to the films, not the main reason for the films.
Hollywood has always wanted you to know that they've gone to a great effort to make the latest blockbuster. These days we tend to hear about huge FX budgets and difficult schedules pinned to release dates, but way back when it was all about casts of thousands and dangerous stunts. Tom Cruise still dines out on that one, making a really big deal about how he's actually hanging from a plane or the Burj Khalifa or Wiz Khalifa or whatever they come up with for Mission: Impossible 6. "We worked really hard to put on this show," is what we're being told whenever PR trots this stuff out. And that's certainly part of why we're hearing over and over and over again that The Revenant was tough to make. But there are other reasons.
The emphasis on how hard The Revenant was to make is partially about a departure from the digital. It's the same reason The Hateful Eight's 70mm run is such a discussion point - it's about tactile reality returning to our movie screens. The promise of The Revenant is that the crew went there and did those things, and that Leo is having those experiences. It's intended as a shortcut to truth - "He actually was in the freezing water so you're truly seeing what a guy who grew up in the bubble of Hollywood looks like when he gets very, very cold!" - and it's intended as a counter to all of the CGI fakery that infects our theaters this days... although the whole movie is color graded and post-production fiddled with to within an inch of its life, so any idea that this movie is somehow more analog than Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a farce. And as anyone who has ever watched a profound movie shot on a soundstage, really doing the things doesn't make their depiction any more truthful. I will always support films that shoot real things, but let's not get that confused with emotional honesty, which is the true mission of all cinema.
The difficulty narrative is also part of Leonardo DiCaprio's Oscar campaign. Going the martyr route is a good choice when it comes to end-of-the-year awards, as actors who gain or lose weight or ugly themselves up or walk in a limp get taken way more seriously than actors who come in, do great and emotionally truthful work and then go home for the night. But I'm not interested in Leo's Oscar chances. I don't care about them. I care about the movie The Revenant, and what it's about, and how, if at all, the arduous process of making this movie informed the film, how it in any way impacts me as an audience member.
The reality is that it doesn't. If anything it kind of sinks the movie for me; when you watch Apocalypse Now the absolute swirling madness of that production is there onscreen, in the performances, in the atmosphere. But it's a movie about madness, so it all works. When you watch The Revenant you're very aware that you're watching a stunt show, that you're watching a high-profile, highly-paid actor putting himself through some dares. When DiCaprio eats a raw bison liver he vomits, which the actor says was his true reaction to biting into the actual steaming organ. But here's the thing: would that have been mountain man Hugh Glass' reaction? Watching The Revenant is like watching Leonardo DiCaprio's Very Bad Vacation, not like watching the survival saga of a man born to the wild. There is certainly physical reality onscreen but I'm not sure there's emotional truth. Weirdly enough Tom Cruise's high profile M:I stunts feel like they have more truth to them if only because the character of Ethan Hunt is just Tom Cruise with a nom du spy, as far as we can tell. It's bizarre, but Cruise hanging off a plane in Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation has more honesty and meaning to it than every single discomfort suffered by DiCaprio in The Revenant.
I keep thinking about our great dueling Jesus pictures, The Last Temptation of Christ and The Passion of The Christ. Both look to the suffering of Jesus for meaning, but the two films approach that suffering from totally different ways. For Scorsese the suffering of Christ wasn't being nailed to the cross (although that did suck for him), it was being shown the life he could have if he just gave up the mantle of Messiah. The suffering of Willem DaFoe's Christ is an emotional one, and it's a suffering that makes Christ all the more human, as we can truly relate to the idea of giving up our dreams for something bigger or more important. We've all known what it's like to put duty before happiness. In The Passion of the Christ Jim Caviezel's Christly suffering is almost purely physical; while I can get that on a gut level (just as I can recoil at all slasher and splatter pictures) I can't truly relate to being relentlessly flogged. Emotional torture I get. Physical torture is distant.
The Revenant is The Passion of the Christ of wilderness survival movies. Yeah, it all looks cold and tough and man Leo really puked but I want the emotional truth. And there is emotional truth on display in The Revenant, it just isn't in Leo's performance. It's in the performance of Will Poulter, playing a kid who is forced to do the wrong thing and who suffers the tortures not of cold and discomfort but of guilt. There's more emotional agony in any of Poulter's scenes that in anything DiCaprio does while dunked, beaten or vomiting. It's too bad that Poulter is being ignored while everybody is spending so much time talking about how Leonardo DiCaprio couldn't even find a single gluten-free option way out there in the woods.
Wow. That paragraph about Mission Impossible and Tom Cruise is like The Revenant of hyperbole or whatever.
Haven't seen The Revenant, it looks pretty great. But I recently saw "Letter never sent", the russian film from the guy who made I Am Cuba, which has to be one of The Revenant's major influences. Catch it and see for yourselves.
Is there any response to have to this article besides "uh... okay?" Somebody should probably tell the author that this is what twitter is for, not 1000 word articles.
TL;DR: dude didn't like DiCaprio's performance. And while he claims to not care about how hard it was to make, he might care more than anyone else in the world.
Devin really really really didn't like The Revenant and he will use all the hyperbole it takes to elaborate on it, okay? He did the same with Birdman. I think Inarritu took his lunch money.
This article could've been summed up in one paragraph with a different title: "Studios will embrace any marketing hook that wins them Oscars."
Devin Faraci has been a guest on The X-Files Files a lot. He always has interesting things to say, but something about him rubs me the wrong way. He likes to pick fights with Gamergate people, so I guess he can't be all bad. There's definitely an immaturity about him, though.
i liked that piece.
to me, this is more a problem of so few quality mainstream movies being released this year.
i can't believe there's so few movies to talk about with the year basically over.
Quote from: Alexandro on December 29, 2015, 09:19:24 AM
Haven't seen The Revenant, it looks pretty great. But I recently saw "Letter never sent", the russian film from the guy who made I Am Cuba, which has to be one of The Revenant's major influences. Catch it and see for yourselves.
Full upload on youtube. Goddamn, it's a very pretty film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U-_rgB30gs
Mikhail Kalatozov is extremely influential for today's filmmakers. I Am Cuba is recognizable because of the specific tracking shots that have been referenced in other famous films, but Letter Never Sent is a perfect embodiment of I think what The Revenant will try to be - a film naturalistic to the movement of characters in wilderness and how a horror situation overwhelms all the characters and how the filmmaking perfectly adapts to the madness of their psyche. How Kalatozov pulled off some shots in Letter Never Sent, I don't know, because technology aids filmmakers so much more today, but still, the modern imagination was there in his films.
spoilers
the bear nest will go down in history as one of those scenes that you hold onto regardless of the way you feel about the film overall. its horrifying. and the way it is executed baffles me.
the rest of the film was ridiculous.
his injuries were not equal to what happened to him nor the way he was acting.
in real life, hugh glass was basically skinned and ridden with maggots and they had to sew bear skin onto him, which was an amazing ironic thing they left out. leo's back looked like a briar patch accident considering bears basically have machetes for claws. irl hugh glass' guts were hanging out. also, he didn't have a son, the only reason he went to get that guy was because they left him for dead. that was it. he was just pissed. anyway, i appreciate the effort they put into it, they pulled off something truly phenomenal that i just had personal disagreements with.
I have to come back to this message board sometimes just for a sanity check.
I had been avoiding this movie because I knew my opinion would divide my friends and I. I hated Birdman so much and as a result got literally screamed at by friends.
I didn't HATE this movie, but holy fucking shit is it being undeservedly praised. If this had been an hour and a half, I would have said "oh, what a pretty movie, cool bear fight, what else is showing?"
But 2 1/2 hours felt like four.
Also, I really like Devin Faraci. Now that The Dissolve is gone, Devin is my only link to reviews that almost always line up with my taste. I know he sometimes goes for the throat when unnecessary, but when he's not doing that or kind of over-praising Marvel movies, he has insight and passion.
I quite liked the film. Strangely enough, my liking of the film is primarily based on the craft and each scene moment-to-moment. The actual plot and thematic content (while weaved into the film from the start) almost seemed a little perfunctory rather than anything meaningful. Sometimes it felt like the craft/Lubezki's work was the substance- to some degree I didn't mind, because Lubezki did it so damn well and at other times it did feel a bit hollow.
I'm not gonna remember this film as the harrowing story about a man's survival, the loss of his family and his subsequent vengeance- the way it was intended to be seen. I'll remember it as that incredibly pretty, ambitious, visceral and intense film. Because that's what registered with me. And despite its failings, I guess I really did enjoy the experience. Experience films are very important.
Also, while this hit some very sweet spots with the whole violent Western thing, Inarritu doesn't deserve Blood Meridian.
Y'all are the best.
Spoilers.
Quote from: 03 on January 01, 2016, 02:45:17 AM
i appreciate the effort they put into it, they pulled off something truly phenomenal that i just had personal disagreements with.
Yup. And here are my disagreements: less dialogue, better dialogue, less music, better music, no Domhnall (a talented comic actor though), no eyebrows kid (Leo already has a kid, why do we need this other kid? why is this character in the film? do we need this canteen with the swirly on it? why can't Leo just stumble all the way back to the fort? wouldn't this be better? frenchman said it was only 13 miles, I digress), less runtime. Also, the frightening scale, the vastness of nature, kinda undermined by his constantly running into people. Imagine Leo's just alone for most of the post-bear times and we cut all the Tom Hardy and eyebrows heading back to camp stuff. I know I shouldn't judge the movie for what it's not, but you dig?
Magic Mike XXL still my #1 of the year. Got a few to catch up on.
I liked this way more than I expected to. Kinda loved it, actually.
SPOILERS
There's a simplicity about it that I appreciated. I think revenge stories are best done that way.
The interpersonal interaction was limited enough, and the general human conflict was pervasive enough, that the gestures of compassion were quite powerful. The conditions and circumstances are so harsh that you're just aching for people to get along, and when it actually happens in those brief moments, it's so moving. This (and less the revenge itself) was my takeaway.
The bear attack was absolutely mindblowing. Yes, I was surprised that his skin wasn't completely shredded off, but I think they did focus more on the pummeling and the bone-breaking. I would certainly say he seemed to be suffering enough after the attack.
I have trouble understanding complaints about the film's length. Perhaps it's because I was in for a punishing experience, but I could have easily taken another 30 minutes. While The Hateful Eight felt even longer than its actual running time, I wasn't particularly aware of the passage of time watching this. There's so much beauty constantly; how could you not want more?
Trying to think of things that actually bothered me, and I have to be honest, I'm mostly coming up empty.
Some of Tom Hardy's lines were a bit on-the-nose. But that makes sense for his character.
It did puzzle me how crowded the vast wilderness seemed to be. I suppose that can be explained, though; this is a high-traffic trade route, and there are a lot of people looking for other people at the moment.
Side note: I think either Leo's complaints have been blown out of proportion, or he's done some clarification, because this is what he's said recently:
"I think certainly the conditions that we had to shoot in were the main thing, the freezing cold temperatures. But everyone that was a part of this movie – including myself – knew from the very onset that we were getting involved in something that was going to be incredibly challenging." (source (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/oscars-2016-leonardo-dicaprio-reveals-hit-movie-revenant-was-his-most-difficult-role-date-1538411))
SPOILERS
One more thing. Was just exchanging emails with my dad about this. He was mixed on the movie and wasn't able to get excited about the revenge. My response:
The Revenant undercuts the idea of revenge pretty strongly, doesn't it? His Indian friend tells him that revenge is best left to the creator, which he recalls and repeats before he pushes the still-alive Fitzgerald down the river. The movie even allows Fitzgerald to make the point that revenge won't bring his boy back. I think the title of the movie is a clue — the fact that he "returned" is more important than who died and when.
Honestly, if this had been a straightforward revenge movie, I would have been super into it, but it felt like it was trying to be so goddamn more when it was so goddamn nuthin.
Obviously, this is just a matter of what you like because you were entertained the whole time and I wasn't.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 19, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
There's so much beauty constantly; how could you not want more?
It's like a beautiful person approaching you at a party and at first you're like "fuck, they're so beautiful, I can't believe they're talking to me!" and then all they do is talk about how beautiful they are and won't fucking shut up about it and then you just want to find a way out.
I think you're twisting my words a bit there (maybe to be funny, which is fair). I meant how could you not want more quantity of beauty (was talking about the running length).
I think there's a lot more than beauty in this film. And I don't feel it was "trying to be so goddamn more." I don't think it overshot or was underambitious. It seems to me that it aimed for something fairly straightforward and accomplished it thoroughly. It's about compassion, vengeance, and perseverance, and that's about it. I don't recall any particular ambitions or pretensions beyond that.
Your reaction is so foreign to my experience. It didn't trigger an ounce of hostility.
Behind you on dis JB. This film is just a straightforward genre flick, an obscenely well crafted one, its beauty is in its simplicity. Both epic and stripped down. I believe that any western has to be at least 2 1/2 hours long to make an effect, so the length isn't an issue for me. That's part of why westerns appeal to me - they allow you to enter a slowed down pace of life for 3 or so hours. I love it when they just film water trickling for a few seconds or so. It's all part of the texture, and it's all appreciated.
Any shouts of 'pretention' seem like settling scores cause you don't like some of Innaritu or Lubezki's past work and you're settling scores. This one is aiming for the populist viewer. Not much meat to its bones in terms of deep ideas, but i'll leave that to other films. Sometimes I just want a really competently made revenge film. This is it. One of the best even.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 19, 2016, 04:43:18 PM
(maybe to be funny, which is fair)...
Your reaction is so foreign to my experience. It didn't trigger an ounce of hostility.
Yeah, I was mostly exaggerating for humor.
I get liking this movie,I just had the opposite reaction. All the "moments" (catching snowflakes, seeing buffalo, etc...) felt pretty superficial and didn't work for me.
Quote from: Garam on January 19, 2016, 06:52:55 PM
Any shouts of 'pretention' seem like settling scores
Naw. I didn't hate it.
I even thought I was gonna really enjoy it during the first 20 minutes. The following two plus hours felt like the movie begging me to love it. It reminds me of Tom Hooper and his excessive use of close-ups without ever earning them or possibly even knowing what they're for. Both filmmakers continue to be praised and while I don't HATE either one, I feel like I can see the effort and it's a turn-off for me.
I need to stop writing posts drunk, i used the phrase 'settling scores' twice in a short sentence up there fer cryin out loud...
Deadline interview with DiCaprio (http://deadline.com/2016/02/leonardo-dicaprio-the-revenant-film-education-career-alejandro-gonzalez-inarritu-quentin-tarantino-martin-scorsese-1201699843/)
I'm over this movie.
I feel like America will be too, soon.
Gravity-style.
SEVERE SPOILERS'The Revenant' Recut as a Silent Movie trailer:
What a bad movie. Does someone care about the father and son relationship in this movie? About Leo's motivation? It's essential, but it seems like an afterthought in the movie.
Should we laugh at him because what happens to him is absolutely hilarious—the worst and the worst and the worst again because God is obviously punishing— or suffer with him, feel the pain of the journey, even if he seems to be able to endure everything? A meaningless journey. This isn't Gravity. Bullock fought against her fear and her unwillingness to live. Dicaprio is a robot. He shuts up and do the thing. The thing being different things.
They're walking from there to there. We don't really know why at the beginning. Then it goes on and on. It's not just Leo, it's also the others guys because, apparently, we don't have enough and they aren't empty shells. The bad guy is obviously bad since the beginning. He's almost shouting: "I HAVE BAD INTENTIONS AND THAT'S WHY I AM BAD". Whatever: leave him alone with the main character.
And I've rarely been less impressed by what is supposed to be an impressive prestation: DiCaprio does almost nothing, he's just there and, indeed, has saliva. If you've played to a video game ecently you won't be surprised by the immersive filmaking but you'll never get the control. You'll never play. You'll watch someone ramping, yelling, a gorgeous shot of nature, other characters walking somewhere while being cold and nervous, etc...
After two hours you just want him to kill him already.
Please. Kill him.
This movie is a waste of actors, cinematographer and subject.
A waste.
PS: I loved the big wave of CGI when the bear appeared.
QuoteDoes someone care about the father and son relationship in this movie? About Leo's motivation? It's essential, but it seems like an afterthought in the movie.
if you read my review, this was one of my biggest problems. you're 100% about it being a manipulative afterthought.
i'm a huge fan of the real story, so this movie pissed me off a lot, because he never had a son.
his only reason for revenge was that they left him there. but they did because they had to, the original people had zero negative intentions, they just didnt want to die.
the fact they fabricated these parts of the story is kind of like trying to redo any story from history and being like 'well hey lets give him a love interest'. it was a bullshit hollywood shortcut.
Quote from: 03 on February 25, 2016, 05:41:20 PM
QuoteDoes someone care about the father and son relationship in this movie? About Leo's motivation? It's essential, but it seems like an afterthought in the movie.
if you read my review, this was one of my biggest problems. you're 100% about it being a manipulative afterthought.
i'm a huge fan of the real story, so this movie pissed me off a lot, because he never had a son.
his only reason for revenge was that they left him there. but they did because they had to, the original people had zero negative intentions, they just didnt want to die.
the fact they fabricated these parts of the story is kind of like trying to redo any story from history and being like 'well hey lets give him a love interest'. it was a bullshit hollywood shortcut.
It would have been better if his vengeance was tainted that way. Tom Hardy is so insignificantly bad willing from the beginning that I didn't care about that revenge. "Kill him fast, please" was all I was thinking for the last thirty minutes.
I wasn't even impressed by the filmaking. There is a short battle scene in The New World that is way more immersive and poetic than everything in The Revenant. And that movie also show you people who really seem to suffer from the conditions. Dicaprio is deathproof in there...
I'm too harsh, maybe, but it's positive, in a way, it's because they've tried something, I guess.