The Revenant- Page 2

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/17/16 at 4:09pm

It has no socio-political agenda.

 

You're so sweet!

[hork]

Posted: 1/17/16 at 4:19pm

FindingNamo said: "It has no socio-political agenda.

 

 

 

You're so sweet!

 

Thank you, Snarky McCondescend. Have you even seen the movie, or are you just assuming it's a white supremacist tract because, well, because it's what you do?

 

[ArtMan]

Posted: 1/17/16 at 4:58pm

I saw it today and really loved it.  Thought Leo did a great job.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/17/16 at 5:17pm

DiCaprio makes the easiest paycheck of his career -- he crawls and grunts for 160 minutes, and isn't convincing for a single moment of screen time.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/17/16 at 5:35pm

Oh dear sweet hork, you're assuming I typed those words with my fingers and you know what happens when u ass u me fingers. 

Updated On: 1/17/16 at 05:35 PM

[javero]

Posted: 1/17/16 at 6:50pm

"It wasn't even made by a white American."

 

Last time I checked Mexico was indeed part of North America.  Do have any idea which box Alejandro González Iñárritu checks on any forms requiring a certain all-important classification?

[adamgreer]

Posted: 1/17/16 at 11:30pm

Saw it yesterday and found it dreadful. Like being hit over the head with an anvil for nearly 3 hours, not an ounce of subtlety in the entire ordeal. Yes, we get it, life was hard for these people. 

 

It's nowhere near DiCaprio's best work, and while I fully acknowledge he should have at least two Oscars by now, he doesn't deserve it for this film (though the Academy's guilt for overlooking him in the past will probably cause him to win for this one.).

Updated On: 1/18/16 at 11:30 PM

[hork]

Posted: 1/17/16 at 11:55pm

javero said: ""It wasn't even made by a white American."

 

 

 

Last time I checked Mexico was indeed part of North America.

 

And while that may be true, we generally mean "U.S. citizens" when we say "American," and also it's irrelevant. Unless ... wait, what have we determined in this discussion? That AGI is a militantly racist colonialist imperialist using film as a propaganda tool to further his Aryan supremicist aims? Is that where we are? 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 1:11am

All I think it's that it's totes adorbs that you believe that a piece of art exists that isn't political.  Any piece of art.  In the history of art.

 

 

[hork]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 1:33am

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you're saying every act of creating a work of art is a political act, then we can talk about that. If you're saying every work of art is a deliberate expression of the artist's political beliefs, then I'm dying to know what political message Air Bud: Golden Receiver is meant to convey.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 1:40am

Ha ha.  The Revenant was tailor made for you!

 

 

 

[hork]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 1:42am

Which, again, you haven't actually seen. Do you ever have a normal conversation, like a person?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 1:30pm

Smart people whose judgment I trust have told me it's exactly what the preview lays out and exactly what I think it is and so no, I won't be spending my money on another movie by this ridiculous director.

[javero]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 5:04pm

Finally saw it earlier today.  Namo, I encourage you to reconsider.

 

 It's a brilliant throwback to a nearly bygone era in which directors and screenwriters knew how to use the sparsest of dialogue, cleverly-timed action sequences, and location shooting at arresting settings to tell a story.  Leo's character battles the elements, friends, and foe alike driven by two very powerful motives, survival & revenge, with Tom Hardy's John Fitzgerald as the perfect foil.

 

 It felt like an honest & unapologetic depiction of frontier life for a fur trader of that era that captured the indomitable human spirit to survive & exact justice.  There was also a code of honor among men of that era which would have compelled the protagonist to seek retribution as he did.  

 

There were no casting miscues.  Leo was allowed to finally escape the man-child figure he typically cuts on screen.  John Wayne, Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood...fellows step aside.  There's a new sheriff in town and his name is Leonardo DiCaprio.  That said, if Tom Hardy weren't so vertically challenged he could easily displace Leo.  Neither is likely to ever get cast as Superman but Tom is the better actor pound-for-pound.

 

One obvious nit is that the female characters were grossly underdeveloped.  I also believe that the director & screenwriter could have gotten a little more mileage out of the relationship between Leo's character and his onscreen son who would have been called a half-breed at the time.  On balance, it's one helluva movie that's not for the faint-hearted.

Updated On: 1/18/16 at 05:04 PM

[nealb1]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 5:31pm

Agreed, Javero.  Would have been nice to have had more scenes with Leo & his son.  Perhaps they were cut during post production?  

It was very powerful and really enjoyed it.  

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 5:34pm

I feel I can take a pass because I saw the movies from the bygone era.  Your Jeremiah's Johnson, your Littles Big Man.   At least back then they put the genetalia references right in the titles.  I've seen all the tough heterosexual males films I need to in this one lifetime.

[hork]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 8:05pm

FindingNamo said: "Smart people whose judgment I trust have told me it's exactly what the preview lays out and exactly what I think it is and so no, I won't be spending my money on another movie by this ridiculous director.

 

That's fine. But then why say it was tailor made for me? That makes no sense, even as an insult.

 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 9:12pm

I actually loved Birdman and it's the only film from the director I've enjoyed.  If I thought the film were even half as good as what javero described, I probably wouldn't have bothered to start this thread.  I just couldn't get past the ridiculously flawed screenplay that lays out the predictability of Tom Hardy's character (when you can understand his dialogue) to such an implausible eye-rolling laughable extent, there's no reason to sit through the sluggish, labored and torturous (to the audience) performance of DiCaprio.  DiCaprio is dirty and growls and moans a lot.  It's a monotone performance that didn't appear to highlight any particular essence of maturity or manhood other than he looks older and dirty.  His performances in Gatsby and Wolf of Wall Street seem subtle, layered and nuanced by comparison. 

 

There was also a code of honor among men of that era which would have compelled the protagonist to seek retribution as he did.

 

Which wasn't portrayed in the film at all.  There was a strong-willed protagonist.  There was no code of honor among men in the screenplay.  Had there been, the film might not have seemed completely idiotic.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 9:22pm

Hell, I thought DiCaprio was fantastic in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET.  This?  Ugh.

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 1/18/16 at 10:47pm

I found this a chore to sit through. I'm kinda sad that this is the role Leo is going to win all the awards for - definitely not his best at all. And what a predictable movie! I knew exactly how it was going to end ten minutes in. 

 

Having seen 7 of the 8 best film nominees, Room (or even the Martian) would get my vote.

[javero]

Posted: 1/19/16 at 12:28am

* SPOILERS GALORE *

MisterMatt & BorstalBoy, my friendly rejoinder follows.

 

Leo's character (Hugh Glass) took his son along on that perilous trek to teach him how to earn a living as was the custom then.  They had to trap wild animals for food and fur as a source of income.  There's was clearly not a life for the timid.

 

The conflict between Hugh's guilt over cursing his son Hawk with his blood and his moral obligation to protect his lamb was a strong undercurrent throughout the film.  If anything, it could have played up even more.  Regardless of the circumstances, he failed to protect both his wife and son the result being that both lost their lives at the hands of other men.  How did one move beyond that experience in the early 19th century?  There was no 911 dispatcher to call, nor bundle of hate crime laws on books, nor blogs by which to over-share, nor Oprah's chair to jump up and down on.  He was left to his own devices, mauled body and all, and mental fortitude in an environment that was totally unforgiving.

 

Tom Hardy's John Fitzgerald offered to euthanize Leo's character which was both a humane and self-serving gesture given the context.  Leo/Hugh was hanging onto his life by a thread.  He would have undoubtedly slowed down the hunting party.  And there was always the strong probability that he would have been eaten alive by a pack of wolves or scalped by the pissed off natives if left unattended.  Leo/Huge knew the rules (or code) beforehand but needed to stay alive at that juncture to protect his boy who was caught in the middle.  Their lives were in constant peril from all sides and everyone had to be able to tote his own water so to speak.

 

 I don't recall Leo every being so convincing as a father on screen.  No longer was Leo a perpetual teen playing grownup.  There was no unbridled political power (J. Edgar) or megabucks (Aviator/Wizard of Wall Street) to make him a god among mere mortals.   It was Leo against Mother Nature, wild life, traitorous hunting companions, and raw memories of his dead wife & son with only a survival instinct, thirst for revenge and the momentary kindness of a stranger in his toolkit. I applaud the director for remembering to show don't tell.

 

I was not a perfect film.  Nevertheless, there are those of us who appreciate it when feature film directors keep things primal.  This movie would not have been well served by Leo/Hugh lamenting his lot in life or going for nuance on screen.  It was kill or be killed on several levels.  I left the cineplex with the euphoria that results from witnessing magic on the big screen.

 

The Revenant is part adventure film, part character study, that most likely appeals to those of us who enjoy watching what used to be called a man's man on screen overcoming incredible odds while attempting to right the world around him according to his own moral compass & zeitgeist of the moment.  There's nothing more resolute and dangerous than a man who feels he has nothing left to live for.  I did find it a little heavy-handed though that Leo's character had to remind viewers of that in the final segments.  Once again, it's not a perfect film but one right in my wheelhouse. 

 

Finally, the highlight of the Leo's acting was the sparse dialogue.  Leo's character nearly lost his trachea thanks to momma bear.  The fact that he was crippled and speech-impaired early on worked perfectly. That scene in which he took his first gulp of water after the mauling was tough to watch.  Film/video is a visual medium.  I've already pre-ordered a copy via video on demand to add to my personal collection.

 

That is all.

Updated On: 1/19/16 at 12:28 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/19/16 at 7:15am

The same director's Oscar-winning BIRDMAN at least did me the favor of evaporating as I sat there: I've had more memorable rides in elevators. But there's something extra-special about THE REVENANT that's going to piss me off for weeks, especially on Oscar night, when DiCaprio wins a spectacularly ill-deserved knickknack for wearing prosthetic makeup and crawling through snow for 160 minutes. It's like a feature length film of the Quaalude scene from WOLF OF WALL STREET, but you know, not played for anything like laughs, because SERIOUS.

Be warned: THE REVENANT isn't merely serious. It is SERIOUSLY SERIOUS -- it is SOLEMN, PROFOUND, SERIOUSLY SOLEMNLY PROFOUND, PROFOUNDLY SOLEMNLY SERIOUS, and PROFOUNDLY SERIOUSLY SOLEMN. It's just so serious that I found myself giggling helplessly at a couple of the more blatantly serious moments -- Mr. Hardy delivers an Oscar-clip-ready speech about God that was so stupidly written and delivered (in an accent and voice tone borrowed from Heath Ledger but without Ledger's clearer diction) that it came off like something out of BLAZING SADDLES, he's like the grizzled old prospector nobody can understand, I sat there expecting a church bell to drown him out everytime he started to speak, but no such luck, because you know, SERIOUS.

Few films in my experience work so HARD to bludgeon me with their SERIOUSNESS OF SERIOUSOSITY. You can see the STRENUOUS SERIOUSNESS in every single frame, and at 24 frames a second, at two hours and forty minutes, that's a hell of a lot of bludgeons the average audience member gets subjected to. So much STRENUOUS EFFORT on the part of the cast and crew, who are all REALLY OUTSIDE in REAL COLD and REAL SNOW -- I can imagine the director carefully choosing the exact texture of snow for DiCaprio to crawl through, and precisely measuring out how much blood was going to leak out of DiCaprio's mouth at each plot juncture. It's all so airless and lifeless and carefully composed that I never once just gave in and rolled with the story, my disbelief was never suspended for a single solitary second.   

 

And so much of it is knocked off from other filmmakers -- there's Malick (the gorgeousness of the gorgeousity, the whispered voiceovers from THE NEW WORLD and TREE OF LIFE and THIN RED LINE), there's Tarkovsky (shots are lifted straight from STALKER, NOSTALGHIA and THE MIRROR).  The only thing missing, as so often with so many films in general but with Inarritu's in particular, is any reason to give a sh*t about anyone or anything in it.

Updated On: 1/19/16 at 07:15 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/19/16 at 5:05pm

^^^  BRAVO!  That is a masterly post.

 

And who needs to see the movie?  After what you just posted, haven't we?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/19/16 at 8:08pm

With the exception of The Birdman comment, everything Roscoe said was pretty spot-on with how I felt.  And that NEVER happens.  I only wish the movie had somewhat resembled what javero described, but that's not the movie I saw.  At least the awful screenplay didn't score a nomination.

 

It's just so serious that I found myself giggling helplessly at a couple of the more blatantly serious moments

 

My bf and I weren't so much giggling as openly laughing and shaking our heads at all the silliness.  When we weren't laughing, we were asking what Tom Hardy said or sitting in a stupor with our heads resting on our hands wondering if it would ever get any better.  It didn't.

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/19/16 at 8:31pm

Sounds like what the comic book world calls "the Dork Age," when things became desperately grimdark and violent in an attempt to be taken seriously. 

It doesn't work. Didn't work for Batman, don't work for American cinema.