It's really bad, which was a shame because the nice elements in it are rendered totally irrelevant by the ridiculous plot and many holes.
Ticket buyers beware.
Printable View
It's really bad, which was a shame because the nice elements in it are rendered totally irrelevant by the ridiculous plot and many holes.
Ticket buyers beware.
Well that's disappointing.
There are some good torrent copies out there of this one.
I saw it and I really liked it. The cinematography was exceptional and Dicaprio had a performance of his life. Yeah, a story this big is probably better served by a miniseries but I really enjoyed it and would see it again.
I'll be somewhat cryptic and put my thoughts a ways down so as to not spoil anything for others.
I didn't think Hardy did anything wrong so I didn't care much about the rest.
But it was pretty and Leo was great.
Did we see the same movie? I really liked it - or at least I was really impressed by the direction, acting, cinematography, effects, setting, editing and styling.Quote:
Originally Posted by ml242
Other than that, the story may seem rather predictable, but maybe that's because it's like 180 years old and everyone's heard it already in some form or another. That doesn't seem to hinder my enjoyment of other movies taken from books, like The Shining, or A River Runs Through It, or No Country For Old Men, or Casino Royale, or...
I liked it a lot as well. But I really like pretty much everything Inarritu has done, especially Babel. I also think it's worth seeing in the theater, the cinematography is epic (yes, really, the actual meaning of that word) and the big screen does it justice. Afterwards, I also read some production notes and have more respect for it - grueling shooting schedule in the middle of winter in Canada - some scenes were shot in Patagonia. Inarritu used zero artificial lighting - which is incredibly rare and unique - and complicates production horrendously. It's not the best film ever but it has the imprint of a group of people who are incredibly good at their craft.
Another double thumbs up here, shared by my wife and the other couple we went with (the gals being significant in that the Leo story in RS noted that women may find it relentlessly "grimy and gory").
yeah, what the hell. i saw it last weekend and thought it was incredible. the cinematography, acting, everything was great. i especially appreciate the long takes and the effort and talent that is required to pull it off.
Mixed feelings for me. I loved the long takes and cinematography and how the whole thing was put together, but the constant grunting and groaning got old fast. Overall, I appreciated many things about it, but did not enjoy it.
The real story is far more interesting. This thing dragged on like a dentist appt. and was way too preachy IMHO.
A furry convention would be more interesting
My problem was they went from plains back in the mountains back to the plains, WTF?. Though it was neat to see areas where I had skied years ago as most of the end was filmed at the old Fortress ski hill.
I was bored during the movie, but have thought and talked about it quite a bit since then. It is one of those. Not captivating, but very interesting.
same here...I kept thinking "get the ending already" andQuote:
Originally Posted by wicked_sick
i like long movies
Thought it was an excellent movie.... but I did not enjoy watching it
Haha. Perfect! I left the theater thinking i just watched Leo suffer for 3hrs for a Oscar nod.
I just watched it for the first time and I have to disagree
I think it depicts the fairly typical fucking insanely chaotic life in that time period of exploration
Hell yes it was prolonged and disturbing but I guess I like to read about history so I recognize that this type of suffering/injury/ killing/neglect/ racism was a norm.
It makes me happy to live in a (relatively) civilized society today
and fuck yeah jim bridger*
*I know it's not historically accurate but anyway
Ya, but C'mon. How much time was spent fucking around in the river? In real life you'd avoid getting wet Like the plague when it's that cold. Other then the one scene he jumped in to escape the Indians it was mostly showboating.
That was the most unrealistic aspect that we focused on too- getting wet = deathQuote:
Originally Posted by My Pet Powder Goat
Innaritu uses a lot of symbolism in his films. (Comets in revenant and bird man) so I just chalk his use of water up to that
hate to be 'that guy', but the book was way fucking better
i mean shit, he didn't even have a son in the book
movie was weak
i liked it
only scenes that had me going "WTF?" were where the director chose to do closeups where the camera got fogged by breath/steam.
involving the camera in the experience like that in a period piece brought up more questions than it added sensory drama