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
Don't lie, you looove being "that guy" ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by buttahflake
Ya, his son was fabricated, which is too bad because that was the most poignant part of the film. Honestly much of the film is factually inaccurate.
Sorry, but no way he would have survived, with the loss of blood, and cold. Cmon.
It's a movie, bunny. The real Glass was mauled by a bear, left for dead, and attacked by Indians on his 200 mile journey home.
it wasn't that bad.. only a fucking bear and a bit of cold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
It's not like he fell off a chair lift or something really serious.
I watched it late during a long a flight and didnt really pay attention, but did they jump from a coastal forest environment to a much drier interior setting, from one scene to the next? After following a river presumably toward the coast?
Early scenes also seemed to be in spring melt, when later scenes were in winter, and a year had not passed. I may be wrong, and doubt 99.99999999% of viewers give a fuck anyway. But if a major theme of the movie was the intensity of nature, then Hollywood could have made a little more effort at providing natural consistency.
I pay way too much attention to the scenery in movies. The worst are the ones set in Colorado or Montana and filmed in Vancouver. The forests are so differentQuote:
Originally Posted by neck beard
lay off that dank dank my dude
My beef was his journey seemed to go from forested foothills to rolling plains back into high mountain valleys back to low foothills then final shots in mountains ( on location of old ski hill that I skied for 4 years). Weather not an issue as Alberta weather is that variable. No Leo its not global warming its just a chinook you dumb MF.Quote:
Originally Posted by neck beard
Here you go guys, critique it:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1663202/...ref_=tt_trv_gf
Quote:
Originally Posted by neck beard
There were a few scenes where he literally went from fresh two to three feet of snow to old snow and then back.
If you want to see a western, check out Hateful Eight. How Tarantino can keep making real masterpieces for zero credit, I don't understand. This movie has everything Revenant fails at. Real character development, a fucking plot, clever dialogue, and it's really well shot to boot. The performances he gets out of Kirk Russell and Jennifer Leigh are incredible. He also seems to capture the spirit of the times in a weird post war way better than Leo's period schlock. But Quentin is too outsider for a nice review? Violent? It isn't his turn? What gives?
hateful either and the revenant were both solid. I hadn't thought about it, but I think I agree with your comparison.
I saw Hateful 8 on the same flight as Revenant. It was better. The chick was funny. Plenty of it was amusing actually ("sneaky sack shooter".) But it was too violent. Setting out the rope line to the outhouse was a surprising bit of pragmatic drudgery. Were we supposed to feel suspense? Or was that the point, as a lead up to the violence? At least it paid respect to the nature of the environment, unlike Revenant.
While I am getting off topic: I fucking hate Game of Thrones snow, It looks completely wrong. And if it so damned cold and wet, why doesn't anyone ever wear a hat? So much effort goes into their realistic sets and costumes, yet that get these basics so wrong.