• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Revenant is an excellent movie

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sanke__ said:
All I want to know before I see it is how much fucking jazz drums am I going to have to listen to?
Click to expand...

Actually, the score is a real highlight for the film. It's very minimalist and features little percussion, but used in some really striking ways. Easily my personal favorite aspect of the entire film.
 
Vincent Alexander said:
Well yeah...you're never going to get 100%. But I feel like if a movie captured perfectly what he went through we'd be even less inclined to believe it. He went through some shite.
Click to expand...

He did for sure, and that's my point. The brutality of the attack and conditions were amplified in the name of drama and suspense but ultimately they undermine the true story of his survival. I just felt that his story doesn't need to be propped up with additional shock and awe.
 
Malvolio said:
He did for sure, and that's my point. The brutality of the attack and conditions were amplified in the name of drama and suspense but ultimately they undermine the true story of his survival. I just felt that his story doesn't need to be propped up with additional shock and awe.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the movie injected additional shock and awe though, just different and/or amalgamated moments. I don't think they went too far above and beyond what really happened to the man. In some ways, they may have actually toned it back. One anecdote from wikipedia tells of Glass laying his destroyed back against a rotting tree trunk so that maggots would eat and clean his flesh.
 
Now that I think of it, about a year ago I remember reading that Ryuichi had cancer and had to cancel some tour dates. I really hope he's recovering.
 
I went in already having some idea of the true events and really enjoyed it. The movie gave a great sense of panic from the bear attack and other events, and the struggle of Glass' journey to make it back to the fort. Loved the intense fight at the end.

Moonkid said:
Nah, it was Memories of Murder and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance..
Click to expand...

Great movies. I haven't seen too many of Joon-ho Bong's movies, but Chan-wook Park is easily one of my favorite directors.
 
B33 said:
THE REVENANT doesn't give the audience much of a reason to care about Hugh Glass, other than he knows the terrain and intuits how to elude the Arikara tribe, and Captain Henry is fond of him... Until Glass is (spoilers one can find in the trailer)
mauled by a bear and left powerless as Fitzgerald murders his son
. That's the intended "sympathy hook" to get the audience on board.

From there, it's a trite revenge story elevated by gorgeous cinematography but wrought with pacing problems due to the overindulgence of its direction.

The story is a flimsy vector for the experience of Glass's journey.

DiCaprio's performance goes to great lengths, but his character plays more like an emotive crash dummy being batted back and forth between set pieces, rather than a man's harrowing journey across a wilderness to quell his rage.
Click to expand...

B33 said:
Elaborate. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...

So I agree with your first paragraph which is where you hooked me on analysis of "hook of the movie." Now I wouldn't go on to call the rest of the story a trite revenge story. I actually really appreciated the pacing, in fact it's one of my main praises of the film. But I'm willing to acknowledge it's not what some people want. I also wouldn't say it's a flimsy vector for Glass's experience.

However I acknowledge that other's may have a different experience from the film. The part where you lost me is where you claim it acts as something other than a man's harrowing journey across a wilderness to quell his rage. (And even more say it's what you'd rather have, when I think it's what you got.) Now that claim in my mind is outright deny the film what it is fundamentally. He is a man fighting for his life against nature, and motivated by a rage to confront his son's murderer. Everything he does is to explicitly quell his rage. I was really intrigued by your comment as I thought you were elaborating on why you thought it failed to carry the proper weight in what it tried to do. Instead you just brushed aside the very essence of what the film was. The man's harrowing journey was made up of being batted back and forth by nature. It also wasn't back and forth between set pieces either. The pacing was impeccable in how it spread out his trials, with scenes of healing, recovering. With him recollecting on past memories and thoughts of loved ones. With scenes that switched to following the other characters of our story. The hunting party, Fitz, and the Arikara tribe. I'm left not even knowing what you want or what you're trying to say.

I thought the pacing was done near perfectly, I thought you were going to elaborate on how the "gorgeous cinematography" both elevated the story but brought down the pacing due to overindulgence of directing. If only because I'm curious how my favorite parts of the film may be seen by others. But your last sentence just totally throws me for a loop. To me it's the one aspect of the film that can't be denied, and it's odd that you ask that the rather the film focus on the very thing that it does do whether you liked the direction of it or not, as if it didn't capture a man's harrowing journey to quell his rage. Do you want it to be a harrowing journey to quell rage, that isn't just back to back set pieces of battery? Because the film at least does that much.
 
rikichi said:
Had to pop in and chime in on this comment. Saw the movie as well and it was amazing and like your experience, I had these 2 guys in front talking it up like it was their fucking life story. To the point, during the credits I was so annoyed at this one dude that I kicked the back of the chair so hard it made him jump. Right after that, I just got up and left. And dude was like "wtf bro" "uhh" "wtf"

Again movie was amazing.
Click to expand...

this brings up a good question, what is the proper way to deal with people talking loudly during movies?

when i was at my 2nd viewing of star wars there was a mother and her two teenage kids a couple rows behind me yacking it up. not for the whole movie but for maybe a total of 15 minutes. i wanted to turn around and yell SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP. but i didnt because i was with a group of people i didnt want to make uncomfortable. what is the proper response to these assholes?
 
NoblesseOblige said:
In the end, it's a movie, and as with all movies, there is some level of suspension of disbelief associated with it. But I still feel most your nitpicks are explained from a more discerning viewing of the film:



1.
Pretty close to the beginning of the movie members of the fur trading company were complaining about Leo's character out hunting while they were all working on skinning and preparing the fur. There would have been no reason for any of them to fire a shot off while they were skinning and preparing their product to be transported/sold. So obviously the sound of the gun going off was enough to signal there was trouble.

2.
If I recall correctly there were numerous cuts to imply Leo crawled a significant distance to find his son. It wasn't 20 feet away. In any case, I don't recall Bridger ('younger kid) doing more than calling for Hawk before Fitzgerald convinced him he must be out doing something.

3.
There are somewhat significant jumps in time between scenes. It could have been days between scenes. Remember, Leo's character traveled around 200 miles in the span of the film. Also a fish isn't going to sate hunger for long. Especially if one was starved before it. As for the Native American 'miraculously' being good to him. I believe Leo's character recognized the man as being Pawnee, the tribe Leo's character spent time with and is familiar with.

4.
I believe the village was quickly judged to be Pawnee, which, at least compared to the Arikara, are presented as more peaceful and friendly to fur traders. As for the livestock, I believe they were boars. Which if you've ever met in real life, are tough as nails. These are things that will continue charging at you after taking a bullet to the skull. Probably not the easiest animal to just kill and eat for a lone individual whose home and people were just massacred.

5.
I didn't spot it myself but someone I was viewing it with mentioned that they show briefly that Tom purposefully took some steps and movements to make tracking slightly more difficult to delay Leo. I'll need to see it again to confirm.

6.
I think 'fine' is a bit of an exaggeration. The heavy fur he had been wearing was just the best option he had for most the film. The freshly deceased horse carcass was at that moment the warmer and superior option, so it was wise to take the opportunity to rest. Only thing I didn't like is the removal of all the organs. I believe the better option would have been to leave some of the guts to maintain more of the inside body heat.

And finally to address this bit:



You say it had zero story? Did you fall asleep or something? No realism? I mean yeah, some parts are a bit dramatized, but like I mentioned previously, it's a movie. It's more 'real' than most films. Not sure what logic has to do with anything. As for the dialogue not being accurate for that era, I recall reading an article on how except for a couple lines (particularly the 'pansy bitch' one) the movie was fairly representative of how people spoke in the day. And now for your most egregious comment: Implying no talent was necessary for Leo's role. Though I don't necessarily think he deserves an Oscar for this movie (though I wouldn't say he doesn't deserve it either), saying this didn't show his talent is bunk. Words aren't the only part of acting. Leo did an astounding job in his performance of conveying the pain and struggle his character was under without words. The only part I didn't like is near the end
when a comparatively insignificant comment sets him off
. But that is more of an issue with the writing for that part, and less his performance, and is minor in retrospect.
Click to expand...

i see your angles from those points and they're pretty valid. thanks. i missed the cuts for 2. or they didn't portray it well that he crawled a significant distance.

i agree that spouting lines isn't the only way to act. what i mean in terms of the role is that yes it took some talent, but i feel any standard fare actor could have pulled it off. it is not award worthy is all I'm saying.

and to me the story is weak. super simple
revenge
tale with a thick slice of man vs nature (way exaggerated). it dragged for me. i didn't experience any real tension except for the
gruesome attack.
 
ogbg said:
I've noticed a few people mention Brando but that just shows how actual height of the actor is unimportant. He was only 5'9''. I always wanted to see Philip Seymour Hoffman but that's not going to happen for obvious reasons. It needs to be someone who can be both pompous and scary.
Click to expand...
I think it's mainly how Brando looked in low light that the image just fits for me and others.

kurtz-apocalypse-now.gif


PSH would have been great too, I know what you mean. Instead of pompous though I'd want more venom, less practiced charm. A steely, cynical, disgusting lothario type- maybe it's too grimdark and misses the gallows humor of the Judge but his underlying danger always impressed me more than his good humor, I always enjoyed Glanton's mistrust and respect of him rather than the way others were interested in debating him.

One day we'll see it ogbg- dead baby tree and all.
 
Gorgeous movie that meandered maybe a little too much. I really enjoyed it but I can understand why some people won't.

Seriously one of the best looking movies I've ever seen.
 
I have heard this movie is very violent. Is it worse than Bone Tomahawk? I don't care, but my wife (who normally has a strong stomach for this stuff) was really upset by the scene in Bone Tomahawk where
they butcher the guy in the cave while he's still alive
. If there's anything like that in The Revenant, she doesn't want to see it.
 
snacknuts said:
I have heard this movie is very violent. Is it worse than Bone Tomahawk? I don't care, but my wife (who normally has a strong stomach for this stuff) was really upset by the scene in Bone Tomahawk where
they butcher the guy in the cave while he's still alive
. If there's anything like that in The Revenant, she doesn't want to see it.
Click to expand...

There are a couple set pieces that are pretty impressive and have some violence, but nothing remotely close to that. I also happen to think Bone Tomahawk is a better movie.
 
hiryu said:
Gorgeous movie that meandered maybe a little too much. I really enjoyed it but I can understand why some people won't.

Seriously one of the best looking movies I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

That's how I felt. The visuals kept me engaged. I thought the story was weak and I found it to be boring and too long.

Also the bear scene didn't live up to the hype. Wish they didn't include it in any of the marketing.
 
snacknuts said:
I have heard this movie is very violent. Is it worse than Bone Tomahawk? I don't care, but my wife (who normally has a strong stomach for this stuff) was really upset by the scene in Bone Tomahawk where
they butcher the guy in the cave while he's still alive
. If there's anything like that in The Revenant, she doesn't want to see it.
Click to expand...
Is she disgusted by violence or mostly gore? There's some wild animal related gore scenes. And the opening scene is insanely violent, but yeah.
 
I really wish I could have seen this movie in IMAX.. But fucking star wars is just hogging up all the ultra big screens. Smh.
 
The opening scene blew me away. The sound, the atmosphere, the entire world was a shock I wasn't prepared for.

When the Native Americans started firing arrows into camp as deaths just start to pile up as they rush to the boats....just incredible.

I loved it.
 
snacknuts said:
I have heard this movie is very violent. Is it worse than Bone Tomahawk? I don't care, but my wife (who normally has a strong stomach for this stuff) was really upset by the scene in Bone Tomahawk where
they butcher the guy in the cave while he's still alive
. If there's anything like that in The Revenant, she doesn't want to see it.
Click to expand...

Nothing nearly as bad as that part in Bone Tomahawk, but it's definitely no picnic, and I think it would be on the whole more violent than that film in terms of quantity. There's plenty of animal-related violence, too, though all the animals are CG for when that stuff goes down.

There is also an attempted rape in the film if that is too much for her, or anyone else for that matter.
 
I just got back from the theater, and I'm glad to say it didn't disappoint me. The outstanding aspect is obviously the cinematography - the film is just fucking gorgeous looking. Leo and Hardy are both great, Leo especially despite not having much of a dialogue. The film is really good, blocked from being great by
the dream sequences that just did not work at all, and mostly felt cheesy.
Another thing is the runtime, it just felt a tad bit too long for me and I love long movies, it just didn't work here.
 
This was an amazing movie. The score, cinematography, atmosphere... I felt as if I was there. The opening scene and the bear scene are instantly two of my favorite scenes in a movie ever. Inarritu has created a really unique and memorable film.
 
Don't know why Inarritu felt the need to interrupt the movie every 10 minutes for flashbacks and dream sequences but aside from that it was pretty enjoyable. Leo was alright I guess. I know Christian Bale was originally attached to the role and I'm disappointed we never saw his version. He would have killed it IMO. Domnhall Gleeson was really good, and Tom Hardy is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. Dude just nailed every scene.

The film was absolutely gorgeous. Plot and characters are a bit thin but man was it nice to look at.
 
Just saw it. On a technical level it's wonderfully made. The bear scene was incredible. There are so many beautiful flowing long takes that must have taken ages to set up and get right.

But yeah the constant and visions of Glass' wife started to grate on me. They're just so cliché, right down the mystic whispering and portrayal of Glass' wife as some angelic figure. Yeah we get the point, tree roots, wind, etc. It's vague spiritual stuff that never amounts to anything.

It felt like they were there to attempt to add meaning to what was otherwise a barebones and completely forgettable revenge story.
 
As for Leo, he deserves an Oscar, just not for this film. You could throw anyone into the frozen wilderness and tell them that their leg was broken, and you'd get pretty much the same performance.
 
I liked it. Long but enjoyable.

Cinematography was great. Long continuous mindblowing takes.

One issue. I think the trailer gave too much away. Going into it not knowing it's a revenge story, not knowing the son dies, not knowing about the bear attack would have been awesome.

Also, i really thought the pvp and pve elements were well done. The setting was awesome too. I know so little about that "world" that it's almost the same as a sci fi or fantasy movie.
 
Saw it yesterday and loved it. It had its flaws and some moments took me a bit out of the experience (
The dead horse was a bit silly and some CGI looked off
) but overall I was totally gripped by it. It did not feel as long as it was. I was physically shaken at times and enthralles by the overall look and scenery. Loved the camera, the natural lighting, the long shots, the scenery, the sets and Tom Hardy. DiCaprio was solid but imho he did not have enough to act out, groans mostly. But still a very solid performance. Hary was stellar though.

Oh boy... what a move. A proper experience! Loved it!
 
Saw it earlier today and loved it. The narrative is a bit too simple and predictable, in places it definitely drags, and there were one or two scenes that could have carried a bit more tension, but my word I couldn't get over how beautiful it was, how many interesting moments occurred, nor how many striking shots there were.

Some of the scenes were absolutely gripping, such as the beginning act, the bear attack, the initial periods of survival, the last act etc. And the cinematography throughout, especially the final few backdrops, just stunning. Breathtaking even.

Add to that, there's a real sense of rawness about it all that made it all the more compelling. It's not sugar coated, it's harsh, gruelling and when it needs to be, relentless. And of course, to gel it altogether were the incredible performances from start to finish, especially from DiCaprio and Hardy. I cannot believe the lengths Leo went for this role, I mean, he really dug deep and immersed himself to some visceral and down right questionable extents. If he doesn't win an Oscar for this performance, my opinion of the organisation will dimish. Other years the competition was at least immense, but this year at least, I really don't know of any other male actor that has topped it. Hardy as well, easily deserves a potential best supporting actor.
 
nib95 said:
...I cannot believe the lengths Leo went for this role, I mean, he really dug deep and immersed himself to some visceral and down right questionable extents. If he doesn't win an Oscar for this performance, my opinion of the organisation will dimish.
Click to expand...

anyone can show physical pain and eat raw meat.
 
Saw it today. Loved it, was absolutely amazing. One of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen, cinematography-wise.

It was slow. It was long. But I was never bored.

Both Hardy and Gleeson had a very good 2015, with Mad Max, The Revenant, Star Wars and Ex Machina between them.
 
Is it already out? Guess Poland is late again, since it only comes out on 29th here. Saw the trailer today before Hateful Eight and it caught my attention. Nice to see it might be pretty good.
 
Saw it. Loved it. Was floored by Hardy's performance. I went in completely blind, having never seen even a trailer. I knew he was in the film but didn't immediately recognize him due to his accent and appearance. From Mad Max to this, jesus.

Leo is not the only person deserving of an Oscar.
 
My favourite part was how little characterization the French got. Everyone else gets to be complex, but the French are just douche-bags.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A Django/Zorro Crossover Movie is in The Works
25
281
jason10mm replied
The greatest movie composition of all time is
41
713
Dithadder replied
Murderbot is an excellent Apple TV+ show
18
1K
L*][*N*K replied
  • Poll
Back to the Future is a perfect movie
Opinion  2
85
1K
efyu_lemonardo replied
Littlefoot Movie Poster | There Was An Attempt
NSFW 
5
275
pachura replied
Top Bottom