The Revenant

roxics

roxics

Veteran
I know this up for a lot of Oscars but it just wasn't my thing. Couple of times during it I thought to myself "this is boring" and that's not a good sign. Didn't stimulate me intellectually or emotionally and wasn't a fun movie either. I can forgive a film for not being intellectually or emotionally stimuating if it's just plain fun, but this wasn't. It was a chore and too long. Could have been cut shorter.
This is one of those films where I feel like it wants to make a deeper statement, but the only statement I could see was "nature is hard and he overcomes it." I already know nature is hard and people have overcome it, give me something more.

That said, I thought Tom Hardy's performance was great. Better than DiCaprio. I really liked the transition from breathing to clouds to smoke.
Overall I didn't care for the look. I hear now it was shot using mostly available light. That might explain why I wasn't that impressed by it. Couple of times the Alexa 65 footage smelled of video as well near the end.
 
What took me out of the film was his incredible transition from being at death's door, to dragging himself a few hundred feet down a cliff, to fixing a hole in his throat, to swimming under water, all in the space of a few hours. On the other hand, personally, I liked the look at lot.
 
The timeline wasn't clear, certainly. Since I had read the timeline for the original story beforehand, I thought of it in those terms. I don't see why it would need to have a profound statement, and I never got the sense that it meant to. Except, maybe, to show how small a human is in that sort of environment. I was impressed with how it looked, mostly as a showcase of a beautiful natural environment. But I like nature, and I like those landscapes. I very much appreciate the use of available light, not entirely from a cinematography perspective, but from the perspective of someone who loves the outdoors and wants to visit these places. It's nice to see what they can look like without that much tampering. And that's not even mentioning the respectful portrayal of Native Americans, who got to exist on their own people.
 
Last edited:
I liked this movie a lot, but I generally like historical dramas. There were plenty of serious philosophical/political themes running through it beyond the character conflict. The insight into native American cultures and the conflict with European cultures was particularly rich. The look of it was incredible, but a distinctly modern digital aesthetic, not like film at all. I think I would have walked out of that movie feeling chilled on a hot July day.
I thought Tom Hardy was exceptional too. Another movie of his, Child44, is running on Cinemax right now. Set in 1950's Russia during the Stalinist purges. His ability to disappear into a character is rare. The contrast between Revenant and Child44 underscores his amazing talent.
A refreshing change from the ubiquitous Marvel Comics universe.
 
You don't have to like the movie but I enjoyed the cinematography, it was great imo.
Once again, Tom Hardy was great.
 
Apologies, pecked out on an iPhone in a waiting room. I'm bored.

I saw this last week and was wondering why there wasn't a thread. Thanks Roxics!

I'm torn. Literally down the line. Part of me was totally enthralled. Despite the length, I was never bored during the Revenant, not for a moment. And I've said it before, I'm not a fan of long films. LOL, I like my action/dramas a tight 2 hours and my comedies no longer than 90 minutes! Let me just back up and say DO NOT order a medium coffee before you see this film. I had to get up once during AND then suffer through the final 30 minutes cuz I was going to be damned if I missed that final fight and the outcome.

Here's some of the problems I had: This suffers from "everything is in the trailer" syndrome. There's a 2 1/2 min trailer that really has this entire film in a nutshell. As a viewer, i really felt like I knew how EVERYTHING was going to play out. Now that's not to say its not worth seeing, but come on. JJ Abrams did an interview on Stern talking about how he can't stand trailers that are just parsed versions of the full movie. ..now I'm mindful of them.

I've seen some recent shows/films where the script and acting are crafted so well, you are just begging for the antagonist to get his comeuppance. (I'm putting it mildly) This is not the case here. I find the character of Fitzgerald made a sensible decision: Kill Glass so they could all get on with their lives. The way things play out are a bit muddled, and I never found myself really siding with Glass or wanting to see any revenge on screen. Yes, I wanted to see him survive his ordeal, but the whole revenge aspect was lost on me. (Maybe cuz I saw it all in the trailer...no surprises here)

The location: I went in cold, but I could never quite peg where this was supposed to take place. My uneducated guess on where it was SHOT, though: "Canada?" (Further investigation says Canada and Argentina) So, I'm no history buff, but the tribes they are talking about would be the midwest.....it just doesn't come off looking like the midwest, or the US for that matter. It's glorious, but doesn't read historically accurate.

The good: The acting is to my liking. Thomas Hardy is great. The cinematography...wonderful of course. It is a survival story: it's wildly implausible, but still fun at times. The opening battle scene is excellent. And I can really get down with the quieter moments of this film: the sounds of nature.

I dunno, I can't put my finger on it. Not mindblowing, but I'd love to see it again. Go figure. It's gotta be the visuals & cinematography.
 
Last edited:
Well, I've already hinted at a few things wrt. The Revenant in another thread, but I enjoyed this film quite a bit. First the cinematography - yes, it was mostly natural light, but the times that they picked to shoot and the light conditions (about which they they went to quite some lengths, which is why among other reasons they shot in multiple locations and times). The result of those efforts was a look that's pretty unique - so far - in cinematic history... it feels utterly real, so real, that you can almost feel the cold. Now, I don't mind artificial - artful - lighting - just saying that The Revenant broke new ground in naturalistic lighting. It's a gorgeous looking film.

Now, let's talk about staging, blocking and shot selection - outstanding (in contrast to Sicario, IMHO) - the battle scenes are amazingly staged, the bear attack sequence is fantastic and generally, the camera conveyed the scale of happenings brilliantly, whether intimate or over a broad landscape. I also enjoyed the acting, especially of Leonardo, though there were many good actors, including a great performance from Domhnall Gleeson.

As to weaknesses - many mentioned weaknesses were quite valid. Yes, it's pretty unrealistic wrt. the miraculous speed of healing - guilty as charged... what can I say - I guess I just accept that as "movie world logic" and I am not unduly offended - but that's just me, I can completely see how it doesn't work for others, so it's an individual thing with me. Is it too long - that's a harder one. On the one hand, yes it is somewhat longish for the drama content, but on the other hand I think what the director was going for was a cumulative effect to show how a hostile environment really can affect the puny humans trying to survive, and I'm not sure you could get exactly the same effect with a shorter run time, so I'm a bit torn here. Now TO ME - I found the whole Native People angle somewhat disappointing... for example how Glass rescues the rape victim had a cheap Westerns feel to it like something that marries a 50's lack of subtlety with contemporary PC about revenge for rape (what with her castrating the rapist etc., just a cheap revenge fantasy to please the audience), and then somehow Glass manages to take on a whole bunch of guys, sneak up on them and so on - just cheap feeling. The Native Peoples were not really portrayed with any subtlety IMHO, but more of the nonsense of fevered imagination of Glass imaginings and general "spirit" relationship with his dead wife (and then son) - somewhat unnecessary departure from the starkness of feet-on-the-ground realism ambition of the rest of the story. And then he gets rewarded by the Native Peoples for rescuing the woman from rape - again, a cheap "closure" everything-is-justice done-in-this-world. But, I tend to let these things just glide by, because in the end I didn't feel like that was the overall orientation of the film. The overall orientation of the film, the star of it, and the animating mechanism, in my mind, was Man vs Nature, and Man vs Man vs Nature. That was the heart of it. And it did that really nicely.

All in all, 4 stars out of 5 for me. I really liked it.
 
Scott F said:
I find the character of Fitzgerald made a sensible decision: Kill Glass so they could all get on with their lives.
Click to expand...

Whoa! I hope I never find myself at your mercy. Besides, didn't Fitzgerald agree to watch over Glass voluntarily and for pay?

I never found myself really siding with Glass or wanting to see any revenge on screen. Yes, I wanted to see him survive his ordeal, but the whole revenge aspect was lost on me.
Click to expand...

The real Hugh Glass never killed Fitzgerald. By the time he found him, Fitzgerald had enlisted, and punishment for murdering a soldier would have been swift.

The location: I went in cold, but I could never quite peg where this was supposed to take place.
Click to expand...

South Dakota


As for him surviving a bear attack and abandonment, he really did. From Wikipedia:

Despite his injuries, Glass regained consciousness, but found himself abandoned, without weapons or equipment. He had festering wounds, a broken leg, and deep cuts on his back that exposed his bare ribs. Glass lay mutilated and alone, more than 200 miles (320 km) from the nearest American settlement, at Fort Kiowa, on the Missouri River. Glass set the bone of his own leg, wrapped himself in the bear hide his companions had placed over him as a shroud, and began crawling back to Fort Kiowa. To prevent gangrene, Glass allowed maggots to eat the dead, infected flesh in his wounds.

Glass crawled overland south toward the Cheyenne River, using Thunder Butte as a navigational tool, where he fashioned a crude raft and floated downstream to Fort Kiowa. The journey took him six weeks. He survived mostly on wild berries and roots; on one occasion he was able to drive two wolves from a downed bison calf, and feast on the raw meat. Glass was aided by friendly Native Americans who sewed a bear hide to his back to cover the exposed wounds and provided him with food and weapons.​



The Reverent --- Wikipedia
John Glass --- Wikipedia
The true story behind The Revenant is even crazier than the movie --- Quartz
 
Last edited:
South Dakota
Click to expand...

thanks for the links...all interesting. To clarify, I googled some of the backstory right after I saw the Revenant, but I went in to the theatre cold in regards to what region of the United States this story took place. (all I knew is that is was "based on actual events" haha)

Just curious....do any areas of South Dakota look like what we saw on screen? Some google images of the Black Hills region look amazing. I've only done a road trip with a quick stop at Mt Rushmore and that was years ago. I remember the majority of the trip being plains & rolling hills....but a person isn't going to see a lot from a car. (especially a state this large)
 
Like or hate it this is iconic cinema ...a modern day classic ......it will still be referenced years from now...unlike all those superhero movies. I actually preferred the look of this film over "Hatefull Eight".

My only issue was all those super crisp lens flares in shot looked very modern in a film set two centuries ago taking me out of the period.

PS. Every "filmmaker " should view this film if they are considering shooting available light as a cheaper option because it ain't, this film proves it.
 
Scott F said:
Here's some of the problems I had: This suffers from "everything is in the trailer" syndrome. There's a 2 1/2 min trailer that really has this entire film in a nutshell. As a viewer, i really felt like I knew how EVERYTHING was going to play out. Now that's not to say its not worth seeing, but come on. JJ Abrams did an interview on Stern talking about how he can't stand trailers that are just parsed versions of the full movie. ..now I'm mindful of them.
Click to expand...


This is a true statement, but for me, I could read a script and be happy paying to see the movie. I actually knew nothing about this movie until I saw a link to the trailer; my wife and I saw it the next day. I can't speak for anyone else, but it sold me on two tickets.

Scott F said:
I've only done a road trip with a quick stop at Mt Rushmore and that was years ago. I remember the majority of the trip being plains & rolling hills....but a person isn't going to see a lot from a car. (especially a state this large)
Click to expand...

Mt. Rushmore is by far the least interesting thing there. Black Hills isn't my top recommendations for places to stop, but driving the Needles Highway gets you some amazing views. And the rest of the forest is pretty nice. Most of the rest of the Dakotas seem to be a tourist attraction. 1880's Town is one of those that I'd recommend, actually. Not that it's relevant. To answer the question... not really. The landscape they shot in was way too mountainy to be accurate. Grasslands can provide a serious hiking challenge, even for someone as prepared as me, so I don't want to discount what Mr. Glass did. But it doesn't read as difficult on camera, so they chose the most dramatic place they could find instead. There are mountains and large slopes in the region, so some scenes work fine, they just overdid some details. But he also didn't have a murdered son, so if we're going to start saying it needs to be totally accurate I probably wouldn't start with the mountains.
 
I just saw it so I'm late to chime in, but I enjoyed reading all your comments and share mine here, from a (non-film) blog post.

Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pens

Every now and then when I see a movie that is plainly outstanding or plainly terrible, I like to click over to Rotten Tomatoes to see who the worst critics on earth are. The last time I remember doing this was for Anchorman II, which had huge bandwagon acclaim despite it being an unfunny pile of dook.

Remarkably, Anchorman II got a better score than the original, which was inventive and funny at least in its day, and gets a very high audience score. "Oh wait, this is funny?" the critics must think. "I won't miss the boat the next time around." (If you cross-reference negative reviews for the original with positive reviews for the sequel, I suspect you'd find some of the worst-offending hacks in the business.)

I mention it now because I watched The Revenant last night and had heard that it was poorly reviewed by Best-Picture-winner standards. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 82%. I have yet to parse the who and why behind this, but it's eye-opening. Apart from small quibbles I'd have with casting for supporting roles and some faux profundity in dream sequences, I find the film astonishing and excellent. It deserves whatever awards it won, and probably some it didn't.

The immersion of a wide-angle lens in a minutes-long action sequence with a ton of moving parts in brutal cold and barren landscapes is no small feat. Compare Mad Max, the other 2015 film people rave about, with its average shot length of--can you guess??--two seconds. Yes, two seconds is the average shot length for two hours straight. This might make great entertainment for a spastic generation raised on video games and Facebook memes (I liked it!), but it doesn't hold a candle to what Iñárritu and Chivo pull off.

Setting aside the technical aspects, I'd say it wins on writing and acting as well. In any case, see it on a big screen and soon if you haven't already.
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed the movie whilst watching it. But, it is really boring and if anything pretentious for being 3+ hours long when I don't think the story really needed it. No Country For Old Men could have also been 3+ hours but it wasn't, you need to know when you're going overboard and the reverent does that well. 1/5 from me - but I did love the look, camera work, costumes, acting ,etc.. just cut it down.
 
Well, I wrote my take on this film earlier in this thread, and I re-watched it again recently. I still hold the same opinion, although I must say, I appreciate even more of the technical achievement. All-in-all, I'm still holding to my previous high opinion of this movie, and I'm super excited that Lubezky got an Oscar - well, deserved... I thought he deserved it (as wrote earlier), but I wondered if they'd give him a 3rd straight one or if politics would intervene... I'm glad to see merit win out this time. I think this movie will stand the test of time, and it's a definite milestone in cinematography and staging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top