The Revenant

Saw it on Wednesday, didn't do any back reading into the film (no idea what I was going to see) Just went to see what the crack was about (DiCaprio oscar etc etc)
In short, really enjoyed it, felt different, story maybe obvious (but what isn't?).

Some of the scenes were breathtaking but like many people have mentioned a bit long but captivating, kind of forgot how long it was half way through.
See spoilers what I would have shown for content also
I wish they showed more the french camp after DiCaprio got there as he just randomly turned up at the fur trading people camp

I would also like to see that style of filming (lighting, camera movements) in a gritty war film either that era or WW2!!!!
 
Enjoyed it overall but became far too Hollywood and it detracted away from it for me a bit. Hoping in and out of water in those temperatures would literally be a death sentance. Everyone does it willy nilly.

It was a good looking film. No doubt. Hardy was great.
Dicaprio spent a lot of time eating dirt. They should gave got lipsalv to sponsor the film with a few product placements.

Overall good but not spectacular

the whole climb inside a horse scene? I mean wtf literally wtf why ? Just to shock? All I could imagine was Han solo making wise cracks about the smell and don't give me it was to keep warm. He had been doing a good job until then. His bearskin lost during the chase scene? In which he fired his french pistol twice without reloading? So many little things detracted me sometimes
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
Enjoyed it overall but became far too Hollywood and it detracted away from it for me a bit. Hoping in and out of water in those temperatures would literally be a death sentance. Everyone does it willy nilly.

It was a good looking film. No doubt. Hardy was great.
Dicaprio spent a lot of time eating dirt. They should gave got lipsalv to sponsor the film with a few product placements.

Overall good but not spectacular

the whole climb inside a horse scene? I mean wtf literally wtf why ? Just to shock? All I could imagine was Han solo making wise cracks about the smell and don't give me it was to keep warm. He had been doing a good job until then. His bearskin lost during the chase scene? In which he fired his french pistol twice without reloading? So many little things detracted me sometimes
Click to expand...

The movie created enough suspension of disbelief that I didn't even notice those things.
 
I have a mate who is really anal about continuity and he told me a lot more that i didn't notice. Mostly to do with wounds and scars.... :p
 
Efour said:
the whole climb inside a horse scene? I mean wtf literally wtf why ? Just to shock? All I could imagine was Han solo making wise cracks about the smell and don't give me it was to keep warm. He had been doing a good job until then. His bearskin lost during the chase scene? In which he fired his french pistol twice without reloading? So many little things detracted me sometimes
Click to expand...

I thought that part of the film really let it down - it is an incredible story but that bit just jumps the shark - and it didn't surprise me to read that it has no basis in reality. I thought it would have been a better film if they had just cut all of that bit out including the bit where they chase after him
 
I saw this last week at the cinema and was pretty bored through most of it. It just seemed to take far too long to get to where it was going. Some people walked out of the cinema and I probably wouldn't have felt like I'd missed much doing the same.

I did enjoy aspects of it but I'd never watch it again, it's the kind of film that makes me hate the thought of watching long films in that it just didn't engross me at all. In comparison I watched Hateful Eight the week before and had none of these same feelings.

I loved Di Caprio's performance as always so would have no problems with him getting recognition for it but the film as a whole just didn't impress me
 
When I saw it there was an old guy at the front mumbling to himself quite loudly. Not long after the bit where he crawls off the makeshift stretcher he stood up, turned to the rest of us, shouted "he should have ****ing died many times by now, this film is boring ****" and then walked out mumbling to himself again.

We all laughed as it was quite funny, unlike the tedious film that was an hour too long at least.
 
1. Well, I just saw it and was astounded by the terrible dubbing of dialogue for some of the Indian characters. A quick web search reveals that it's not just me!
I read that the director expected that because viewers would be looking at the subtitles, nobody would notice...

2. I remember a film called 'The Bear' which, for those whose appetite for human / bear interaction is whetted, contains some less brutal but comparable scenes, and some similarly pleasant cinematography.
 
I thought as a piece of cinema it wad quite remarkable. How they must have shot some of those scenes I do not know. Really incredible work. I agree that in places it became a touch laborious, but overall I was amazed by it. Some of the violence really was striking as well!
 
The more I read these threads about films I wonder what people want these days.Do you want realism,or good cinematography,good audio,spectacular locations or do you just want to watch a film and think after an hour and a half or two hours i enjoyed that.
if I can sit through the whole movie then its a good film,it keeps me enthralled enough to watch it to the end,if not then it's crap and believe me i've bought some rubbish ( see Ben Kingsleys Death Watch). i loved "The Revenant" and I hope di Caprio gets the Oscar for it because it ticks all the boxes I want in a good piece of entertainment which at the end of the day is all a film is.
 
MCMLX said:
The more I read these threads about films I wonder what people want these days.Do you want realism,or good cinematography,good audio,spectacular locations or do you just want to watch a film and think after an hour and a half or two hours i enjoyed that.
if I can sit through the whole movie then its a good film,it keeps me enthralled enough to watch it to the end,if not then it's crap and believe me i've bought some rubbish ( see Ben Kingsleys Death Watch). i loved "The Revenant" and I hope di Caprio gets the Oscar for it because it ticks all the boxes I want in a good piece of entertainment which at the end of the day is all a film is.
Click to expand...

It just shows how expectations and appreciation for different kinds of films differ. Taste is incredibly personal and often seems to make no logical sense when you see other people rubbish things you loved. But that's life. :)
 
Fridge logic

One thing that I just thought of this morning:
Near the end, Capt Henry and Glass are chasing FitzGerald. Glass tells Henry they'll split up to look for him. Now, does Glass realise that there's a very good chance that Henry will come across FitzGerald first and be killed by him? In deciding what directions they were to take, was he engineering that?
Of course that's what happens and it then it occurs to Glass to use Henry's corpse to lure FitzGerald to him. But how far ahead was he thinking..?

I wonder if his gaze - right into our eyes - at the end is one of realisation at what he has just accomplished. Which is, everything but also nothing. Was it all worth it? Is there more than this empty feeling, or is that all there is?
 
Last edited:
markweatherill said:
One thing that I just thought of this morning:
Near the end, Capt Henry and Glass are chasing FitzGerald. Glass tells Henry they'll split up to look for him. Now, does Glass realise that there's a very good chance that Henry will come across FitzGerald first and be killed by him? In deciding what directions they were to take, was he engineering that?
Of course that's what happens and it then it occurs to Glass to use Henry's corpse to lure FitzGerald to him. But how far ahead was he thinking..?

I wonder if his gaze - right into our eyes - at the end is one of realisation at what he has just accomplished. Which is, everything but also nothing. Was it all worth it? Is there more than this empty feeling, or is that all there is?
Click to expand...

I think that's your own mind taking a concept and running with it.
 
Yeah its pretty out of his character. That guy was good to him.

It did seem pretty recklessly stupid though given the situation..
 
MCMLX said:
The more I read these threads about films I wonder what people want these days.Do you want realism,or good cinematography,good audio,spectacular locations or do you just want to watch a film and think after an hour and a half or two hours i enjoyed that.
if I can sit through the whole movie then its a good film,it keeps me enthralled enough to watch it to the end,if not then it's crap and believe me i've bought some rubbish ( see Ben Kingsleys Death Watch). i loved "The Revenant" and I hope di Caprio gets the Oscar for it because it ticks all the boxes I want in a good piece of entertainment which at the end of the day is all a film is.
Click to expand...

Good question. for me its Story, characters then how and where it is shot/played out.

I only take umbrage when a true story gets so "Hollyfied" that it becomes a bit preposterous... THis film, for me, was riding the line very often. But it also had some excellent scenes that counterbalanced the silly ones. I really liked it when he traveled with the Pawnee guy for a while and the start of the film was superb. If it had kept that level of quality throughout i would have been enthralled, but then he got in a horse.... and i lol'd outloud.;)
 
Finally got around to seeing this today and I was absolutely blown away by it. It is a remarkable piece of filmaking on many levels and is as visceral experience as you can have from sitting looking at a screen in a comfy seat. For me it didn't seem over-long, and I loved the changes of pace, along with some of the most staggering cinemaphotography I've ever seen. Most of the performances were very good, but Leo was on another level, and at no point did I not believe his suffering... it felt real. I was glad the OST avoided the over-baring Hollywood clichés... they chose well with Sakamoto and I grabbed a copy from HMV after we left the cinema.

A near perfect cinematic experiance for me.
 
watched this last night.

I thought this film was ok. all I could think was take dicaprio and hardy out of this and it would have been one of the most dull boring films I had ever scene. It was shot fantastically and the acting was great but at no point did it really grab me into the film.
Why? I do not know. I normally get very engrossed in films I laugh/cry/jump etc but this I just rather goormed at the screen.
Might of just been over hyped and I was expecting too much.

my summary, great acting from main roles and great camera work
terrible dubbing, let down hugely by smaller roles.

I am pretty sure that bear would have done a bit more damage hurling him about like a rag doll
 
MCMLX said:
The more I read these threads about films I wonder what people want these days.Do you want realism,or good cinematography,good audio,spectacular locations or do you just want to watch a film and think after an hour and a half or two hours i enjoyed that.
if I can sit through the whole movie then its a good film,it keeps me enthralled enough to watch it to the end,if not then it's crap and believe me i've bought some rubbish ( see Ben Kingsleys Death Watch). i loved "The Revenant" and I hope di Caprio gets the Oscar for it because it ticks all the boxes I want in a good piece of entertainment which at the end of the day is all a film is.
Click to expand...

Going a little off-topic but why does it have to be "or"? why can't it be "and"? So realism and good cinematography and good audio and a film I enjoy? I can accept though that outside of the biggest blockbusters a film isn't going to tick all the boxes. It does then become a question of 'or' and then a question of how big the tick is in a box. Does a film provide enough 'entertainment' (comedy, thrills, fight scenes, car chases etc.) to balance out the mediocre cinematrography and rubbish locations? Or does the cinematography, locations and sounds make up for mediocre acting or story?

I think it can be a difficult to accurately put your finger on why you enjoy one film and not another. For example, I really loved Only God Forgives and was glued the screen throughout. It is an odd film but the cinematography and tension outweigh the lack of dialogue and therefore I enjoyed it. The Revenant though on the other hand, the cinematography was amazing, DiCaprio and Hardy were too but it lacked too much in other areas for me mostly in story and pacing. Which, for me, dragged the Revenant down from a good film to simply an alright one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom