|
This just wasn't that good. The soundtrack of Leo mouth breathing was distracting. I though both Harding and DiCaprio had disappointing performances. It was way too long, for the content and the plot. While the scenery was beautiful, every shot being either in someones hip or in their face got old fast. I heard only good things going into the film, and took none away from it. I thought the punishment was too much, and was unbelievable. I know it is based on a true story, but the bear attack was too vicious, falling off a cliff while on a running horse into a pine tree seems like it would be instantly fatal, going down a snow melt river with no dry clothes on the other end. Anyone of these events should have resulted in death and he just went from one to the next all while recovering from the initial bear attack that had him strapped to a board and carried by 6 guys. Maybe if the movie was 90 minutes instead of 156 I could forgive some of this but it was just ended up being a long disappointment.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Well if this movie was about someone who gave up rather than cling to life against every tragedy it would have been a lovely movie. Believe it or not there are situations in life where people overcome extraordinary odds, and sometimes we get movies made out of them because they serve to inspire people about the resilience of the human spirit. The bear attack was too vicious? What do you think real bears do when they think their young are in danger? Clearly it wasn't TOO vicious, since he survived. There are plenty of people throughout history who can't say the same. The snow melt river would be too cold to survive? I was unfortunate enough to spend 20 minutes in the ocean in jeans in the middle of winter a few years ago, and when I got out I wasn't cold. I had so much adrenaline I could have walked for miles. Plenty of time to build a fire. Just because you can't imagine someone surviving in these scenarios doesn't mean it's not possible. I would have hoped that you saw this from the movie and would be intrigued by it. It took too long for the content? This is a movie about life on the frontier, where people literally sat and stared into space to pass the time because they were too exhausted to do anything else. If you want an action movie, watch an action movie. But to be upset about a slow western style frontier movie is ridiculous, especially when every scene was god drat beautiful. You have a right to not enjoy the movie, but to say its not good for the reasons you listed is silly. FateFree fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Its a movie, so he didn't actually survive that bear attack it was all CG and special effects. There are also lots of cases when people don't survive bear attacks, so I don't get your point. I am saying that the injuries shown and the attack presented would have resulted in death. That people typically die from much less. The amount of blood that he lost and the nature of the injuries I found it unbelievable for him to survive, let alone survive on his own after being left for dead. It isn't that I doubt the bear would be vicious it is that I doubt he or anyone would survive what was presented. The neck wound alone I would think of as fatal, and only more so because of all the internal and external bleeding. The bear bites and shakes his arm and it never seems like he has lost any use of it. People have died and still do die of exposure, one of the fastest ways to remove heat from the body is to soak it in cold water. I am guessing after your 20 min. in the ocean you were treated by someone else, and didn't have to walk miles or strip naked and start a fire yourself outside still in the cold. It isn't that I don't think he could survive the trip down the river, it is that I don't think he could have survived without help on the other end. His body would have begun shutting down, and his mind would not have been functioning properly. Just like how you thought you were warm. You were in fact not warm, regardless of what you were feeling. FateFree posted:I had the opposite reaction, I thought he lucked out too much. There's a dozen things that should have killed him in that harsh environment, I certainly don't think it went too far in terms of how difficult it is to survive out there. You even admit that he had too much luck and should have died, but when I make this point it is not a valid reason for not liking the movie. In a movie that is supposed to have elements of realism and based on a true story. Breaking suspension of disbelief is a valid reason for not liking a film, even more so for one that is based on a true story. I understand that the movie is a slow burn, I like other movies that aren't action packed, I wasn't going in looking for an action movie. I thought that they had an extra 45-60 min of nothing. If I wanted to watch landscapes I would go to an IMAX or watch a nature documentary. Movies are supposed to be entertainment, this movie was not. There is a difference between having a slow pacing and lacking substance, there just wasn't enough material here for 2.5 hours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Th3D0Nn posted:Its a movie, so he didn't actually survive that bear attack it was all CG and special effects. There are also lots of cases when people don't survive bear attacks, so I don't get your point. I am saying that the injuries shown and the attack presented would have resulted in death. That people typically die from much less. The amount of blood that he lost and the nature of the injuries I found it unbelievable for him to survive, let alone survive on his own after being left for dead. It isn't that I doubt the bear would be vicious it is that I doubt he or anyone would survive what was presented. The neck wound alone I would think of as fatal, and only more so because of all the internal and external bleeding. The bear bites and shakes his arm and it never seems like he has lost any use of it. The whole reason that this is a story is because the dude survived against unimaginable odds. It's a fact that the dude survived the bear attack in real life. The details of the attack are pretty well documented. I'm sorry that you thought the dude should die, but he didn't die. And that's why a movie was made about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Th3D0Nn posted:You even admit that he had too much luck and should have died, but when I make this point it is not a valid reason for not liking the movie. In a movie that is supposed to have elements of realism and based on a true story. Breaking suspension of disbelief is a valid reason for not liking a film, even more so for one that is based on a true story. But thats exactly the reason why I enjoyed the movie, its because a (real) person was put into situation where the vast majority of people would have died, but with a mixture of luck and persistence he managed to pull through. I didn't say it as a criticism of the movie, because you can't criticize a situation that actually happened. My comment was in response to the previous poster who thought the challenges he faced were over the top, when in fact the wilderness is much harsher than people imagine it to be. And yes I was in no danger myself after the ocean, but I had a good half hour where I felt absolutely great, and i was perfectly lucid. This faded away after a while, but if you remember in the movie, he was helped shortly afterwards by an indian! So again I don't understand the criticism. And again you are entitled to your opinion and I wouldn't expect everyone to enjoy this type of movie. But to say the movie is bad is undeserving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
RCarr posted:The whole reason that this is a story is because the dude survived against unimaginable odds. It's a fact that the dude survived the bear attack in real life. The details of the attack are pretty well documented. I'm sorry that you thought the dude should die, but he didn't die. And that's why a movie was made about it. if you read the details of Hugh Glass' story, you'll find that they do not, in fact, line up pretty much at all with what happens in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:if you read the details of Hugh Glass' story, you'll find that they do not, in fact, line up pretty much at all with what happens in the movie. I did read the story and the bear attack is pretty much spot on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
I was referring more to everything after the bear attack
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I was referring more to everything after the bear attack Ok I definitely agree they changed a bunch of stuff after the attack. I don't know enough about the effects of cold on the body to say whether it was unrealistic that he survived being in a cold river, but the dude I was responding to was super mad about Glass surviving the bear attack. Which was a thing that happened in real life. RCarr fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Come to think of it actually, there is one notable change involving the bear attack: Glass didn't kill the bear all by himself. Bridger and Fitzgerald (iirc) arrived while the attack was ongoing and helped finish the bear off. That was a change already present in the source novel for the film, however, and compared to the many other liberties the film takes it feels pretty minor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Come to think of it actually, there is one notable change involving the bear attack: Glass didn't kill the bear all by himself. Bridger and Fitzgerald (iirc) arrived while the attack was ongoing and helped finish the bear off. That was a change already present in the source novel for the film, however, and compared to the many other liberties the film takes it feels pretty minor. By one account, Bridger and Fitzgerald shooting the bear is what caused it to go back and maul Glass a second time. Then they shot it again and the bear went back and hosed him up again, after which it died on top of him. Basically, Glass had been doing the smart thing (playing dead) and the others kept pissing it off instead of letting it leave. Honestly, the bear attack in the movie was pretty tame compared to what actually happened. A flap of the dude's scalp was hanging off, his leg was broken, he had a chunk taken out of his asscheek, and his back was so clawed up that his ribs were showing (a group of Indians that he met afterward supposedly sewed a scrap of bear pelt onto his back to cover it up). There aren't any reliable first-person accounts of the attack, even from Glass himself, but enough secondhand info matches up to get a reasonable idea of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
the movie isn't based on Glass' real life, it's based on a book called The Revenant, and the movie is totally different from the book in so many ways
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Pron on VHS posted:the movie isn't based on Glass' real life, it's based on a book called The Revenant, and the movie is totally different from the book in so many ways this is part of why i wish they just went ahead and changed the names.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Yeah I don't have any issue with it not being historically accurate, it was just funny that someone thought the bear attack was too brutal when its real-life inspiration was even worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
You know what else had an unrealistic bear attack?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Fantastic movie. Uncle Boogeyman posted:I was referring more to everything after the bear attack if they followed the accounts very closely I'd bet people would be talking about how it wasn't so bad instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
The gently caress was the deal with the breaking of the fourth wall at the very end of the movie ? Quite unnecessary and pointless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:By one account, Bridger and Fitzgerald shooting the bear is what caused it to go back and maul Glass a second time. Then they shot it again and the bear went back and hosed him up again, after which it died on top of him. Basically, Glass had been doing the smart thing (playing dead) and the others kept pissing it off instead of letting it leave. This is loving hilarious and I'm incredibly sad this wasn't depicted in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
nosophoros posted:The gently caress was the deal with the breaking of the fourth wall at the very end of the movie ? Quite unnecessary and pointless. Honestly, I read this as "and remember, vote ME for the Oscar" and it kind of irritated me. The film was Oscar bait enough without that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Does just looking at the camera technically count as "breaking the fourth wall", without the acknowledgement of the audience? It's not like it's Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I personally liked it anyway idgaf
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
He's making eye contact with an object which doesn't exist in the fictional world, so yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Khablam posted:He's making eye contact with an object which doesn't exist in the fictional world, so yes. How do you know he's not looking at, say, a delicious bison directly behind the camera? This argument is bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Khablam posted:Honestly, I read this as "and remember, vote ME for the Oscar" and it kind of irritated me. The film was Oscar bait enough without that. I have my problems with The Revenant but calling it oscar bait is loving ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:I have my problems with The Revenant but calling it oscar bait is loving ludicrous. - Released squarely in Oscar season - Features an oft-nominated cast - Is of epic length - Has a strong focus of several categories (uses people with wins in them, e.g. cinematography) - Is a strongly fictionalised account of a real event - White guilt aspects (indeed most of these were written into the tales from the real accounts) No, its not too blatant. No, it doesn't take away from the quality of the film. If you think it isn't specifically going for an Oscar haul though, you're being naive. WeAreTheRomans posted:How do you know he's not looking at, say, a delicious bison directly behind the camera? This argument is bad He's also focussing on the close distance, he isn't looking beyond the camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Khablam posted:"The last shot of the film is just him coincidentally looking directly at the audience" is the worse argument, here. Why would that possibly be a design choice. ok its a really close bison
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Khablam posted:- Released squarely in Oscar season Nah. It's not really of epic length, the only person in the cast nominated for oscars before is DiCaprio, and some of the other ideas are really vague and not really Oscar baity. There's a difference between being likely nominated and being Oscar bait. What people generally consider Oscar bait are movies shot in a kind of "traditional Hollywood prestige pic" style, they have a similar pace and rhythm, and there can be similarities in the scripts in terms of who is the likeable character, what kind of relationships there are, etc. The descriptions you used could be used to describe, say, There Will Be Blood, but that's hardly what people think when they think of Oscar bait. The Revenant is a somewhat strange movie that isn't traditional Oscar bait (because of how it's shot, its pacing, and it's not about anything or anyone important), but has a really famous actor and is directed by the last Best Director winner, so it has a lot of prestige just because of that. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Complaining that The Revenant somehow broke the fourth walls in a bid for Best Picture in the same year that The Big Short was nominated is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
So it didn't mean anything, gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Interestingly, it isn't the only time he plays with the fourth wall. There are a few shots where Leo's breath fogs the lens that are absolutely deliberate. I actually liked the frantic bits with the heavy breathing and sorta muted diegetic sounds -- it does a very good job of replicating what a serious adrenaline rush feels like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
nosophoros posted:So it didn't mean anything, gotcha. I took it as him letting go of the painful memories of his wife and son, having completed his mission of staying alive or whatever and looking straight ahead into life, taking the bull by its horns or something like that Also the heavy breathing mingling with the credits song could have been Iñárritu saying "no, he's definitely not dead" after the whole Birdman confusion i thought it was a pretty great movie and hope everyone gets Oscars
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
The look on his face is not of excitement at his prospects at all, and more of dread at still being alive and now with no goal
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Breathing on the camera was a good part and didn't really break the 4th wall in a bad way for me because of the transition to the mist/cloud bank immediately afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Khablam posted:Honestly, I read this as "and remember, vote ME for the Oscar" and it kind of irritated me. The film was Oscar bait enough without that. Oscar bait is a moronic term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:ok its a really close bison And this makes any sense .. why? He's looking at the audience. Honest Thief posted:The look on his face is not of excitement at his prospects at all, and more of dread at still being alive and now with no goal
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:Breathing on the camera was a good part and didn't really break the 4th wall in a bad way for me because of the transition to the mist/cloud bank immediately afterwards. Yeah, I liked it too. Just pointing out that Iñárritu isn't afraid to do things like that. "Breaking the fourth wall" gets used as a pejorative a lot of the time, when it's really just a stylistic tool like any other. I haven't seen all of his films yet, but he's done something similar in at least two others I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Yeah, I liked it too. Just pointing out that Iñárritu isn't afraid to do things like that. "Breaking the fourth wall" gets used as a pejorative a lot of the time, when it's really just a stylistic tool like any other. I haven't seen all of his films yet, but he's done something similar in at least two others I can think of. I wish he were a little more afraid of calling attention to himself. It is not daring, it is obvious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Khablam posted:And this makes any sense .. why? What doesn't make sense? Are you saying you wouldn't look at a close bison? Get real.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
There was also blood on the camera
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
I thought the bits with the camera getting covered with dirt blood or fog were awful, especially the one with Leo breathing CGI fog into the camera. Made it look like a "gritty" video game or an edgier epsiode of Animal Planet with an rear end in a top hat cameraman. Loved Tom Hardy's character and wish he had more scenes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
From all accounts, it wasn't CGI lens fogging.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 14:22
|
|