Probably the most intense pure wilderness survival movie I have ever seen.
I was pretty hype for it but having seen it I honestly don't know if I liked it.
I understand not having the screen time for the southward journey, you have to make some concessions converting to a screenplay, but Iñárritu could have played out much more of the survival drama if he hadn't blown all his screen time on artsy shots of rivers and trees and dream sequences. In the screenplay they went with, Glass gets mauled by a bear and is more or less ambulatory within what feels like a few days, there's no sense of time or hardship with no doubt and it's kind of boring.
It's just fails so completely on the assumption the audience will immediately lose interest if you ever draw a scene or concept out long enough to say anything meaningful.
>so many elements of the book carelessly mashed to one another
>indians needing a hamfisted justification to kill white men
>that super awkward snowflake eating scene
>that no suspense in the horse chase / cliff scene because you already know what's going to happen, also it was literally the length you see in the trailer
>that stupid tauntaun smells worse on the inside scene
>that hollywood brawl and ending
>based "in part" on the novel by michael punke
I wish I could just enjoy it for the numerous beautiful shots and scenery but I just found it baffling that you could have so many things directors would give their nuts for and end up with this. It wasn't terrible, just sort of bland and nonsensical. Am I wrong?
i agree with pretty much everything u said. it was beautifully realised but i wanted more of the survival part of the story - it left me feeling underwhelmed. i even watched it a second time to check i wasnt being overly critical.
i guess the book just doesnt translate well into a movie.
Punke did his survivalist research, that's for sure. Every single step of every single thing Glass did to make fires and traps, etc. etc. on his long trek back to civilization after getting mauled by a bear is in excruciating detail in the blandest prose possible.
If any book could benefit from visual shortcuts and a condensing of action & time, it's this one. Should have just stuck with the movie.
>wounds show scar tissue after a couple of days
>he can walk on his foot after a couple days (even with a splint it was broken so badly I doubt it)
>he can almost run, and has the balls to go after his son's killer after one day
>the horses were riding at the end in a straight line, even though they would probably be hanging around the edges of the forest awkwardly with that dead guy on their back because they aren't being guided
>doesn't do that good a job of explaining how Hugh escaped the French camp
Still don't think they should've killed that one guy who helped him, he should have made friends at the end. And I know it held the movie together, but there's a point where the fever dreams turned into real religious experiences, with his wife calling him, not sure how I feel about it. But nitpicking aside I really enjoyed the movie.
movie was a 6/10 for me.
An actual question though. Dude was in the freezing water a lot with his furs on. Are furs superior to Gore-tex in some way? I see getting wet as a death sentence in the situations represented in this movie.
His prose was pretty bland granted. Still embarrassing for a screenplay to fall so short of a mediocre novel.
>Are furs superior to Gore-tex in some way?
In usage as a garment fur is very similar to wool.
All the characters in the movie acted more or less with reckless disregard and probably would have all died of exposure or lost feet at the least. Especially Glass when floating in the river for long enough that the Indians wouldn't bother pursuing, presumably far enough to not be concerned or he wouldn't have stayed on the bank.
I guess it's an okay revenge flick, on the same tier as something like Seraphim Falls but nowhere near any decent western. I'm going to laugh if anyone other than Hardy gets nominated for anything much less wins something.
watching the original now to compare
fucking trailers these days. give away the whole fucking movie, jesus
I enjoyed it; as someone who has spent a lot of time sailing there were a few things I'd take issue with, but they didn't spoil the movie for me. As for the whale, however; they just don't grow to over 100 feet.
I read what really happened to Glass and they left out some things that would have been awesome for the movie. Glass set his own foot and he laid on a rotten log to allow maggots to eat his rotten flesh. Both of those would have looked awesome on screen.
Just finished watching it, the movie looked good, cinematography was amazing. My screen rip was okay quality but I will buy it on 4k bluray when it comes out. Leo was good as Glass, really liked Tom Hardy as well. They play it a little loose with the "survival" aspects, like dumping into the freezing river so much and rating so much raw meat. Also hard to tell how much time is passing, is this whole movie just over a few days? Or is Glass recovering for a while? Thought it was a bit Hollywood for the Arikara to have a reason to kill white men though I thought the ending was awesome as how it played out.
As far as a big dumb Hollywood movie? About as good as something like this gets. Wish it did a few things different but they did a lot of it great. Movie looks very "real" and that's due to them using mostly natural lighting. It was a pain in the ass i'm sure but worth it in the end.
He should've been dead after like half an hour of drifting in the water. Also, your clothes are pretty shit at isolating when wet. So even if he just fell into the water with his full body and got out in 10 seconds, he would be in a threatening situation in those temperatures
I kinda felt every physical pain he went through and i think it was the intention of the maker to let you experience what the main character experiences. Setting his own foot and letting his rotting flesh getting eaten by maggots would be too fucking much.
Bears and other wild animals go into freezing rivers all the time and survive without fire. I'm assuming the bear fur he was wearing would dry slightly even in the cold. So if he dried off his body after he got out quickly the fur miiight just keep enough heat to keep him alive, but I'm still doubtful.
I'm kinda tempted to whip out my bear skin and see how warm it really is.
Also people's tolerance to cold water and hypothermia are different. I can swim in glacier fed lakes with ice chunks floating just fine for 15-30 minutes, as long as I got a warm car or fire to warm up with after. Some people can swim naked under sea ice and they do just fine.
Maybe not as "fucking amazing" as some people said, but I think it's definitely betyer than some people say it is. Certain details, like how quickly injuries healed or falling off a cliff, seemed a bit over the top, but you could really see the pain in actor's faces. Shit was brutal. That's why I think I liked even though it was different from the book.
Not much other halfway decent movies out right now anyway, and there haven't been many good /out/ movies in theatres in a while either.
Agree with this. I was still glad I saw it, and it's always nice to see historically based and /out/ movies coming from Hollywood. The beginning was pretty solid, but it went downhill after the bear attack. Too much dreaming about / rescuing Indian QTs, too little actual survival. Glass's journey was already brutal and harsh enough in fact; I don't know that there was really a need to add to the overall brutality of the movie with repeated scenes of soldiers burning some village. Iñárritu even forgot the part where he lays on a rotten log so the maggots can eat the gangrene out of his wounds, opting to replace it with the sagacious and long-suffering Indian who gets killed by racist Frenchmen. I don't think Hugh Glass's mixed-race son was brutally murdered before his eyes, either. I don't recall that he even had a son. I suppose any portrayal of American Indians from Hollywood in the current year has to be more or less sympathetic, though. I understand Iñárritu's quandary here.
Props to Iñárritu for filming in the real outdoors instead of just using CGI for everything, though. The CGI buffalo looked terribly stiff and mechanical, but I understand the need for them. I wasn't too bothered by the scene with Glass sleeping in his horse's carcass, since at least that's a real survival tactic. It's at least possible that Glass might have used some variation on it. DiCaprio was obviously really into his role, to his credit. It may not be a perfect movie, but I'll take it over the usual Hollywood stuff like War of the Worlds 23: Giant Robots Edition or Superheroes vs. MechaHitler. Pic not especially related.
The best part was when the native american made a lean to or Fitzgeralds speech about the squirrel. The only other thing done right was the salmon pool that Leo made.
Please try to survive a night in subzero temps by crawling into a dead horse carcass. You will just freeze to death.
Couple criticisms on authenticity:
>No would ever survive so much water submerging incidents in the (Northern US?) winter in the outdoors. Hypothermia should have killed Leo at least 10 times.
>Arrows don't impact and get stuck EVERY time they hit someone. Most of the time an arrow should go right through.
>Axes hanging on belts WITHOUT sheaths/scabbards?!? Do these guys really want their femoral slashed and their dicks chopped off if they fall on their axe? This was the most insanely inauthentic thing I saw in the movie.
>Guys clearing rooms and using rifles as if they are semi-autos. This is the effect of modern weaponry on directors who don't know better. No way single shot black powder rifles were ever used in the manner in which this film portrays them.
My take...as far as the outdoors/wilderness goes, it was beautiful, stunning, and generally accurate. At times it felt like a documentary.
The story wasn't that great. I didn't buy into the wife/son connection. I didn't really identify with Hugh Glass's motivations. Even as long as the movie was, relationships weren't developed enough. This made the survival/loneliness aspects less moving. Other survival movies with underlying love stories have done this much better: Last of the Mohicans, Lonesome Dove, Cast Away, Cold Mountain. When people in outdoor movies pull off insane feats of survival we have to understand what is motivating them. In one scene Fitzgerald gets asked what he values more his pelts or his life and he says he doesn't have a life, just his pelts which are his living. I don't see what Glass's life was either. The flashbacks and dreams aren't convincing.
I also couldn't really see any theme/message in the movie. I think there were side-bar agendas (Natives, Environment) but not really anything interesting to think about. Revenge I guess.
Lots of minor accuracy problems. People were just too willing to jump in or walk trough freezing rivers during winter in this movie. Glass's son calmly standing waist-deep in the river? That's practically a death sentence. It was also kind of lame Glass was out in the wild, anemic, sick, burning millions of calories off and without much food for at least a few weeks yet Leo maintained his plump little well nourished face.
>Arrows should go straight through
I'm sure more than they showed of course, but these were much weaker, plus you often would be releasing at full draw if you are shooting rapidly. Half the time I saw they'd only draw back like 20 inches
The bear attack was pretty damn convincing, I have to say. The long takes were really well done. I enjoyed that any shots of people were slow handheld-steadicam tiptoeing through the location or slowly zooming on faces (makeup department needs that oscar). The other shots are still vignettes of the vast empty landscapes and juxtapose very well.
Leo did a convincing job conveying the pain his character suffered but it was undercut by how quickly he healed and how much bodyfat and muscle he retained, so many actors before him did not have this problem but it might be due to shooting schedule.
Hardy totally stole the show, I'm not sure if he's up for an award, but he deserves it, Domnhall Gleeson did an excellent job, and definitely looked the part despite his previous roles.
Then there was the outrageous shit like casually getting soaking wet in freezing temps and shaking it off, falling asleep on the frozen ground after severe dehydration, starvation, trauma and blood loss and waking up with a second wind.
Those aside, It was a really great movie, glad to see a major release with some talent behind the lens.
>opting to replace it with the sagacious and long-suffering Indian who gets killed by racist Frenchmen
felt like watching it until i read this ... i dont care if it's historically justified or not i just cant stand the PC lecture in movies anymore ...
It's not like the mollifying of Western Expansion and Manifest Destiny ever took place in cinema or idk the active onslaught of Indigenous Americans being given a central plot in a major Hollywood film has been done dozens of times.
I mean it's those PC liberals in commiefornia that ruins the film with their liberal notions that Indians were people who had every right to kill any white man who crossed them.
I much preferred them in Jeremiah Johnson, where they were depicted as being merciless killers for next to no reason.
Honestly I think that's more legitimate. You have to remember they were pretty much savage tribes before they started trading with the Americans.
Pretty much this. Have to take it for what it is and not what it could be. Still one of the few movies I've actually enjoyed in a while. Survival is made to look easy, which is my only gripe.