So how was it? I was hoping to go see it with my dad tomorrow night but his co-workers said it sucked.
I'm seeing it tomorrow. Expecting to be fully immersed in the experience, and I'm going in the middle of the day to maximize chances of that.
There's a girl that works at the theater I'm seeing it at that's pretty cute. Perhaps I'll try talking to her.
>There's a girl that works at the theater I'm seeing it at that's pretty cute. Perhaps I'll try talking to her.
Laughed hard at that picture.
She's cool, though she only knows me by my first name, which I give to those who I haven't really connected with. My "professional" name, if you will.
It's pretty good man. It felt kind of slow in some places, but for most of the film it kept me on edge.
Amazing cinematography, amazing acting, amazing action sequences, and a good plot.
8/10 overall. The guy who told your dad it sucked is a fucking plebeian faggot whose favorite movies are probably Fast and Furious.
Looks pretty fucking awful tbqh friends
Same old black and white hollywood morality muh noble savages muh ebul wite man I just don't give a fuck honestly. Would be cooler if it played like No Country where it follows Hardy after the hubbub and Leo is the scary bad dude slowly catching up to him
I thought it was great. Also I was listening to new radio in the car the other day, when it first came out. The newsreader was going on about the appalling bear maul scene and how graphic it was, they then played the audio of the bear maul scene, the whole thing. It was minutes long and this was ABC news radio. I was driving along to the sound of a bear roaring and the sounds of a man being ripped apart. It was ridiculous, THEN the guy comes back on and proceeds to carefully spoil the entire movie from start to finish under the guise of a "review". He didn't even review it he just gave away every single plot point and development. I had already seen it so I didn't care but holy fuck what were they thinking?
Jesus christ, I'd have been mad as fuck if I didn't see the movie.
it was the fact that the cinematography was amazing and most of the film is just amazing but long shots of the scenery
the movie was slow paced but it doesn't make it boring
> forced bad guy
eehhh a little
> Leo barley talks
soo true and this also adds to the length movie. He communicate via body and eye movement. Is that a bad thing no but it does add that slow paced movie drama
> no female
what are u gay?
Has anybody found bloopers and errors yet? I mean somebody must have fucked up early on in that intro scene.
The only one I noticed was when when the Kid confronted Fitzgerald. When it cuts back to the kid in one scene he is in snowy ground even though they he fell in not so snowy ground in the previous scene
Has anyone here read the book? Is it any good?
I'm thinking of picking it up, as I'm a fan of revenge stories.
Just got back from seeing it, I already know it will be the best film I see all year. Some very tense scenes, whoever played the captain did an incredible job, acting was great all around though. Also since I wont be seeing Blood Meridian on screen anytime soon this helped fill that void
It's a remake of something that didn't need remaking (pic related)
The entire thing is shot on a Go Pro camera, 2 feet off the ground, following Leo around, it's just tiring to watch, and boring visually
There's almost no music
There's almost no dialogue
Tom Hardy's overacting is terrible
It wasn't a "terrible movie", it was a lot better than hateful eight, but it was just okay
Now you're speaking my language compadre
Very well done
Pretending to be injured is really hard to do, but other than that he doesn't really do too much else
A bit cliched, does a bit of white bashing too but not over the top
The film was a good watch but Leo won't win an Oscar off of it because he didn't do enough.
>over 2 minutes long
>you have to read a book for a movie to be good
A film should stand on its own.
On it's own, this film is repetitive and bland. There is really no character development, just tiny flashbacks that provide not much more than "he loved his wife and kid". The other characters work but they're just so one dimensional that if the actors weren't solid (which they are, especially Gleeson) it would be an atrocity to watch.
It's just survival porn, which is fine if you're into that, but damn, it's fucking pretentious.
>Tom Hardy's overacting is terrible
No, it was believable. His role/character was spot on.. that doesn't necessarily mean it will make the movie great. It comes down to the screen play
>you need to talk to have character development
Found the pleb.
Here's a small list of films that have silent characters with huge amounts of development:
Vito Corleone (Godfather)
Sympathy For Mr Vengeance
All Is Lost
If a film is missing something entirely, it's not being subtle, it's just lacking.
The characters do not progress, we do not see change, we just see what we expected to see when the events began. It's lazy.
It's okay, but Leo's storyline is boring. Tom Hardy's character is the most interesting, and the it would have better to focus on him and the kid and their moral dilemma, instead of Leo's man vs wild adventure.
>muh evil Frenchmen
>muh noble savages
>muh upstanding Americans
There was a good film in this, but the delivery was botched. Di Caprio's part is like a re-enactment of a wilderness survival story.
The cinematography was great in parts, but there was plenty that could have been cut, including some of the hackneyed monologues.
The music was overly dramatic, and those dream sequences felt like a redux of Gladiator.
>Leo barely talks
I had the stomach virus yesterday, didn't feel like talking much. If I was
mauled by a fucking bearI wouldn't be saying much either just a whooole lot of groaning like Leo did.
Reposting from other thread:
Just got out of this. Having an argument with a friend that saw it too, maybe /tv/ can settle it.
From the time Hardy and the kid left Leo, what length of time did the movie span? That is, in the story.
You really haven't delved deeply enough into what some human beings over the course of human civilization have endured if you found Leo's predicament and attachment to life to be "implausible".
They move faster than the whites on the frontier, they subsist better than the whiteson the frontier, they're better organized than the whites on the frontier, and they have a more consistent morality than the whites on the frontier. How are they savage?
Seriously, even the
Indian girl that gets raped that leo saves just walks right by Leo and gives him a dirty look, yes I realize they spared his life but she seemed like she was pretty apathetic to him being injured.
Because they ambush peaceful white going about their business preparing pelts. And then they rip the skin off the heads of their victims.
>a more consistent morality than the whites on the frontier
In what way? They kill people they don't like and steal their shit. I'm not saying the whites are therefore morally superior, but they are at least reasonable in their activities.
And don't give me any 'in tune with nature and the land' bullshit. Europeans had this too before they developed civilization and pulled themselves out of the dirt.
80 million natives lived on the continent before Europeans arrived. The expanding frontier meant that countless Indian populations were just killed, period, and while this is not included very much in the text of the film, the Ree chief says as much, and they're established as stewards of the environment the film takes place in. Trade and cohabitation with Indians makes for good little stories but by far the main narrative in the 1700s and 1800s was massacre. Wiping them out was standard American doctrine.
In the text of the film, I call the actions of the Ree hunting band more consistent because Fitzgerald, Glass, the kid and the Captain are our tokens that represent the completely fractured morality that the audience is actually confronted with. The American audience that watches this movie will identify with all four of these characters to some degree.
Leo's character acted in self defence, he didn't go around randomly attacking people.
And the Cree attacked him and drove him off a cliff for no reason, right after he saved the tree nigger girl (although they might not have realised that)
The parallel is pretty obvious, but I don't think there really was a true moral equivalence in how they conducted themselves.
The Revenant was outstanding and maybe the most unflinching and brutal movie ive ever seen. The use of natural light gave everything a kind of realness that you dont see in many other movies, Emmanuel Lubezki is going to win an oscar for sure. Leonardo gave an excellent performance, the closest thing I can compare it to is Tom Hanks in Castaway, little dialogue, just man vs nature. Tom Hardy is also great and gives an oscar worthy supporting actor performance. Its a little on the long side and some of the “spiritual” elements are a bit over done but it doesnt take away from the movie enough not to give it a 10/10
Not really, it was okay I guess. The scene where
he floats Fitzgerald down the river to get scalpedseemed forced and disingenuous, the indians didn't even acknowledge Glass. It's like they recognized him but didn't say anything even amongst themselves.
The ending left you with a ".. is that it?" kind of feeling
I think I remember seeing this meteor shot in Birdman. Is this a recurring theme in Inarritu's movies?
You'd think someone would mention something about it within the group of indians that but that never happens. After
chasing him throughout the entire movie with all it's transgression and redemption they finally catch up to him but somehow nobody says anything. It doesn't make any sense, the visuals didn't click with the reasoning.
You're left to make assumptions via imagery but it just didn't work
survives not 1, but 2 bear maulings, one where he has his throat slashed. both within minutes of each other. the 1000lbs+ bear rolls down a hill and lands on top of him as well. he survives in ice cold water flowing down river for several hours (goes from day to night as he washes up on shore). he jumped off a fucking cliff with a horse and survives. he puts gunpowder on his throat that was slashed by a bear and lights it to close the wound.
these are just a few of the things that happen over the course of a day or two in the life of fucking mcgivemeafuckingoscaralready. based on a true story too. just outlandishly fucking full of bullshit lies. but its based on a true story if you want to give it an oscar. there arent many films i walked out on, but this one i did.
The acting was pretty solid from most of the cast, Hardy and DiCaprio were both the stand outs. The cinematography was beautiful. The action was quite well done when it happened, there was just the right amount of violence and gore for my tastes. It didn't shy away from violence but it wasn't overly gratuitous either.
Something that really bugged me was the really shitty dubbing job that was done whenever the Indians spoke, it was way off and looked shit. Also the run time is obscenely long. A lot could have been cut out and could have still kept it's look and feel.
All in all, a decent movie 7/10
>My favorite film is The Thin Red Line.
Was the flare meant to be a reference to Birdman?
It was the first movie where watching it in theaters had a bigger impact than watching at home.
I saw the screener and really liked it but Holyshit watching it in theaters was amazing.
It's my moty just for the final fight since it and creed ruined ever other fight scene for me.
To all of the fucking bear experts in this thread. Yes, bears do move very fucking fast.
Yeah he really just did what he had to do to survive. Had he stayed there the Indians would've found them all. Though he did kill the kid so he could get the money he was offered so yes he is a bad person.
The movie poses more questions than it answers. Ultimately in an age where society serves as a shield from nature, "The Revenant" reminds us we are human. This awaking, however, extends passed the typical hollywood tropes of motality. Rather Inarritu lectures has delivered a piece that reminds us of our history as a people, and species.
On its surface, as a revenge story it is engaging and entertaining.
>go to see this earlier today with my friend
>he was fairly high (DUDE WEED LMAO)
>lets out a "dude what the fuck"
>i ask "you didn't like it?"
>"it's called the revenant, isn't he supposed to come back as a ghost or some shit"
They were skilled with bows, not rifles. Also, luck. Also, they only missed twice before shooting his horse, causing him to fall off a cliff. Also, he shot back, killing at least one of them.
I enjoyed it mostly.
I thought it was a bit too long though and the actual "revenge" portion of the movie is a bit too small.
Leo gets out of the woods after this loooooong, 2-hour long trip, and then goes to kill Hardy and it takes like 10 minutes.
Like come on, it was marketed as this epic revenge tale but the actual revenge taking is so short and small that it just left me disappointed.
But it was a good fight in the end. Brutally realistic IMO.
To everyone saying it was long, It ended and I was just worn out with it all, but somehow I feel like thats the point. Glass finally got his man and it was exhausting not only for him but for the viewer as well
Changes to Glass's historical tale were pretty drastic. "We're all savages" rings hollow when whites are the overall villains. It's a crude version of the noble savage myth for people desensitized to brutality in media. And Glass is the typical patronizing white paternalist for Indians.
>Glass's halfbreed son killed by white man. Historically, no son/murder/strangling, etc.. And Glass was unconscious when abandoned.
>Indian violence artificially justified for rescuing princess kidnapped by whites. After the raid, chief literally says "Oh dear, the princess isn't here! What's this, pelts? -- we can use these to buy horses in our quest!" Historically, didn't happen. Indians raided selfishly, like anyone else.
>After Glass rescues princess, Arikara finally see his innocence/spare him. Historically, Arikara were his eternal nemeses, he survived many more raids before they finally killed him.
>Arikara are stoic, noble warriors. Whites are crude, greedy monsters. "Gimme a big titted injun girl!" juxtaposed to chief's speech about Indians' violated honor/the evils of white imperialism.
>Glass's mystical Pawnee paradise burned/massacred by white soldiers. Historically, he left the Pawnee without incident to rejoin frontier whites.
>Arikara village burned/massacred by white soldiers. Historically, the army refused to fight, and enraged trappers vented by torching a deserted village.
>Arikara princess raped by whites, her revenge facilitated by Glass. Historically, no princess, Glass didn't kill anybody except Arikara during journey.
>Glass's Pawnee friend killed by whites. Historically, nope, and he actually got far more Indian (non-Arikara) help than in the movie.
>Glass duels white killer before a final gory justice delivered by deus-ex-noble savages. Historically, Glass spared the thieves out of mercy/to avoid trouble, just walking away with his reclaimed Hawken rifle/tools.
>"injuns down in Texas might rob you but ain't gonna take your top knot"
Okay I feel like I missed something but the indians were looking for Powaqa, and leo stumbles upon her in that camp but I swear the people in that camp were the same people who traded with the indians for the horses and weapons earlier? does that mean they had her the whole time?
The French were liars.
That's why when the Indian mentioned finding his daughter the French captain instantly agreed to giving them horses, they were the ones who kidnapped the girl.
Now the question was who burned the Indian village Fitz and the kid stumbled into.
Great, a deserved 8/10 at least.
Leo was good as usual, really sold his performance when
his son died.
Gleeson and Hardy were also very good.
A bit long though and a few weird scenes.
>instantly agreed to give them horses
>wtf are you talking about? He repeatedly refused to give them horses until he was threatened by the chief, just to name the most glaring of your inaccuracy. Your comprehension is just awful.
I fucking love everyone on /tv/
"Hey quick a movies coming out... based on a true story! Just let me jump on Wikipedia so I can pretend I've been an expert in this subject matter for years"
Just like Birdman, the more I reflect on it, the more obvious its flaws become.
Nobody has any character in the entire film, just goals. Get revenge, get money, look for my kid. Everyone seems more retarded for it.
The only interesting character was his kid who was looking for acceptance amongst the others but he got killed. Movie is full of zombies.
Cinematography was insanely good, I don't know where you're getting this Go Pro idea from? Did you even watch the beginning Native attack scene?
The music is effective when it is used. Plus no music does not mean bad movie, watch No Country For Old Men.
There is a ton of dialogue when necessary. Did you want Leo to fucking Narrate to you his feelings while he's crawling around getting shit done?
Tom Hardy was fine.
Totally this. They manufactured this badass character so redditors could hype it, but at the end of the day Leo was so terrible even the comically evil Hardy made a better, more complex and interesting character.
And his acting is really campy and exaggerated. Yet he is the best part of the movie and the only character with a motivation other than pushing forward the plot. That says a lot about the movie.
Alejandro Jodorowsky: Superman makes me vomit, Batman and all that. That whole empire… this religion… It is so important that superheroes suffer… I don’t give a damn, I shit on the United States.
Oh look, more Hardy fags. He's doing his best Jeff Bridges impression while not doing much else. It's not a complex story at all, nothing about Leo was good or bad. Just a good survival/revenge story.
At least Hardy had a personality. What was Leo's other than surviving? In fact, the character was so hollow they had to invent a son just so he can have a vague reason for revenge.
Well it's a true story other than the son/family so what was Glass's motivation? Survival and revenge. Guy who is supposed to take care of you until you die instead straight up tries to kill you, I'd be pissed too.
>The bear's breath makes the "camera" fog up