Just saw this last night. I was really excited to see it beforehand.
However, this movie is just plain bad. It's unbelievably drawn out and boring, seemingly for no reason. The cinematography is completely uninspired, Tom Hanks' accent is goofy, none of the acting was that great. There's literally one straight hour of Leo screaming and crawling through the woods.
It was trying to be artsy just for the sake of being artsy 2 1/2 hours of meaningless bullshit.
The symbolism it did have was hamfisted as all hell, especially the ones
involving the Native Americans and the last words of Fitzgerald. It was completely cheesy, and some of the "emotional" scenes had half of the theater laughing. The tongue scene. Enough said
The only good, somewhat intriguing scenes were:
The opening battle The church scene with dead son The last fight before Fitzgerald's horrible last words
It won't make history but I liked it, it wasn't bad. The only problem is that I was disturbed by the fact that Inarritu tried to be artsy with some things like photography (and handled it more than decently, I'd say) but didn't waste his time on a lot of aspects of the plot and the charcterization of Glass.
The violence and gore seemed completely unnecessary. Only there for shock value.
The scene with them eating the buffalo and the horse bed scene made some people walk out
Hateful Eight is an example of an extremely violent movie where the violence has a purpose. It fits contextually, is symbolic in some situations, and is stylistic. In Revenant, it just comes out of nowhere specifically to gross you out.
Worst movie I've seen all year desu.
Enlightening plebs is getting old, especially when it's on the same topics over and over again.
When /film/ comes out, I truly hope it is the first invite-only board on 4chan. Ideally, having contrarian opinions or being a crafty troll will be just fine, but being plain dumb will be an instant deal-breaker.
Loved the first act (the opening battle was fucking awesome), but then it started going downhill at a steady pace I felt. Once in a while the movie spiked again of course, but overall downhill.
Also am I the only one who started to get a bit annoyed by Leo's luck? It's a movie and suspension of disbelieve is part of that, but Leo survived a fucking bear, a 30-50 meter drop of a cliff an was close to getting shot one hundred times.
You don't understand the meaning of "shock value." Everything in the movie was within the realm of realism, and most of the violence falls within the category of a mundane footnote of the time period.
You can make a case for the final showdown being gratuitous, but if you think they should've just grappled and fell into an icy river instead, then you should reconsider. They're both trackers; one of them is even a renowned Indian killer. You're silly to think they wouldn't have weapons on them, and you're sillier to think Glass wouldn't try everything he can to kill the man who killed his son while Fitzgerald does everything he can to stay alive in a perilous situation.
You're free to think what you want. Your opinion means shit to me.
At the very list, narrow but stringent moderating would be nice. No low quality or openly unintelligent posts. I'd love a film forum that imitates real life dialogue. /r/truefilm leans toward that direction, but it's pretty empty.
That's EXACTLY what you're saying, that the revenent was more gratuitously violent then hateul 8. Which I'm saying is bullshit: Tarantino would be the first person to admit that violence in his movies are more about shock and entertainment then about some deeper meaning. It was way more needed in revenent to show the brutality of the environment and futility of Glass' struggle.
Even though you're proving that guy wrong, it's an exercise in futility. There'll be another uninformed opinion on The Revenant in about five minutes in a different thread. It's a Sisyphean task to try and make folks see the light all the time on the same few topics (/tv/ is a circlejerk, so discussions mostly revolve around the same few topics).
It wears on you. I suggest you stop trying before you become too jaded to contribute at all. Just let retards be retards.
it's all trolls trolling trolls circle jerking unironically anyway, there's no point any more, it's turned into one giant echo chamber. I don't even bother sharing my opinions here anymore, it's not even worth it, because most replies are low brow troll tier anyway, it's not even worth trying to find those few anons who actually want to have a decent conversation beyond memeing and shitposting.
Tell me about it... I really miss /tv/ from a few years ago. The front page wasn't a meme machine churning out products at the speed of light. More esoteric topics had quality discussions and lifespans beyond ten minutes.
Neo-neo-/tv/ makes neo-/tv/ seem like the Mecca of filmography.
I don't hate discussion. I look down upon unintelligent opinions. Characterizing The Revenant as gratuitously violent is an unintelligent opinion.
Constant memes and shitposting also doesn't count as "discussion."
Shit, I miss when every thread wasn't filled with some form of "le ged out rebbit xD" replying to any post that contained any semblance of an actual thought. Now the only threads that get replies have overtly negative OPs and just chock full of "trolls" "baiting" each other
>The scene with them eating the buffalo and the horse bed scene made some people walk out
I tried: >>64667080
No response. Also, you do realize the irony in criticizing my ostensible lack of contribution, I hope.
Do you know of any good alternatives to /tv/? I don't like Reddit's voting system. Contrarian opinions shouldn't be muted.
Hope you get over your god complex anon
I wasn't saying the last fight scene was bad. In fact, I said it was one of three good scenes.
Did I say his using the horse was dumb/unrealistic? I said it was intentionally trying to gross the audience out when it simply wasn't necessary.
I personally had no problem with seeing all the guts and shit, but it still wasn't necessary toward telling a story.
>I said it was intentionally trying to gross the audience out when it simply wasn't necessary.
Yeah just because they show gisgusting things it's trying to gross out more than realistic.
There are hundreds of things you can say are "unnecessary toward telling a story." when in actuality it adds to it's realism.
>Why did X happen in the movie?
is one of the most retarded questions you can ever ask in a movie. It's a story about a guy surviving in the wilderness, so you kinda have to show him surviving in the wilderness.
Why do you think that scene was meant to "intentionally gross the audience out"? What about it seemed forced or excessive?
>it still wasn't necessary toward telling a story
The case can easily be made that that scene summarized the gestalt of Glass's harrowing survival journey. If they hadn't shown him disemboweling the horse, it would've taken away from the visceral tone of the movie, which itself was a primary extension of the storytelling.
There is no compromise in a contested tundra. This scene is just another way of showing the audience that.
Frankly, it just wasn't an engaging story to begin with. Realism, in fact, is the most pointless thing to aim for in a movie. If the argument is that "IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED THOUGH!" (but apparently the movie took huge amounts of liberties), so what? Because something happened, it has to be a movie?
Like I said, hours of bullshit without much meaning behind it.
>good alternatives to /tv/
don't think there are any. certainly not reddit or imdb, its hopeless
If you think the shit with the horse and buffalo was unnecessary then idk what else to say. How is that unnecessary when the movie is about the lengths one fur trapper/mountain man went to for revenge, on the frontier in 1823. It's integral to the plot. Same as all the violence. That world was particularly violent, brutal and cruel.
And then on top of all that, somehow you thought the violence in H8ful Eight wasn't just there for shock/entertainment? Everyone puking on Daisey, the blood and brains of her brother washing over her face?
I honestly thought The Revenant wasn't long enough and that H8ful Eight was about an hour too long, easily.
>the visceral tone of the movie
This is the issue I have: the rest of the movie wasn't gritty at all. I wouldn't have had any problem with that scene if the rest of the movie was at least somewhat gritty. But it's not. It's extremely slow, trying to be meaningful with no actual meaning behind it, and suddenly EXTREME VIOLENCE only to be followed by nothing.
The gross-out scenes (which I'd usually have zero problems with) did not fit contextually with the rest of the film.
Such a shitty actor, at least in this role.
You talk like a moron, which is why you have no credibility. You exaggerate the argument with caps, use profanity, and make vague arguments such as, "Realism... is... pointless... in a movie."
This is why this thread isn't worth having a discussion in. You have no idea how to properly engage in dialogue, which is likely because you're socially retarded. If you can make your point without acting like your balls just dropped, I'm more than willing to hear it.
>movie wasn't gritty
What is your definition of gritty? Because Glass and Fitzgerald embody "grit."
>But it's not. It's extremely slow
"Slow" isn't an antithesis to "grit," so I don't understand your train of thought here.
>trying to be meaningful with no actual meaning behind it
It's a survival story with elements of spiritualism. It's not Eyes Wide Shut, Taste of Cherry, or Stalker. It doesn't have to be "2deep4u" to be appreciated.
> EXTREME VIOLENCE only to be followed by nothing
All of the violence is expository in nature. This statement is factually incorrect.
>The gross-out scenes (which I'd usually have zero problems with) did not fit contextually with the rest of the film.
Why not? You literally just said violence in this movie is followed by nothing, meaning violence is preeminent, dominating, dwarfing all other elements of the movie. To wit, the violence IS in fact the context, by virtue of your own wording.
Do you see why I'm reluctant to have conversations with someone like you? You can't even properly present an argument.
Regarding the blow job scene, the point of it was that we don't even know if he's telling the truth. He's using his knowledge of the colonel to try and get him to pull his gun first, so he can shoot him. It served to move the plot along. He knew telling a story about how his son sucked his BLACK dick would allow him to kill him.
With Daisy constantly getting beaten up, that was in order to make her look more and more evil throughout the movie. You didn't notice how she was pretty much the girl from The Exorcist by the end? It was to make her look like she was from hell.
>rest of the movie wasn't gritty at all
how many times did you fall asleep during it?
so it sounds like you just watch movies and the like to be entertained, no? You just want to shut your brain off and look at all the pretty lights and what not?
Having a different opinion from someone doesn't mean they're an idiot, friendo. I'm seeing a lot of attack of character to defend your own opinion rather than qualifying/arguing against my statements.
Your statements are absurdly inaccurate. Why would anyone but an idiot such as myself bother responding when it's clear nothing is getting through to you?
I don't care if you dislike The Revenant. It has no bearing on my enjoyment. However, you should earnestly watch the movie again with a fresh mindset because egregiously misunderstanding the movie certainly has a bearing on YOUR enjoyment of it.
What did you think of the movie? I was personally blown away but whenever I share that opinion on here I get "lol the bear was too fast" and I never get to discuss it.
What was your take on the ending?
>you just want to turn your brain off
What did I say that'd imply this at all. I'm trying to discuss a movie, not get drilled by tryhards on the Internet. Don't know what I said to trigger you, hope ya feel better
>Because Glass and Fitzgerald embody "grit."
Haven't seen the movie yet but this is one of the biggest reasons I think the movie will be good. They had to live in that shit climate the whole time, it would definitely impact them deeper than they could capture with plain acting
I loved it. It's one of my favorites of the year along with Sicario, Ex Machina, Dancing Arabs, Cemetary of Splendor, and Sunset Song (I still have a lot of the 2015 catalog to get through, though, so this is obviously subject to change).
I think The Revenant is the epitome of a cinematic experience. I was as in awe of its technical mastery as I was with Gravity and Interstellar, all three of which I saw on the second biggest IMAX screen in the world (Lincoln Square in NYC).
I've always been a skeptic of Leo's. I think he's an average actor who has charisma and picks his roles intelligently, which is why he has longevity and prestige as an actor. Wolf of Wall Street? Great fun, but Leo being hysterical didn't mean his lineage descends from Thesipiae. Django? He's playing a manchild, and screams appropriately. Still doesn't mean he's a good actor. Ever since the "Leo and his missing Oscar" meme started, I've never felt he's been justified in winning it.
However, that all changed with The Revenant. The raw physicality of the role is astounding in itself—anyone who's seen the movie cannot logically disagree with this, so I won't elaborate. But then you read about the behind-the-scenes production, about the insane commitment Leo offered to the role. The guy almost developed hypothermia a few times because of wading through icy rivers; he slept in an actual horse carcass; he ate raw bison and fish. He almost died, all in the name of committing to the role, and that's something I highly admire. Pair that with the wide range of expressions he showed in a role that had sparse monologue/dialogue, and I think he entirely deserves the Oscar this year.
I also really enjoyed Hardy's role. The "finding God" monologue was awesome. You can also sympathize with his character as he was doing what it took to both make a living and to survive. He didn't necessarily want to kill Glass or Hawk, but when it comes down to it, a man has to look after himself.
Definitely one of Leos better performances , never been a fan of him since he plays himslef in every film but here with a beard covering his face , he fit right in
Cant really think of a more visceral performace by an actor this year
I also really enjoyed Hardy's role. The "finding God" monologue was awesome. You can also sympathize with his character as he was doing what it took to both make a living and to survive. He didn't necessarily want to kill Glass or Hawk, but when it comes down to it, a man has to look after himself. I also thought his accent was easily the best I've heard in years. I saw the movie with a buddy who came up to visit from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and he thought Hardy was a born-and-raised Southerner.
I also really liked Inniratu's direction. The storytelling was uncompromising for a reason: it channeled the harshness of the land and time period. There are no easy decisions when you're in the fur trade, being closed in on by "civilized" competitors on one side and "savages" on the other. I was a big fan of the spiritual scenes as well, especially in the case of Hawk's arc. The boy survived genocide only to be murdered for being loyal to his father. That was the crushing reality of the Western frontier.
As aforementioned, the cinematography is the best of the year without doubt. Lubezki has always been a proponent of natural lighting, but it takes talent to make the tundras of Canada and Argentina look like potential vacationing spots.
As far as the ending goes—Glass already admitted he's not afraid of dying anymore because he's already done it. Toward that end, I think finding Hardy was the last leg of his spiritual journey as a specter of vengeance. When he's crawling weakly in the snow at the end toward the vision of his wife, I was strongly reminded of the ending scene of Gladiator. I think Glass eventually perishes in the snow as he's ready to be reunited with his family now that his earthly dues are paid. Otherwise, I think he could've asked for help from the Native tribe, especially since he saved the chief's daughter before, which was clearly recognized by them.
Stop pretending you know what posts belong to who, go back to Reddit where you're used to that sort of thing.
>an almost universally liked movie is being discussed
The Revenant is divisive. There are multiple opinions in this thread which show an underwhelmed or lukewarm response. Furthermore, there are many threads which dispel the positive feedback loop propagated in the latter half of this thread.
Most people haven't even offered an opinion; they're just bewildered by OP's reasoning for disliking the movie.
If you're so fascinated by circlejerks, look up TFA threads from a month ago. You'll have better luck there.
Reminder that it's only gonna go down, too, since it's only one day after opening night.
The "average rating" is better if you want to show the critical response on RT. Otherwise, Metacritic is a more accurate reflection: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-revenant-2015
Anyway, what other people think isn't necessarily important. As long as you can reasonably explain why you like or dislike a movie, it's all good. Blind hate/love or shitposting isn't.
good posts anon
>Secondly, are you aware how much training and restraint it takes to not kill a person? That alone should score this bear an Oscar. From a bear point of view, her attack technique, and the emotion and intensity on display was damn near flawless.
I've always been against the "le stupid Oscars meme" (last year was admittedly kinda dumb - mainly Redmayne winning best actor), but if this movie wins Best Picture or gets ANYONE something remotely close to Best Actor, it's bullshit.
Nobody in this movie had a great role. Like the article says, Leo screamed and grunted (Morse code for "give me Oscar now?"). Tom Hardy sounded dumb. Gleeson was terrible. The blonde kid who stuck with Fitzgerald was bad as well.
The most Oscar bait movie I've ever seen.
Who do you think is in the lead for "Best Visual Effects"? It would be interesting if The Revenant took it over Star Wars since the latter falls under a genre much more strongly associated with CGI.
But it's exactly the word hundreds of people are using.
He doesn't remotely deserve an Oscar for this. He's a good actor, and certainly COULD get an Oscar, either for a past or future role. But this character had an astonishing lack of
characterand Leo literally just screamed and grunted as 80% of his lines.
That was the biggest struggle for Leo, to portray emotions as an actor without using words
I haven't seen it but apparently this is the biggest point that people are on the fence about
>lack of character
Can you elaborate? What goes into building character? Which of these elements were lacking?
>just screamed and grunted as 80% of his lines
What would have been a better alternative in those scenarios?
well it's not fair to say glass showed no character. it explains his character to you via flashbacks and how everyone reveres glass. he's the badass who knows that land more than any of the other trappers and the movie is literally what will happen when you murder glass' only son in front of him and he manages to find you.
if it's true about him traveling 200 miles from the bear attack, that's pretty boss.
So when the mama grizzly bites Leo's hand, there should've been a freeze-frame technique employed, giving Leo a few seconds to say, "Ah! My hand!"?
I can definitely see the creative merit there.
It's hard for me to find things that this movie could fix because, frankly, I don't think it was a very good story to put to the screen in the first place. I'll try tho
Leo portrayed the ONE emotion the entire time. It was the typical Leo screaming and grunting. He did have a few good moments: I really liked the scene in the church, especially him collapsing around the tree. But the rest of it got old really fast.
Leo wasn't a fucking girl in this movie bro.
>Partner killed my son
>It's fucking cold and I'm probably going to die
>Let me take a moment to reflect on this unfortunate series of events and have a good cry
>Leo portrayed the ONE emotion the entire time
Well, this certainly isn't true. He showed fear for his son's safety, tenderness and love toward his wife (via flashbacks), hatred toward Fitzgerald, reticence toward the party he was traveling with, determination toward the captain when hunting Fitzgerald past the base camp, and much more.
>typical Leo screaming and grunting
Wouldn't anyone scream or grunt in a vast majority of the survival scenes?
>the rest of it got old really fast
>I don't think it was a very good story to put to the screen in the first place
You don't like survival stories? Or epics? Or violence? Frozen wastelands? Animals? Historical fiction? What is it, exactly?
Is that what I said?
Glass was not a character at all, he was purely a body of revenge. This was not conveyed by his acting or emotions, but simply through the movie constantly shoving it in our faces.
If you want a great example of a character being pushed into an unbelievable situation and becoming revenge hungry while still showing emotions and, you know, being a character, watch Old Boy.
>guy has broken fucking ribs and fucked up leg and people are complaining he's grunting and screaming when he's trying not to get killed by either indians or the elements in the middle of fucking nowhere.
>he was purely a body of revenge
This also isn't true. He created a distraction to allow the daughter of the chief to get away. This is in stark contrast to vengeance, which is a purely selfish motivator.
He also spent time with his savior, bonding with him over the landscape, as well as conversing in the Pawnee language. In these two moments, his mind wasn't obsessed with revenge, and these are not the only two such moments of dissociation.
It's one word. If you want to recommend your favorite revenge tale, at least know the title.
Refer to the above for disagreements on why Leo was still showing copious amounts of emotion.
The problem is that "revenge" is not an emotion, yet it's what Leo plays for the entirety of the film. There was no complexity to his character at all. Yes, he showed different emotions, but only one at a time, in the Designated Emotion Scenes™ in order to wake the audience up from its monotony.
No one said revenge is an emotion.
>it's what Leo plays for the entirety of the film
He clearly doesn't, as explained multiple times (points which you haven't responded to, by the way, because you know you're wrong).
>There was no complexity to his character at all
>Yes, he showed different emotions
Mate, at least stay on one side of the fence.
>only one emotion at a time
When he's talking to his son about being invisible, he very clearly shows anger, frustration, desperation, love, and fear.
>Designated Emotion Scenes™
You are the height of wit.
>wake the audience up from its monotony
Why are you speaking for everyone? It's fine if you didn't like the movie due to your pretzel logic, but don't pretend like you're leading the forefront of the anti-Revenant cavalry.
>Stop, un-invincible son!
HOLY FUCK, underrated post
I have it downloaded for quite some time but only watched it today.
It was okay. The opening battle was great, rest of the movie not so much. Am i the only one who thought there were a bit too many coincidences? Glass running into the Indian, only for the French to run into them and so on.
Also i am a wee bit buttmad that it has virtually nothing to do with real life.
Overall okay movie, but nothing great. It felt like okay revenge movie masquerading as high art too. I think the movie would work just as well without the heavy handed symbolism.
I did acknowledge those scenes you mentioned: those are the "Leo needs to look like a fucking Saint, so portray the 'hero' emotion" and "we need the audience to know he's sad about his son's death, so he's going to portray Sadness™"
Emotional complexity =/= showing more than one emotion
Emotional complexity is being able to discern the character's goals/motivations in everything he does. Leo gives us the expected reaction to a situation, and nothing more. His emotions reflect only what is going on in that scene specifically. He has no arc.
>give up your opinions because we are arguing with you
Know what "discussion" means?
I'm arguing with these guys, but I still respect their opinions and understand what they're saying. I just disagree with them.
Maybe we should implement a voting system for each post, where people can "vote up" or "vote down" an opinion. That sounds like a place you'd love
>"Leo needs to look like a fucking Saint, so portray the 'hero' emotion" and "we need the audience to know he's sad about his son's death, so he's going to portray Sadness™"
So you agree you're a hypocrite, since you explicitly stated this before:
>Leo portrayed the ONE emotion the entire time.
>Emotional complexity =/= showing more than one emotion
Who said it is? Why do you keep conjuring straw men?
>Emotional complexity is being able to discern the character's goals/motivations in everything he does
Is there a point in the movie where you're confused about Leo's intentions?
>Leo gives us the expected reaction to a situation, and nothing more.
But this is what you want, as stated immediately beforehand.
>Emotional complexity is being able to discern the character's goals/motivations in everything he does
The expected reaction means you've discerned his goal, which he successfully and predictably accomplished.
>His emotions reflect only what is going on in that scene specifically
Are there characters who look into the future and reflect those emotions before that particular scene comes on screen? Can you give me an example of this?
For instance, would you have preferred if Leo is laughing when his son is being murdered because he saw the future, picturing himself eating snow with a nomad?
>He has no arc.
You should look up the definition of the word "arc."
I definitely don't respect your opinion. You have no reason to your views, similar to OP.
"So, you came all the way out here for your revenge, huh? Well guess what? It's still not gonna bring your boy back"
Literally the worst dying words of any character I've ever heard. The "symbolism" and message in this movie is so in-your-face it's unbearable
>le fancy full reddit allusion
You sure are the mature man you think yourself to be.
You aren't even addressing half of those guys points and you're arguing like the mong you are. Your idiotic part of the discussion doesn't deserve respect.
>The "symbolism" and message in this movie is so in-your-face it's unbearable
Can you reference some of these acts of symbolism? Can you elaborate what they were symbolizing? Can you suggest alternatives for said acts to make them more subtle or tasteful?
Question that I haven't seen people talk a lot about in this movie, how is the OST? Are there any particularly memorable pieces?
The soundtrack is very good. Thematically, it suits the somber, uncompromising tone of the movie very well. To me, it never feels intrusive or pervasive, but that's more subjective.
I wasn't really addressing your point about symbolism but rather piggybacking on his comment you're right it's not symbolism. For me it's the films morals, themes, and ideologies that are "ham-fisted".
If you don't respect my opinion, there's nothing I can say to you that'll promote an intelligent discussion as opposed to one of attacking each others' characters. This is called "being close-minded".
>who said it is? Why do you keep conjuring strawman?
YOU said it is. You said that, because Leo shows a different emotion besides "revenge" in some scenes, this makes him emotionally complex, exemplified by your pairing of
>There was no emotional complexity to his character
>Yes, he showed different emotions
as if those statements are contradicting, then you stating that I need to stay on one side of the fence. So yes, your argument was different emotions = emotional complexity.
>Is there a point in the movie where you're confused about Leo's intentions?
No, and that's the problem. He only has one intention: to kill Fitzgerald. Yet he doesn't in the end - fine. But there was absolutely nothing along the way that showed us that this could be a possibility, that he would show remorse to Fitzgerald. His son died, fine, and his wife is dead, cool, but those don't actually seem like driving factors for him. Those events certainly happened, but they are not present in his character. It's only "Target acquired: Fitzgerald".
>The expected reaction means you've discerned his goal
No, it means it's just what the movie has made us come to expect. We know his only goal is Revenge, so we know he's going to do the thing that makes him look vengeful or heroic. So yes, I guess I did discern his goal, since the movie continuously shoves it in our faces. He fucking writes "Fitzgerald killed my son" onto a rock, for Christ's sake.
>You should look up the definition of "arc"
Wanting to kill someone and then letting someone else kill that same person because of spiritual bullshit isn't much of an arc.
Only 07 and 80 were me, m8.
You're right, symbolism is the wrong word for it. I mainly meant "message" and "themes". And like I said, those dying words were a great example. Him writing "FITZGERALD KILLED MY SON" onto a rock is another. "He killed my boy, he's all I had". It goes on.
Can you elaborate on the film's morals, themes, and ideologies? Afterward, can you offer an alternative to how they could've been less heavy-handed?
I didn't attack your character. I'm just letting you know your thought process is woefully obtuse.
>YOU said it is. You said that, because Leo shows a different emotion besides "revenge" in some scenes, this makes him emotionally complex, exemplified by your pairing of
You still didn't address the fact that you're a hypocrite. Your main grip was Leo only shows one emotion throughout the movie (revenge is an emotion, apparently). You were proven wrong.
>as if those statements are contradicting, then you stating that I need to stay on one side of the fence
I paired those because "complexity" implies a lack of character depth. This clearly isn't the case here as Leo shows an array of emotions throughout the movie. On a surface level, this is what emotional complexity means, and you're wrong to state the writing doesn't show him as having this attribute.
Once you qualified your statement with an arbitrary definition, me, being the devil's advocate, also changed my definition to suit yours, just to prove you wrong further. I'll continue to do that every time you make a bogus point.
>No, and that's the problem.
Why is that the problem? You're the one that wants to be able to discern every one of Leo's motivations and goals.
>But there was absolutely nothing along the way that showed us that this could be a possibility, that he would show remorse to Fitzgerald.
He didn't show remorse. He didn't show pity. He simply shared the spoils with others who were victims of Fitzgerald. This could be construed as a crueler fate since Fitzgerald got scalped rather than simply stabbed and quickly killed.
>His son died, fine, and his wife is dead, cool, but those don't actually seem like driving factors for him
You've already provided an example of Glass's obsession with Fitzgerald killing his son.
You've already provided an example of Glass's obsession with Fitzgerald killing his son: he carved this fact on a rock. He continues to think about his son after his death, just as he previously thought of his wife in every dream. There are very clear motivating factors.
>No, it means it's just what the movie has made us come to expect.
No shit. The character is a product of the overall movie. To discern the character's goals, you have to understand the movie since the former is an element of the latter. You still discerned his goals quite clearly, which meets your butchered definition of "emotional complexity."
>We know his only goal is Revenge, so we know he's going to do the thing that makes him look vengeful or heroic. So yes, I guess I did discern his goal, since the movie continuously shoves it in our faces. He fucking writes "Fitzgerald killed my son" onto a rock, for Christ's sake.
So we agree—you're a hypocrite through and through.
>Wanting to kill someone and then letting someone else kill that same person because of spiritual bullshit isn't much of an arc.
That's not the arc; we both know this. Take your own advice, re: "being close-minded."
Can you elaborate on the messages and themes of The Revenant? Can you provide alternatives for how to have made them more sophisticated?
>And like I said, those dying words were a great example
His son being killed is the "message" of the movie? Interesting take.
And by interesting, I mean retarded.
>You've already provided an example of Glass's obsession with Fitzgerald killing his son
Yes, and I said it was in-your-face and terrible. I'm agreeing with you that he did show emotions, but all of them that weren't "revenge" were few and far between, and often ham-fisted.
Again, the only scene I thought worked was the church one.
>Can you elaborate on the film's morals, themes, and ideologies?
Revenge, heroic Leo, villainous Hardy, peaceful Indians. Those were pretty much the core ideas of the film.
>Can you offer an alternative to how they could've been less heavy-handed?
They could have not made Hardy's dying words so fucking cheesy, they didn't have to include the "Fitzgerald killed my son" thing at all (it's literally the plot of the movie that we've been sitting through for two hours, we don't need a reminder. Is he writing in his emotional diary?). The Indians were completely glorified and overly-spiritualized, not to mention poorly acted.
It's not his son being killed, it's "what good does revenge amount to" message. Also, we don't have to come up with solutions to fix the film, we're not filmmakers we're just the audience.
Did we watch the same movie. Most of the time all I could think was filthy savages.
Then again everyone was savages more or less, which fitted the unforgiving nature in the movie.
>Yes, and I said it was in-your-face and terrible. I'm agreeing with you that he did show emotions, but all of them that weren't "revenge" were few and far between, and often ham-fisted.
As long as you realize you were called out on your bullshit, that's fine.
>Revenge, heroic Leo, villainous Hardy, peaceful Indians
How is "heroic Leo" a theme? Are you talking about the hero's journey? Because that would be a legitimate archetype.
How is "villainous Hardy" an ideology or moral?
How is "peaceful Indians" a moral, theme, or ideology? In what way were the Indians peaceful? The very first scene in the movie dispels this notion. The Indians burned a warpath through the tundra.
1 for 4. Impressive.
>They could have not made Hardy's dying words so fucking cheesy
Why were they cheesy? It was a desperate bid to one-up Leo before getting killed. What could he have said instead? "Fuck you,"?
> they didn't have to include the "Fitzgerald killed my son"
But you're the one that said they don't show the driving factors for revenge. Isn't this exactly what you would want in the movie since it ostensibly lacks it?
>it's literally the plot of the movie that we've been sitting through for two hours, we don't need a reminder. Is he writing in his emotional diary
So you agree you're a hypocrite yet again. The movie DID adequately portray motivating factors for Leo's revenge. He wasn't simply doing his best Terminator impression.
>The Indians were completely glorified and overly-spiritualized
Glorified in what way? Overly spiritualized in what way? No Indian had a spiritual scene other than Glass's family, but that's more of a projection of Glass's subconscious than anything derivative of a given Indian's character.
This is extremely subjective, so to each his own.
>"what good does revenge amount to" message
If that were true, Hardy would've escaped or Leo would've died a miserable death. Instead, Leo gives Hardy up to a crueler fate.
>Also, we don't have to come up with solutions to fix the film, we're not filmmakers we're just the audience.
I'm not surprised you don't understand the meaning of "criticism." It doesn't mean to just shit on something with impunity.
No, but every valid form of criticism is constructive. You should understand this before you get run over in real life. Why would anyone ever take you seriously if you can't come up with a better idea than the one you're critiquing?
nah it was good, just really slow. if i saw it again i'd probably like it even more since things seem to move quicker on a second watch.
i don't know if you call it cinematography or picture quality or whatever but the movie looked really really nice. really great nature scenery
the opening battle and bear scene were fucking brutal too, really well done
I haven't seen someone get rectally ravaged this badly since Krager got BTFO. I now understand why plebs stick to memes and shitposting instead of actually trying to justify their pleb thoughts
probably the bear scene. it was so visceral, with the bear sniffing and slobbering over him in between bouts of tearing him apart
part with him and the lone indian catching snow flakes on their tongue was pretty good too. like the only light moment in the entire movie
It's not about getting "rekt." I genuinely don't care if people like the same things as me. You just have to make a good argument. Almost everything that anon originally posited as a criticism was then taken back by him.
pic related is a much better film of the same revenge flick genre
the revenge thing is really played down unlike how the commercial shows it. most of the movie is just him getting to civilization and maybe the last 15 minutes is revenge.
this is more of a survival movie than a revenge movie
I was going in thinking that but BM wasn't about revenge but about how violent man (white+Indian+negro) and how beautiful the Wild west really was... As well as a lot of other stuff.
agreed that the driving action of both are different (bm is senseless violence whereas revenant is more purposefull violence) but themes of violence and overawing power of nature/harshness of environment are similar.
I really would love to see some scenes of BM in 4k.
>That night with the blue electricity moving off all the riders gear and beards
>Indian's coming out from their own reflection off the dried lake
>The ride into the mountain storms after they leave the city for the last time
>The burning tree
while i wouldn't call the movie incredibly deep I think there was a little more to it than you're giving it credit for.
probably one of the bigger ones was leo's character kind of figuring out his place between the "civilized" whites who fucked him over and the "savage" natives who he lived with, breeded with, and who helped him out at several times in the movie. but it wasn't some native american hugfest either, the movie opens with the indians brutally massacring the white trappers. plus all of the stuff with the kid's guilt/leo's character losing his humanity, etc. there was definitely more to this movie than pretty nature scenes and gorey fight scenes. maybe not enough to change your life or whatever but definitely enough to where it doesn't seem super shallow like mad max or something
A movie that's elevated by the people who were making it but still constrained by it being a simple revenge story. It attempts to break beyond that barrier but it's attempts at deeper meaning and "spirituality" are so clunky and feel so tacked on. I give them credit but it was ultimately disappointing and fell flat with me. A movie that I was still happy to see but it is not all it's been cracked up to be. Made a review of it for anybody who might be interested.