The RevenanGOAT

Great movie, exceptional fights, amazing mood/setting, maggots moved way too fast to be realistic, but otherwise, excellent costumes/sets, directing, god tier cinematography 4.75/5 film

>>64738822
Based Hux doesn't get enough credit.

>SAY THE LORD'S PRAYER

>>64738822
agreed, haven't enjoyed a film as much as this in a very long time

>film
It's a flick

Why did that guy shoot the horse in the head during the Indian attack at the beginning?

>>64738928
Man. It was so great

>>64738988
Fuck horses

That and the treeniggers would steal the horses so it's worth killing them just to stop the treeniggers having them.

>>64738822
>tfw /tv/ will hate it in three months like it did with Birdman

>>64738988
GET TO THE BOAT

>>64738988
he probably just didnt want to leave the horses to the injuns, although i think he only shot one, so dunno really

>>64738988
Did you not notice that he was drunk?

>>64739027
>>64739077
OK I guess that sort of makes sense

I feel like during an attack by the Sioux you probably have better things to worry about than killing the horses before the Injuns get them

overall it was a fantastic film though, I really loved it

The Revenant is quite simply the worst thing to happen to cinema this year. Its forced profundity has caused critics all over America to force themselves to like what is quite simply nothing more than an exercise in style.

Iñárritu has no idea what he is doing here. His film jumps around with little to no sense of unity. The great film makers of the world create a series of events that contain clarity of information, something Iñárritu couldn't bet his life on.

What is the purpose of what is going on here? Is there any coherent message? I have heard suggestions that it is Iñárritu's message about the failure of humanity, but what failure is that? Does Iñárritu even know?

This is Transformers for the art house crowd. Pure style over substance. Nobody actually likes this film, they just like to be seen liking it.

>>64739334
I actually really disliked it as well. The ridiculous ways he survived the many obstacles he encountered took me out of the "hyper-realistic" violence and setting that was the rest of the movie. Most of those things he survived seemed gratuitous to me; i.e. the horse and cliff scene. I also like what you said about the movie lacking purpose. I was bored by the plot after he was left for dead. I get it, it's a revenge story. However, my experience may be marred by the fact that I reluctantly went to see this because my family wanted to. I did think the acting was good and the first 20 minutes was dope. The movie just wasn't for me, I guess.

File: reddeadredemption_undead_bear_256x256.jpg (42KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 256x256px

Why did they alter the real story?

I'd much prefer to see actual events than dramatization

>To prevent gangrene, Glass laid his wounded back on a rotting log and let maggots eat the dead flesh.
>on one occasion he was able to drive two wolves from a downed bison calf, and feast on the meat.
>Glass later learned that Fitzpatrick had joined the army and was stationed at Fort Atkinson in present-day Nebraska. He traveled there as well, where Fitzpatrick returned his stolen rifle. Glass reportedly spared Fitzpatrick's life because of the penalty for killing a soldier of the United States Army.

He didn't have a son, either

>>64739334
>Nobody actually likes this film

I liked it