Just saw The Revenant.
In my opinion it has to win at least one oscar for best cinematography. This movie was amazing, the picture the beautiful score from Sakamoto and Alva Noto.
Di Caprio did a great job here too. Maybe it was a bit too long for some people, but for me it worked.
But thats only my opinion.
(Also fuck The Martian, way overhyped, Matt Damon wasn't even a worth nomination for this..)
Just saw it with a friend.
Great cinematography, score.
DiCaprio's performance was great.
Movie was long as fuck. Maybe didn't need to be quite that long but whatever.
Gritty, depressing movie with an ambiguous ending.
Saw it hours ago aswell. It was great. I'm imagining that /tv/ is going to like this one because it is generally unpopular.
Or, at least, people exiting my theatre weren't very pleasant with the pacing...
>I didn't like the noble savage ally character.
I didn't either. He just felt like a huge plot convenience. It would have been more impressive to see Glass do all that stuff himself.
>an ambiguous ending.
>people L I T E R A L L Y think the ending was ambiguous
literally WHAT was ambiguous? he got his revenge but instead of a happy ending, he is still tortured by the memory of his dead family. you can't get more cut and dry than this.
Again, people complaining about something that happened in the film that actually happened in real life. I bet you also think no one could survive a bear attack?
i swear they needed captions to pop up saying what happened to real life hugh glass for you fuckers to enjoy this
saying the obvious gets you downvotes here on /tv/.
yes the cinemetography was outstanding. what that man did with grey...
also the CGI was great. whatever the technical award is, it should be up for it there.
but the acting was fucking lacking. the bear rape scene alone should show you it. leo hits the bear like a faggot. i have been on my back in a fight or two with way larger people on top of me. i sure as fuck didn't hit them with my lower palm. and if you can't get it right on take 200 inside the green room,, then you aren't acting.
In real life, Hugh never had a half-breed son, and he forgave both Bridger AND Fitzgerald. There is no reason why they couldn't have changed up events a bit more. I just think that seeing Glass survive on his own for most of the journey would have made him more impressive to the audience.
www.ibtimes.com/revenant-true-story-fact-vs-fiction-about-hugh-glass-leonardo-dicaprio-tom-hardy-2255772 for people who are interested, not all things in the movie were based on real events, but nearly all the survival stuff and bear fighting happened so.. impressing story
There is just no escaping the fact that this movie is one giant meme.
>Leo, Hardy and Gleeson, literally the meme trio all they had to do was find something for Fassbender to do and it would have been complete
>the survival scenes were just a series of vignettes rather than a coherent story
>look he eats a raw fish head
>look he sleeps in a fucking horse
>look he cauterizes his fucking neck
>muh single take
>muh fogging up the camera lens
>shoving the camera in peoples faces to provide judging criteria for best make-up oscar
>animal CGI firmly planted in the uncanny valley
>apparitions of my dead wife for some reason
>frontier life is hard I tells ya
>I've fought people bigger, stronger, and more tenacious than bears, and if it were me, I would have had the wherewithal to hit that bear properly
i never said i fought a bear. but i have fought losing fights and still beat the ever living shit out of the other guy.
if you have never been in a real fight you probably don't understand. leo did not look convincing. he literally looked like he gave up after the second swing.
is it safe to say to say that you are a meme?
i guess since everything is a meme now.
haven't you ever seen Come and See or Memories of a Murderer? (or any of the other films it copied but worse?)
It's formal gesture that implicates the viewer in what has occurred. It has a distancing effect that says to the audience, a la Brecht: everything that happened is not mere fiction, but a reflection of you. Think about why I showed it to you.
And yes, it was completely unnecessary.
So you can see the nothingness in his eyes.
Fitzgerald was right - the revenge didn't bring his son back, and as Glass has previously said it, without his son, he is nothing, an empty shell.
>Revenant: a person who returns as a spirit after death; ghost.
>comparing fighting a human to fighting a bear
do people still not 'get' birdman a year after?
look. birdman is a film about a play. about redemption. but it is shot as a play. the shots are 15 minutes long, and the idea is that they had to act like it was a play. and the two real stars are doing redemption characters.
bird man wasn't a great movie, but it was an excellent story and piece of art.
>Bridge of Spies is a completely different but overall superior movie
The second part os completely subjective. I personally liked THe Revenant a lot more than the good ol' Spelberg family drama
sure, but the whole arc of the movie is pretty clear:
Glass wants revenge
Meets the Indian who feeds him and tells him "Revenge belongs not to man but to God"
Saves Indian slave
Gets opportunity to have revenge
Heeds Indians words, doesn't take revenge, but it's offered to him anyway by Indians as a karmic gift for saving slave.
That's literally all the film has to say.
tried to watch it twice, gave up shortly after the bear attack both times. didn't care about any of the characters and it just seemed forced and pretentious. i loved Birdman and most of Leo's movies but this just sucks
i'm fairly convinced there is a paid group of people here shilling for leo. they don't care about your arguments.
i have argued over and over in the 10 threads per hour that leo does not deserve an ACTING award, but that the movie is good on other merits. no one responds and another thread is started.
leo did not act well. his green screen shit was utter bullshit and i doubt he has ever been in a fight in his life. most of it was him looking at a camera and breathing hard. he was not a good actor in this movie.
i am convinced that there are actual paid shills here on /tv/ because this is so obvious i have no idea how so many people dispute it.
I'd debate the "quite a lot" qualifier. What exactly does it have to say about those things, except for the tired tenet of "never give up!" and "don't be a dick to Indians!"
It's a film of extraordinary human survival, sure, but the moralist dramaturgy Inarritu forces onto a fairly flat revenge tale is anaemic and hackneyed.
Real question here.
How the fuck does this movie come off as forced and pretentious? I saw this complaint here several times, but I just can't wrap my head around it.
This is the movie that doesn't give a fuck about what you are getting away from it, it just shows you a struggle of a man, up to you whether you struggle with him or walk out of the theatre. Forced and pretentious?
The opening scene is dreamlike, with people walking groggily around a tree with their arms out and the sun in their face while Leo whispers in Indian language. Lots of scenery that is shown way too long. Unrealistic dialogue. The boy is only there to give him motivation to hunt down Fitzgerald (he didn't have an indian son irl), the bear mauling is far too severe to ever survive. The horse getting shot at the beginning is laughable, fake CGI.
Look at all the shit he has to do while trying to survive. Most people just give up. I guess id agree that the concept itself has been overused but i thought it translated the idea on film in the best way ive ever seen.
I also dont think it was ever a liberal interpretation of indians. They fucking savages the entire film. Even at the end.
I disagree about the moralistic intent of the film.
The movie would've been better if like 30 minutes were cut from the middle part.
All the action scenes were amazing, especially the bear, really top notch. And Lubezki is a genius t b h.
I wouldn't say his performance is awful but yeah, it's certainly not worth an acting award. I feel kinda bad for saying that just because of the conditions filming and he ate a raw bison liver which is something, I guess.
But yeah, he really didn't act all that well or different than any of his other movies. It's exactly the same, super high hi's and really low lo's. He can only shout and act distressed or suave and chill as fuck and since he can't do the latter he's perfect for a guy who gets his throat cut out by a bear.
Even when he said his first couple of lines it took me out of the experience a bit just because he's got that cracking yell in every movie and his accent was kinda shit.
Tom Hardy should definitely win supporting though, he was fantastic, I thought. I kinda wish they went with Christian Bale in the lead like they originally planned.
I think the main problem with this film is that I did not feel that the actors/producers/directors were trying to give us the best movie they could, instead, I think they were simply trying to win one or more Oscars. Like, "Will this work well with the Academy?" was something they were thinking continually during shooting.
then you missed the entire point of the movie (and the point of the implicating gaze at the end).
Leo's Golden Globes speech is what the movie is about, morally. It supports the A story, which is that of Glass's real life tale of survival.
The Revenant is simply the representation of the artistic bankruptcy plaguing the contemporary film industry.
Like Birdman, Iñárritu's last endeavor in hackery, this latest attempt is to convince the masses that what they are viewing is something deep or meaningful, when all it has done is push forward shallow technicality and exaggeration to make the frame pulsate with vulgar loudness. Characters are mere veneers, the cinematography is pretty but so conspicuous as to be rendered aggravating and the thesis is about as overdone as DiCaprio's acting. The camera feels like it has been waiting all day for a climactic shot and the film's deliberately difficult production history is laid bare in the indulgent cinematography.
Thematic complexity and philosophical subtext take a back seat to what amounts to as basically an action movie with action stars wrapped up in the veil of arthouse. And much like Salome, what lies beneath is ultimately puerile, obscene and holding fascination only for adolescents.
Iñárritu is guilty of something far greater than simply making a bad movie. He is guilty for the crime of gestating his pretense and self-importance, forcing many others to labor over it in a misguided attempt to create art and daring to call the afterbirth a film. Perhaps instead of taking his cast and crew to the ends of the Earth in search of a better shot, the Mexican counterfeit filmmaker should have taken his juvenile and crass sensibilities to the seedy San Fernando valley. There he could have at least made a profit of filming all the money shots he wanted.
The muh dead wife stuff was annoying but everything else was great, Tom Hardy stole the show.
Amongst the constant stream of franchised shit from Hollywood its a breath of fresh air. Fuck the memers itt who are complaining.
>people criticize Leo for overacting
>people love Hardy for overacting
Boring ass movie if there ever was one.
Also, why the hell did they leave his incapacitated body in the care of the one man that obviously wants him dead? Dumbest decision I've seen in recent movie memory.
The Captain was going to shoot him not 30 seconds before that decision was made. Glass's death was a foregone conclusion considering the circumstances. Why would the Captain be surprised that the money hungry fucker would volunteer once money was involved?
Ultimately, the Captain was just glad he didn't have to kill Glass himself. He would have lived on in happiness if he had never found out.
Lots of critics said that the movie had lots of "How did they do that?" moments?
I liked the movie a lot but I didnt really see any mindblowing moments outside of the final fight that simply looked very well made.
What were the "how did they do that?" moments and why?
Apparently the real Hugh Glass never had an Indian son. That was added into the movie to make him more SJW-friendly I guess. Also, he never killed Fitzgerald. As soon as Fitz gave back the rifle he stole from Hugh, he was forgiven.
Glass just really wanted his gun back.
>Why would the Captain be surprised...
Because he had to break up a near fight with them a scene earlier. Now he's suddenly glad to leave Glass with a guy that hates him when he himself values Glass and his services. Why would he leave him with some guy who only cares about money and make him promise to properly bury a guy he hates?!
There's no way he lives, after all that shit and he's too weak to walk and there's nobody else around.
People can prolong their deaths until after some important event, this is a real phenomenon. The movie makes it clear he should be dead already.
Glass also was never attacked by Indian tribes. Instead he was helped by them along the way, with one tribe stitching the bear hide into his back to seal his wounds. He also rode a raft for most of the journey. Maybe some of the changes were needed to make it more dramatic instead of appease quotas. Except that bear hide thing, that would have been cool. And he supposedly only spared Fitzgerald because killing a soldier would have gotten himself killed. He didn't seem to care much either way, but if he had killed Glass' son it would have certainly tipped him over.
I never said everything in the film happened in real life, only the things that people are calling out as unrealistic
>no one could survive a bear attack!
>the injun helping him was a plot device!
>he couldn't have made his way that far with his injuries, he must've died!
Am I the only one who genuinely found it difficult to understand half the dialogue? I found it especially bad for the first half until Fitzgerald stays back with Glass. It wasn't until later that I was able to piece together stuff they were talking about in the beginning.
It was hard to hear sometimes because the dialogue audio would just channels depending on where a character was standing from the perspective of another character. Pretty jarring at first but you get used to it.
There was never a moment in any movie I've ever seen, including gore shit I've seen on 4chan, but my stomach lurched when
they turned Glass on his side fresh after the bear attack and showed his bleeding lacerations on his back.
There was an audible groan from the audience in my theater.
my theater (in brooklyn if you're interested) groaned pretty much any time something violent happened- showing the wounds, the hand bite during the bear fight, fitz getting his fingers lopped off.
didn't bother me though 2BH, made it pretty fun. it was a small theater so it wasn't too loud
No this isn't a meme or anything. There was something off for the first part of the movie, almost like the background music was too loud or they just mumbled a lot because I just physically couldn't make out half the words they said. It was most troubling after they got off the boat and Fitzgerald was arguing. But later on it got better
The part where the bear took a swipe at Leo's throat and he stuck his tongue out got me pretty good. The cauterize scene wasn't bad. I actually laughed at Fitz's response to losing fingers.
I love how he really tracked, baited, and cornered Fitzgerald like an animal. That was the best part of the movie easily. It was rough getting there but the whole final sequence elevated the movie.
I wish they had included a scene of him putting his back on a log so the maggots would eat the dead flesh off his wounds like he did in real life. Seems odd to leave that bit out considering it's pretty fucking badass.
kek, no one in my theater reacted until he lit the gunpowder and someone from the back yelled "what the fuck did he do?"
I guess audiences are too retarded to know what cauterizing is.
>I wish they had included a scene of him putting his back on a log so the maggots would eat the dead flesh off his wounds like he did in real life. Seems odd to leave that bit out considering it's pretty fucking badass.
c'mon, really? people are already calling out most of the stuff that actually happened as too unrealistic, putting that in would've been too much. it would've seen like they were going for shock factor. i totally get why they left it out
My friends and I got into a minor argument about this after the movie ended: was shooting the bear smart or not?
I said yes because it seemed like the bear was coming back to eat him.
They said that the bear probably would have just left if Glass hadn't shot it.
Fitzgerald hates Indians and fears what they did to him. He even gets freaked out by someone scratching a canteen because it sounds like his scalping. Getting fed to Indians is a suitable punishment.
I hate Inarritu and found most of Revenant tolerable but not particularly relevatory, but I gotta admit that entire sequence was one of the best Western showdowns in years. Perhaps decades.
I guess but it's hilarious what people will take seriously and what they won't
He actually did put his back against a log to prevent gangrene, but that's too much. He didn't really meet a friendly random indian who used running boar magic to heal his rotting body in a bear sauna but that's just fine.
he didn't need them to kill him, he left it up to outside forces. see my previous post: >>64968474
it's a payoff for the events that happened beforehand, a kind of anti-colonial justice.
I was going into it knowing I would like it. Surpassed my expectations. Of all the aspects that I loved the one that stood out most was the sound design/music. It would have been even better if PEOPLE WOULD SHUT THE FUCK IN THE GOD DAM THEATER HOLY FUCK!
> Movie starts
> Atmospheric long take
> Amazing sounds of the forest, wind and trikling water
> Assholes behind me a few seats over are FUCKING TALKING OVER it
> Scene where Leo "shoots" the elk with his walking stick
> Retarded girl behind me
> ...Ooo, It's a stick, It's a stick, a stick
> Mfw all movie long
Why the fuck do you go to the FUCKING REVENANT AND TALK DURNING THE MOVIE?!
saw it earlier.
Cinematography and music was fantastic, especially that ominous three-beat theme throughout the film.
Leo did great in playing something different. Not a rich playboy lady's man but a haggard old man with a burning desire for vengeance. However it fell short with his dialogue primarily revolving around grunts and moans, and the same pained expression on his face.
Harry's characterization was pretty poor; one-dimensional and was overly simple.
The pacing got pretty slow especially around the middle. For a movie under three hours I felt as if it exceeded four. The violence felt pretty real and cringed at a few parts, unlike the garbage in capeshit.
Overall I'd give it a 2.5/4
>> Scene where Leo "shoots" the elk with his walking stick
>> Retarded girl behind me
>> ...Ooo, It's a stick, It's a stick, a stick
Jesus Christ some old woman said the same fucking thing at my showing. It was one of the few moments of subtlety in the movie too. And it was ruined by people who treat the movie theater like their living room.
Because Fitzgerald wasn't giving him the satisfaction, taunting Glass as he was bleeding out. Glass took away his chances of dying with dignity by letting the Ree finish the scalping.
The pacing was actually a lot faster than I was expecting. I thought this was going to be a pure survivalist movie with a fight at the beginning, a fight at the end, and nothing but gritty wilderness survival in between.
Leo and the beaner watched like 20 actual bear attacks to do the scene accurately. You are a faggot and assuming you would be a big tough guy while a bear is eating you, meanwhile that scene probably is very close to the reality.
>however it just felt a bit too long to keep the audience engaged
I dont kow about the general audience but for me it was still ok, I definitely willl never watch an extended cut version of it though
>The movie deserves all the hype it got and more
im not sying that it doesnt I'm saying it would have gotten far less hype if he didnt, because he's popular
>who didn't even know that was dicaprio until after the movie.
you're fucking joking right?
Ben Foster played High Glass instead of Leo.
Is the movie better or worse?
He was angry that they didn't get him sandwiches
I am not. Had no clue who that was until the credits. I saw the movie with family because they wanted to go. I had seen a trailer for it and remember wanting to see it and that it was about the frontier but that's about it.
but it isn't. have you ever actually been attacked by anything?
leo gives up after 2 swings. i have been on the losing end of a few fights and every single one of them broke some ribs.
either you don't care about yourself at all or you have never been in an actual losing fight.
Just saw the film. It was really a transcendental experience, and I've never used that term for a movie before.
The acting was on par with any big typical Oscar bait, except this film had substance and wasn't just trying to go for an academy award, the brilliance is in its simplicity of direction and the honesty in the experiences it tries to represent.
The story was set up in a way that you could believe, and wasn't just some forced, arbitrary set of events. The film takes you on a visual journey from start to finish with a haunting sound-track that boosts the ambient scenery and background into something like that of a dramatic stage-play, where it becomes as valuable and as influential of a character as the actors themselves, which is good because there are a lot of scenes where land-scape shots are presented, which in a way tell the mood of the characters themselves.
The long shots of action sequences made all of the action, but also the drama, much more compelling as you had few quick cuts except during the dream sequences, which were emotionally charged and gave you the feeling that you were with the character, experiencing this tragedy with them, and gave you personal insight into what drove them. The way it was shot lent itself more to poetry than how one would expect a screenplay to read and was truly a shining moment for cinema as a medium.
All of this is in earnest belief, and if you think I'm joking, you clearly haven't seen the film.
>IMDB trivia: Shot only with natural light, but there is one exception according to cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki: A campfire sequence at night where the wind was causing the fire to pulse in a distracting way. "We had to lay a bunch of light bulbs around the fire to create a cushion of light," Lubezki admits. "That's all the light we used." [16 Dec. 2015, Variety]
RRRHHAWWWAAAAAAAH LOOOOK AT MEEEEE
WWWWWHFF AAAAAAAAAAAHH LOOOOK
*mumbles about his son*
LOOK AT ME I'M ACTING WAAAHGGAHAGGGHHHH
*stares at camera*
>his name is Glass, but he's unbreakable
It's like pottery
Here's the question, how the hell did the captain and his group survive going over the mountain? One scene we see them in is them on top of a snowy mountaintop with no end in sight and then the next is them back at camp
trip fagging it up I see.
Would have actually read your TL/DR and maybe responded, but unfortuantely you made a mistake only the most subhuman retards on 4chan EVER make: you chose to trip fag yourself down the stairs. There's even a fucking guardrail there. Either this is your FIRST POST EVER on 4chan, in which case you really need to lurk more, or you already know how much of a faggot you are being and are so fucking autistic and special-snowflake you don't care that it makes you look like the fucking duct tape bandit.
What do you mean by substance?
>The story was set up in a way that you could believe, and wasn't just some forced, arbitrary set of events.
You're right, I liked it when Glass started talking magically after crawling towards his son's body when a day earlier he couldn't even open his mouth. The part where he started walking in about a week when his foot was twisted the other way around was also believable. And don't get me started on how he managed to survive a 100 foot fall into a snowy tree without any of his wounds opening or him cracking another bone. Because I wanted to jump up from my seat and congratulate Inarritu for knowing how physics and the human body works.
>something like that of a dramatic stage-play
Remind me again of the last stage-play you saw that was set across a vast expanse of snowy wilderness. Bergman made filmed plays, not this John Ford wannabe Mexican.
>The long shots of action sequences made all of the action
>the dream sequences, which were emotionally charged and gave you the feeling that you were with the character, experiencing this tragedy with them, and gave you personal insight into what drove them
I'm not even going to ask why you had to say such obvious baloney.
>The way it was shot lent itself more to poetry than how one would expect a screenplay to read
Wait, I thought this was a dramatic stage-play.
What was exaggerated? It all seemed relatively grounded, if you can suspend your disbelief for the miraculous-ness of nature and the human spirit.
The film was supposed to have taken place over a very long course of time, not sure how long, maybe a couple months.
Your "friends" sound like dude-bro faggots.
In real life, I don't think Fitzgerald actively tried to murder him. It was just simple fucking off in the middle of the cold, leaving him there.
I had to keep telling myself it's not the true story, it's not the true story.
>What was exaggerated? It all seemed relatively grounded, if you can suspend your disbelief for the miraculous-ness of nature and the human spirit.
Maybe exaggareted was the wrong word. What I'm trying to say here, is that the other guy was trying to justify some of the scenes and plot of the movie that didn't happen based on the fact this was a real life situation.
And you can't actually do that, it's trying to justify fiction.
But that's just my opinion, the movie was good, and I loved Tom Hardy.
I was thinking he should have just played dead at first since it was protecting it's cubs. When I realized it was a grizzly I changed my mind and decided it was probably his best option.
damn, saw this opening night. Can't wait for Chivo Lubezki to get his 3rd consecutive oscar for this, the cinematography brought this to greatness (IMO it woulda just been pretty good without the supplement of the cinematography to create a solid atmosphere and help engage you during the battle sequences). really liked this one
>What do you mean by substance
Compared to other dramatic films, this had sense of raw realism to it, where the actors were responding to their environments and the events that happened, they weren't trying to just "drum up" emotion on the spot because the script says to be sad here.
>You're right, I liked it when Glass started talking magically after crawling towards his son's body when a day earlier he couldn't even open his mouth
If you consider that "talking". Adrenaline, especially when it's fueled with rage and anger you've probably never felt in your life. And it was probably longer than that, the time lapses were subjective, you couldn't tell how much time was passing, which I think was the aim of the director, to show all of it blend together like a delirious dream.
>continues on with abunch of easily explainable nonsense
I don't have the space in this comment to tell you how you're wrong, but you are.
>Remind me again of the last stage-play you saw that was set across a vast expanse of snowy wilderness
Love how you took my quote out of context. I was making a remark about the characters, and the long shots that focused on them, and how plays have sets that are built/made to reflect the characters and the mood, much like here.
"Hoo hoo, here my pretentious opinion, hoo hoo!"
>Wait, I thought this was a dramatic stage-play.
Congrats on being so simple-minded you cannot make comparisons between separate aspects of a piece. Does someone say that a cake reminds him of one thing and one thing only, or does each part of that cake, the icing, the outer crust, the inner fluff, all have a different meaning and texture that makes it come together as something else entirely?
Please, if you're going to come at me with such simple-minded strategies, I suggest you go for something clever, not something mundane and unimaginative as that.
He forgave Fitzgerald ONLY because of the consequences of murdering a US solider outweighed getting revenge. He forgave Jim because of his age at the time, which is relatively close to what happens in the film. Fitz bullies Jim into doing it because he's young and inexperienced, and also lies to him.
Ot wise its got interesting characters, meaningful action scenes and a sense of wonder beyond our universe. Prequel wise because George Lucas is insane and it makes the movies fun in a ridiculous sort of way (they're not really technically good though). Tfa wise because it recaptured the sense of adventure present in a new hope but had enough new in it to make it enjoyable, hopefully they don't keep rehashing the ot though.
What do you think is good?
It's Leo's character's fault being mauled by the bear the second time. If he didn't reach for the gun the bear would have walked away with her cubs.
It was just a bunch of words thrown together about how he couldn't suspend his disbelief for an injured character doing anything other than being an injured character. He wasn't a prop, he was a person, who lost everything and over-came an obstacle, within just barely reasonable proportion.
Can't believe this movie has all sorts of violence and gore but god forbid we see any savage bush and titties in this.
On the way home one of them said, "How did the indians have time to get to the captain and scalp him before Leo found his body?"
But they're not really dude bros, just really big nerds.
>how did the Indians have time to get to the captain and scalp him before leo found his body?
My assumption was that Fitzgerald did it, since he was clearly an insane psychopathic cannibal who was really capable of anything at that point in the film.
I really never say this, but you honestly sound like some faggot on /r/atheism making up trite quotes for upvotes when you say things like:
>Please, if you're going to come at me with such simple-minded strategies, I suggest you go for something clever, not something mundane and unimaginative as that.
>Congrats on being so simple-minded
>"Hoo hoo, here my pretentious opinion, hoo hoo!"
>I don't have the space in this comment to tell you how you're wrong, but you are.
>Adrenaline, especially when it's fueled with rage and anger you've probably never felt in your life.
Are you incapable of constructing an argument without letting your asspain overshadow reason? If you want to see a good argument for The Revenant being a great movie, start reading here: http://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/64664280/#q64666786
That anon actually manages to not come across as a faggot and has support in the thread, unlike you. It's probably because he comes across as informed rather than as an angry dick who can't handle disagreement.
>Gives up after two swings
Please forgive him for not continuing to pound his bare fists in futile against an animal that was mauling him. Also, did you watch the rest of the movie? He fucking shoots it and then stabs the shit out of it. Get out of here, you don't know what you're talking about.
>Leo emerging from the horse naked signifies his rebirth
>Are you incapable of constructing an argument without letting your asspain overshadow reason?
From the looks of your post, it seems you're incapable of actually using reason to counter any of what I said, and are going strictly for the ad hominem. My comments may have attacked your character and intelligence, but they were only compliments towards my overall statements.
Here's a pro tip, if you want to disagree with someone, don't cry about having someone respond to you.
>Compared to other dramatic films, this had sense of raw realism to it, where the actors were responding to their environments and the events that happened, they weren't trying to just "drum up" emotion on the spot because the script says to be sad here.
I guess that's a very poor explanation for all the dream sequences that were hammering home the message of "Look, poor Leo his pure nature loving Indian wife was taken from him, so sad please insert tears." Good filmmakers know the art of nuance and subtlety and that's something idiots like Leo, Inarritu or yourself have to look up in a dictionary.
>Adrenaline, especially when it's fueled with rage and anger you've probably never felt in your life
How much did your katana cost?
>I was making a remark about the characters, and the long shots that focused on them, and how plays have sets that are built/made to reflect the characters and the mood, much like here.
What was here? Snow, snow and more snow? Reflecting their isolation, or something? And spliced with some shots of trees blatantly copying Lubezki's own work from The Tree of Life? Don't get me wrong, it was pretty to look at, but there was no deeper meaning to the setting beyond the surface level of a hostile wilderness.
>"Hoo hoo, here my pretentious opinion, hoo hoo!"
Don't blame me for you being cinematically illiterate. The Revenant is as much a play as Transformers is. This isn't inherently bad, but there are directors whose aesthetic was filming essentially staged plays.
>Congrats on being so simple-minded you cannot make comparisons between separate aspects of a piece. Does someone say that a cake reminds him of one thing and one thing only, or does each part of that cake, the icing, the outer crust, the inner fluff, all have a different meaning and texture that makes it come together as something else entirely?
Don't even know what you're saying now.
>attacks others' intelligence
>doesn't know the difference between compliment and complement
I'm not even arguing with you. I love the movie. You're just coming across as a retard. Try applying yourself instead of being delusional about how smart you are.
You should always ask the bear to kindly stop bothering you.
So what time period did this take place in? I'm assuming they were in the north western portion of the United States due to the map. The mention of the Sioux indians and the few mentions of "re-enlisting" makes me think that this takes place between the civil war and the general events that took place with Mac Arthur's last stand.
Then what would that make Fitzgerald? An Ex-confederate soldier? An ex-union soldier? It wouldn't make sense for him to be either because he wouldn't really be re-enlisting into the US army if he was a rebel, and he doesn't seem like a union soldier because his family comes from Texas.
Which makes me also think that this could've taken place before the civil war, but were people that far out west before 1861?
>I guess that's a very poor explanation for all the dream sequences that were hammering home the message of "Look, poor Leo his pure nature loving Indian wife was taken from him, so sad please insert tears."
And I guess that's a very poor trivialization of the fact that it was a way of explaining his past without straight up telling it to the audience, but I'm sure you would've preferred Rey, sitting in the sand making space-ship noises while wearing a pilot helmet. That's the kind of characterization that just makes your dick get hard, doesn't it?
>How much did your katana cost?
Oh, I didn't realize we were memeing, here let me; "how about you go get your trilby for your basement theater while you watch Bergman films, you fat neckbeard *snort snort*"
>What was here? Snow, snow and more snow? Reflecting their isolation, or something?
If you don't appreciate mood setting and atmosphere, fine, just don't bitch about it when people point out your flawed opinion about how a movie uses images to portray what's happening, you retarded faggot.
>Don't blame me for you being cinematically illiterate.
That post would make sense if I didn't know who Bergman was, but we've already established you have no idea what you're talking about. Say, what's your favorite scene from a Bergman film?
>Don't get me wrong, it was pretty to look at, but there was no deeper meaning to the setting beyond the surface level of a hostile wilderness
If that's all you saw, that's on you. Not sure what you want me to do about it, since I got a lot more out of it than you did apparently.
>Don't even know what you're saying now.
Basically, this fellow was part of a trapping expedition that moved up the Missouri River system. The party was attacked by Arikara (called “Ree” in the movie) in May of 1823 and Glass was injured in the leg. Then in August of that same year, Glass was hunting around Grand River and was mauled by a bear.
Imagine how much time you would've saved if you had just googled "The Revenant setting."
>Set in 1823 Montana and South Dakota
>And I guess that's a very poor trivialization of the fact that it was a way of explaining his past without straight up telling it to the audience, but I'm sure you would've preferred Rey, sitting in the sand making space-ship noises while wearing a pilot helmet. That's the kind of characterization that just makes your dick get hard, doesn't it?
>if you didn't like this movie, you are obviously a Star Wars fan
If you want to operate at this level, go ahead. Not even going to read what you wrote next because like the other nicely said, you're just coming across as a retard. Enjoy your pretend arthouse.
>just don't bitch about it when people point out your flawed opinion about how a movie uses images to portray what's happening, you retarded faggot.
>if you didn't like this movie, you are obviously a Star Wars fan
>you're clearly an illiterate who's never seen Bergman's work
Oh, okay, you're a hypocrite. Glad we got that out of the way.
I hate that the anon you're arguing with has the same taste as me, but "pretend arthouse" and all the other condemnations are overboard. In no way does arthouse have to be "2deep4u." An artist you referred to, Bergman, is known for lots of symbolism, as are directors like Tarkovsky and Kariostami. But then there are people like Ray, Ozu, Welles, Hitchcock, Allen, Fellini, Soderbergh, and so on who tell grounded, humanist stories.
The Revenant is an excellent movie; it's also about survival. The fact it isn't layered in a way that would make Kubrick or Lynch's head spin doesn't mean it's not as valid of an artistic endeavor.
You're, of course, free to dislike it, but to not recognize its merits is disappointingly willful ignorance.
I'd have to watch it again to get all my thoughts completely in order, as it was more of an experience than it was a structured story with a clear message.
It was very interpretable, which I appreciated.
>It's based on a true story you niggers, the guy survives.
The real Hugh Glass survived (until he was killed by the Ree later on) by this fictional account diverges from the real story is several significant ways, so it really isn't a stretch to believe that this fictional Hugh Glass will die of his injuries very shortly after the events of the movie.
From my perspective, the ending with Leo staring into the camera seemed to strongly imply that he wasn't gonna make it.
Hmmmm, why, because I'm smarter than you and that offends you?
It's okay, take your time, I know it's hard for you to type long messages.
>I hate that the anon you're arguing with has the same taste as me
>responding to yourself
The ending scene strongly reminded me of Gladiator's ending. I believe Glass was essentially a specter of vengeance, and upon completing what he set out to do, he was content with reuniting with his loved ones in the afterlife. It would be congruent with his spiritual journey and parallels his son's arc (survives earlier only to eventually be killed).
>responding to yourself
Looks like you've started.
>I respond calmly and civilly about how my finer thoughts on the film are still very amorphous
>hurr he has none
You wouldn't even deserve it at this point anyway. You're just an angry child. Lol, grow up for fucks sake.
So do I.
So you're a manchild with a fragile ego, then. Otherwise, I don't understand why you feel the need to stoop to the level of shitposting and desperately vying for the last word instead of making your point and moving on.
>grow up for fucks sake.
>says the person who enjoys Oscar bait
Can't wait to ignore your reply to this. You just love to keep on going when you've been utterly destroyed haven't you? Literally worse than a shit smearing toddler.
Why would I say that? Am I to be under the impression I'm an idiot like you?
Sorry, but I let films sit a while before going too in depth because there's more to think about than just images.
>goes on about how I'm "utterly destroyed"
>still has yet to disprove a single thing I've said
>is the one saying he's ignoring my posts now on purpose because of how terrified he is I'll prove him wrong
Not really, when those children are dumb, unlikeable, faggots.
You see, unlike you, I'm not a totally complete loser who relies on retards on the internet to boost my ego. I have actual intelligence and likeability that does that for me.
Please, do shitpost about my trip some more, I have to masturbate tonight and your tears will help a lot with that.
>coming from the manchild who angrily ranted about my post
In real life, when his wounds were super infected and gross, Hugh Glass found a rotting log full of maggots and laid on it so the maggots would eat the infected flesh.
In all honesty I feel like they should have left that part of it true to history instead of having the Indian guy treat his wounds.
Did you just message a bunch of your friends to get in this thread and shitpost angrily towards me? Cause that's what it's looking like, when the same 2, or 3, people are the only ones angrily shitposting towards me.
Kek, glad to know I've angered you though. I really, deeply, firmly, enjoy that.
>how was the mood/setting related to what the characters did
It acted as both a mirror, a lamentation, and a foreshadowing of the events in the film that happened, were happening, and what they were feeling. The wolves attacking the bison scene meant personally for me how the characters were ambushed and attacked, but also on a deeper level, probably reflected the cruelty of nature, and as a result, the cruel nature of man.
Now fuck off. ;)
You didn't anger me. I'm genuinely letting you know you're coming across as a clown. And as unbelievable as it may be to you, you don't exactly have a winning personality, which is why multiple people are ragging on you.
Anyway, I have no horse in this race. I think The Revenant is one of the year's best. I also think you need to grow up.
Birdman is his most clever work by far, if anything it's not getting enough praise for the use of long shots to make it feel like a broadway show rather than a movie.
Still I expect 4chan to hate Inarritu until Trump loses the elections.