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.
>>65080199 Hardy was the best actor of the film and his character was the most interesting. Leo was utter shit, and his character was boring to follow. Stupid ass dream-sequences? Original concept. I'd rather see Leo grunting and shouting desu.
I didn't really understand the message of the movie and I'm not sure if it's because it was too subtle for me or if it was unfocused. What exactly was the point? Revenge is meaningless? That's kind of what I got from the title and the motif of the endlessly flowing river, but I feel like there's more to it than that.
>>65081155 Maybe they meant it to be ambiguous. Does he give up and die, or does he continue to survive even though he no longer has anything to live for? Also it ends with his heavy breathing over black just like how it started, which brings me back to the theme of cyclical suffering. But seriously that seems like to weak of a theme to build a whole movie on
>>65081425 True. Innaritu always has really good ideas for his movies, but they always seem to fall a little short in execution. Babel, Birdman and The Revenant are all good movies but they all have this problem that take them from a 10/10 to an 8
>>65080841 Armond white's whole point is providing a dissenting voice to the critical circlejerk surrounding movies while also showing how preposterous some of the negative "hit piece criticism" you see is. A multi-paragraph deluge of insults directed at an Adam Sandler movie is just as annoying as someone having an orgasm to twelve years a slave.
>>65081343 Right, and why would the film maker decide to make his son Indian? Just for fun? It doesn't take a genius to see what is being shown. Leo's character is a liberal fantasy, literally avenging the sins of his racist ancestors. The structure of the story actually isn't that much different from capeshit, an unlikely origin story leads to a hero seeking revenge against a villain who represents some simplified version of American ills.
>>65081425 >I was pissed off. I thought I understood who he was. I think you did understand who he was, to be honest. Hardy's character feels like he was rewritten at the last minute to appease SJWs. He's a guy who is extremely cautious because of past mistakes getting him scalped. You don't need to make him excessively racist or macho, that screams of studio meddling.
I thought it was a good film but honestly it left me a little disappointed
While I was watching it, I was lapping that shit up, and was thoroughly engrossed for long periods.
it's a large butt
Considering how gorgeous the visuals of the film were, and how well constructed the film felt, there was something lacking; the religious and philosophical subtext felt half baked- what actually was the point? There are no truly stunning moments emotionally in this film, just a series of grim, well paced lows. Something this close to brilliance should have been much more, but honestly I felt like it really was a poor Malick imitation.
>>65081594 I haven't read the book or looked up irl Hugh Glass, but I doubt that the film came up with his son being an Indian. That was probably included in the book, which was made into a movie for reasons that aren't pushing a paranoid agenda. Also I was worried that the interracial angle would be forced but it wasn't. There was the one racist character, nobody else really seemed to care. The French took advantage of the Indians because they were there and they were easy, and Hardy was the only one to make racist comments
>>65081756 The real story was way more poignant than the pseudo-philosophical treenigger garbage we got. The real Hugh Glass spared Fitzgerald as atonement for killing an officer of the US army; the writers could've easily played by that angle instead of the only god can take revenge crap
>>65081976 >The real Hugh Glass spared Fitzgerald as atonement for killing an officer of the US army That could have been more powerful. At the very least I thought the audience deserved to see Fitzgerald get scalped. Why bother to make that choice of an ending and not show it properly.
>>65081976 How did you not get that facet of his decision to spare Fitzgerald? His previous crime of killing an army officer carried into his hesitation and ultimate abandonment of Fitzgerald. Glass realized that he will never be able to perpetuate this cycle of vengeance, and left it up to God thereby proving his existence.
>>65082089 Yeah wtf it's incredibly brutal all throughout the movie, even during their fights, and they don't show it. They got Leo to look like a bear ripped a chunk of flesh out of his back but they couldn't make it look like Hardy got scalped? Seriously why would they not show it?
>>65082123 >His previous crime of killing an army officer carried into his hesitation and ultimate abandonment of Fitzgerald That wasn't the reason implied in the film, he hesitated because he knew killing Fitzgerald wouldn't bring his dead wife and son back
>>65082123 Do you think that's the ultimate point of the film? Because that's kind of the point I got from it, Revenge is and endless cycle of suffering and only god can truly exact it, but then again most of the movie isn't about revenge, it's about Glass surviving. Revenge is his ultimate goal for doing so, but I'm wondering if it wasn't also trying to say something about the human spirit.
Overall I think the point of the whole thing was a little unclear.
>>65082456 That's the only reason I can think of, but they already have that in the bear attack scene, that shit was unforgiving.
The shot was on Leo's face when he was being scalped though, suggesting that the important part of the scene is how Glass feels about that. Unfortunately if I'm remembering right Leo just had a blank expression on his face.
>>65080199 No, but bear scene is one of the best special effect scenes I've seen and the whole cinematography aspect and the directorial input is both obvious in attempt to create a living breathing indifferent world and successful. Apart from two leads, most of the acting is stiff, what little of plot there is is poorly written but movie is almost a masterpiece
>>65082768 I haven't seen all of his nominations, but I think he's pretty good. He's charming and has a great on screen presence. I don't think he's great for emotionally complex roles though, keep him in things like Wolf of Wall Street. I mean he brings a good energy to his characters, but he can't really sell more subtle emotions like the ones in this movie. As far as delivery and stuff like that though he's always pretty spot on.
by who? I felt like none of the supporting cast let the film down; Domnhall Gleeson and Downs Syndrome Damon were both very good. leo's son was kinda shit but I guess there aren't any good indian actors
>>65083007 I wish they would have spent more time on Glass living with the Indians. They never gave a full picture of what actually happened when his village was burned, just unsatisfying snippets. The story would have been a lot more compelling if they had expanded his character more and not had any scenes with the other group, just Leo and his memories until they get back to camp.
>>65082913 What year was the film set? I'm not too familiar with the history of firearms, but I thought that smooth bore muskets started getting phased out by rifled muskets at some point which were far more accurate.
>>65083322 The best thing about it was how most of people just died painfully, quickly and weren't good at fighting or shooting at all. They just got fucking killed, in a disorganized mess. Exactly how it would be IRL
>>65083118 I think they tried to go the Malick route with the flashbacks. There's something qualitatively different about how Malick handles these, though -- something I can't quite explain. Like he's touching some subconscious part of the mind, and I can't say I've seen anyone replicate it perfectly.
I almost would have preferred if the flashbacks were cut out entirely, tbqph. They felt repetitive and didn't reveal any new information or breathe any new feeling with each successive flashback. These kinds of flashbacks, I think, are difficult to pull off because they need to be vivid enough to leave and convey some sort of impression, but they also need to be vague enough to be just that -- an impression. Something ethereal, immaterial even. Like a scent or a dream half-remembered. The film is at its strongest when it's raw, immediate, gritty, and real, and it's at its weakest when it tries to force the subconscious or spiritual angle. And like I've said, Malick is one of the few directors working today who can handle both the gritty and the ethereal -- The Thin Red Line is the best example of this.
Did you miss the part where the roaming band of Indians are depicted as violent mass murderers lead by a paranoid lunatic?
Or do you just choose to ignore that so everything can fit your /pol/ narrative and you can feel red-pilled despite the fact that you're just regurgitating someone else's delusions like the average John Oliver watching leftist fucktard?
>>65083427 Innaritu needs a partner to keep his ideas grounded and centred around a theme. >Alejandro stop shooting pictures of woods and help me with the script >Hey! Hey get Emmanuels dick out of your mouth!
Speaking of which, that shot soon after they leave Glass and are crossing the river, how low they are in the shot and how crushing the scenery is, and then they start infighting. Fucking great.
>>65083484 It's because Malick makes films like Hemingway wrote books. He makes movies about things and feelings that he knows very well and a full and we'll rounded view of, therefore the minimal narrative still shines through as a rich and full story because the images he's chosen to use perfectly emulate the emotions he's trying to portray.
>>65083686 But the film kind of hovered between wanting you to relate to glass and root for him, and being a detached narrative more focused on an overall theme than a character or a narrative. It felt like they could have done one or the other in a really spectacular manner, but they both a little half assedly
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.