Now that the mainstream hype is completely dead, what are /his/'s

Wow I didn't know films from the 1820s had such quality.

>>2421822

dank

Tom Hardy is the best in it. The first Indian attack is fantastic. It's a pretty good movie overall, Leo's ok in it, but not Oscar worthy.

>>2421812
first half-hour is great...the rest, meh.

somewhat mediocre movie to be honest

/tv/ thread though

>>2422059
This

Could've been an hour shorter and it would have benefited from it.

>tom hardy movie without a For You
shit desu
>>2422105
this

>>2422045
Leo should have won for wolf of wallstreet. Reverant was a pity oscar.

>>2422542
He never had a good performance in his entire career.

>>2422542
Same with Denzel Washington in Training Day desu. He should have gotten one for The Hurricane 2 years prior.

>art movie goes mainstream
>plebs complain it's too long, boring, not enough substance, etc
every time

>>2421812
Good entertainment film in art film's clothing. I liked it a lot but DiCaprio definitely shouldn't have gotten an oscar for grunting and foaming at the mouth, Tom Hardy was honestly better

>>2422682
>If I just claim a mediocre movie is an art movie, that will make it ok!

File: mmmmm .png (527KB, 784x704px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 784x704px

mmmmmm Taboo is better

>>2422781

>I have use for you

>>2422045
The part where invisible indians were arrow-sniping running men from hundreds of yards away was silly as fuck.

>>2421812

Its pretty good if you go in realizing its just scenery porn

I liked it

>>2422045
>>2422542
how to spot a pleb hint #67

When they literally have nothing to talk about the movie but the actors' performances

>>2423468
Honestly, who watched the movie for anything else but the scenery and atmosphere?

And fuck were they good.

>>2423463
>implying this didn't happen irl.