I enjoyed this, but what was /tv/'s take on it?

I liked it. Hardy deserved the Oscar, not Leo.

Hardy's performance was mumblekino and Leo's was growlkino

>>85144736
Probably Leo's best though. I wish the bear looked more realistic.

muh pelts

>>85144708
>what was /tv/'s take on it
Who gives a shit. This place is terrible for serious film discussion.

>>85144708
Hardy's parts were interesting but the movie bored me to death when they cut to Leo crawling somewhere or lying somewhere.

>>85144708
Looked great but was a bit meh in other areas. Also this >>85144736 Hardy was great.

Leo is a shitty actor. They gave him an Oscar because he is in movies for all that time and to shut him up.
The movie was pretty good imo. good setting, nice nature, pretty comfy all in all.

>>85144708
>good setting, nice nature, pretty comfy all in all.

This says it all really, pretty enjoyable overall.

It's good.

I have some qualms with the direction, and those dream sequences hamfisted in. To me, it really lacks any sort of existential drive and found myself not caring.

>>85144736
came here to say pretty much this. while i don't think hardy deserved an oscar, he was leagues better than leo

>>85144708

Tom hardy is amazing

>>85144708
its good but birdman was better

>>85144846
I thought Leo was better in Wolf of Wallstreet (and Gilbert). This oscar was the Academy's way of saying they were sorry for snubbing him.