criterionforum.org

Is it beautiful? Yes

Is DiCaprio amazing? Yes

But to quote the New Yorker, this is a slog. A beautiful slog.

I couldn't have been more disappointed by this given the hype.

Really stunning film. The cinematography and filmmaking techniques are off the charts. Heavy influence from Malick, and, in parts, from Tarkovsky surprisingly enough (floating wife, ruined church). Moves straight to my #2 position for 2015 films. Really ground-breaking stuff. Leo went "all in" on this role!

Trees wrote:Really stunning film. The cinematography and filmmaking techniques are off the charts. Heavy influence from Malick, and, in parts, from Tarkovsky surprisingly enough (floating wife, ruined church). Moves straight to my #2 position for 2015 films. Really ground-breaking stuff. Leo went "all in" on this role!

Heavily influenced and ground-breaking?

Yep. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Two years, two bad Iñárritu films using all sorts of flash to distract from poor storytelling. I really wanted to like this, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. This time, every Malick visual trick in the book (minus the poetry - much of this looked like demo footage for a top of the line Samsung TV to play on a loop in a Best Buy) is employed to pull attention away from, as Luke M mentioned, what is an unimaginative and incredibly straightforward revenge plot. A terrific performance by Tom Hardy aside (really, A+ stuff and truly terrifying) the acting is scattershot, with DiCaprio laying it on far too thick at times. I'm no wild fan of Malick's post-Days of Heaven output, but at least he's trying to implant wonder and emotion in viewers in a fashion that's often effective in unexpected ways - The Revenant leans in on flashback cliches and dubious (or maybe more accurately just misplaced) Native American social justice messaging, both clunkily, and never once managed to make me actually feel anything for the titular character. Beautiful mediocrity is still mediocrity.

You never once cared for DiCaprio's character? Not even after the bear mauling?

I agree with some of your sentiments, which is why my praise focused mainly on the cinematography and filmmaking techniques. I agree that the flashbacks and dream sequences did not work as well as Iñárritu had hoped, I think, to give some depth and greater emotion to the film. Even Gibson did much, much better in Braveheart, for example. Gibson's flashbacks and dreams were buoyed by the fact that we got to know and care about Murron early in the film, so when she comes back in dreams and visions, it's emotionally powerful.



DiCaprio's ghostly wife we don't even know, so it's hard to care much about her. The bond with the son never really clicked with me, either, though at least they went through the paces with that relationship.

Iñárritu tries to use some of Malick and Tarkovsky's wonder and magic (the dreamy, poetic images and pacing, the levitating wife), but the magic is never fully felt, at least not by me.

What he does succeed at, in spades, and with all cylinders firing, is staging a brilliant, brutal, simple story of survival and revenge, with extraordinary technical and artistic prowess, much of it brought to bear by Lubezki, who is now not only at the height of his own powers, but has achieved a level of artistry and skill perhaps never reached by any cinematographer, ever. So powerful has Lubezki become that many times his name is mentioned before Iñárritu's when the subject of this film arises.

The least loathesome Iñárritu film since Amores Perros, it's frustrating both how close and how far The Revenant comes to greatness.

This grueling but repetitive revenge quest could be tightened by half an hour without losing any of its potency. Iñárritu's penchant for calling attention to himself is on full display, and he seems to be unsure if he wants to immerse the audience in gritty realism or remind them that he's behind the artificially-fogged camera. Credit where it's due, the opening attack set piece is bravura filmmaking, and he frequently shoots action in refreshingly coherent unbroken takes.

Iñárritu's skill behind the camera continues to be matched by his deficiencies behind the pen, with a screenplay littered with shallow storytelling, hokey imagery, and unlikely, anachronistic dialogue. Thankfully, there's a lot less of the latter to endure this time out with a grunting Leonardo DiCaprio frequently alone on screen.

DiCaprio is fantastic here, and though I'm as tired as anyone of hearing from his publicists about the award-worthy hardships he endured, this is a performance that feels authentic and lived-in at every turn. It is in every way the opposite of his career best work in The Wolf of Wall Street, showing off his incredible range and dedication to performance. He deserves all the attention he gets for this. Tom Hardy is predictably great as well, delivering his trademark intensity. I think Hardy is one of the best actors working today, though I wish he didn't devolve into incoherent mumbling every time he affects an American accent. There are a couple of solid supporting turns as well. This is the least punchable Will Poulter has ever been, and has anyone had a better year in smallish roles than Domnhall Gleeson? Four very different and underappreciated turns in four very different films (all of which have a shot a best picture nominations). Forget about anyone other than these four even being in the picture. The many Native Americans in the cast are alternately treated as mystical oracles and faceless threats.

Iñárritu is blatantly aping Malick here, and wisely enlisted the efforts of both Jack Fisk and Emmanuel Lubezki. As anticipated, Lubezki is the MVP of the entire production. I think that this is the most impressive entry in his formidable resumé, and thus one of the most beautifully photographed films I've ever seen. The Arri Alexa 65 makes a stunning debut, and the wide-angle lenses capture one stunning vista after another. Using only natural light is a stunt, of course, but it's a damn good one, with one breathtaking shot after another. I love the late-night lynch mob lit only with torches. Compositions are consistently perfect whether soaring over snowscapes, through dense thickets, or up the snout of a computer generated grizzly.

The Revenant is, despite its historic provenance, a lot of swaggering nonsense. It doesn't have anything to say beyond, "Well, everyone knows revenge is awesome. What this film presupposes is... maybe it isn't." Or maybe it's just, "Hey, look how tough and cool this guy is! He's like the Alejandro González Iñárritu of fur trappers." For the first time though, I feel like Iñárritu has surrounded himself with enough talent and beauty to more or less make up for his own oversized ego and significant deficiencies as a storyteller. The Revenant is far from perfect, but ultimately offers more to love than it does to hate.

Mostly everything I enjoyed about this was due to its genre but as Innaritu is apparently flat-out insulted by the entire idea of his movie befitting a genre I'm fine with leaving what I did like behind.

An incredible adventure movie about survival and revenge. The thing about a story with simple, visceral themes is that it comes down to the intensity with which they are told. This movie gives them as intense an expression as can be done. It externalizes all of the emotion, all the raw suffering and anger, onto the landscape itself. We're meant to feel the extent of the characters' pain and loss in the fight to persevere against a brutal and vast world. The enormity of the pain evident in the world is a reflection of the enormity of Leo's revenge, which is so large that it carries him out of death. Revenge becomes survival itself--but then survival in this movie is so extreme it's almost perverse. It's hard to imagine how these people could go on.

I can't think of a wilderness adventure so thrilling and authentic as this one. It was incredible. I'm surprised so many here didn't like it.

Jeff wrote:The many Native Americans in the cast are alternately treated as mystical oracles and faceless threats.

Would very much disagree with that. This is one of the few movies where the Native Americans, antagonists included, are treated like humans. It's rare to see a movie focus on the antagonists after a battle as this one does, staying with the natives and their pain over their dead rather than following the boat. It gives faces to their loss. It allows their leader to express his pain and the injustice he's suffered, but without making him a totem of it. It's a response to the hypocrisy of the French trapper; he is otherwise practical, and his motivation is a human one: to find his daughter. The man who saves Leo is not presented as unknowable or noble or mystical or otherwise placed in a category outside of the other characters. He's always finding moments of connection with Leo: sharing his loss, sharing the moment with the snowflakes (finding small joy in an otherwise brutal landscape), and otherwise making human connections. Same with the girl Leo saves, who isn't the scared, mute animal trope that usually comes with these scenes. She gets a voice, too, and some agency. When she takes the knife, we see that she is thinking and feeling her own things and that these cause her actions.

The only thing even vaguely mystical-sounding is when the pawnee man says something like "revenge is left to god", but it comes right after explaining how he's going south to search for other pawnee after having lost his family. SO it's not meant to be mystical, it's part of a larger explanation of his story.

Mr Sausage wrote:Would very much disagree with that. This is one of the few movies where the Native Americans, antagonists included, are treated like humans...

The points of your rebuttal are all correct and well-taken. I really shouldn't have even throw that comment in there. I think I was projecting some of my disdain for the film's mysticism in general onto its treatment of Native Americans, which as you said is much more even-handed and human than is typical for this type of film.

Loved it. the wide angle lenses and 65mm sensor were put to fantastic use. Story wise, it was a nice touch inverting "the searchers" with the Indians searching endlessly for their stolen woman. I'm still wrapping my head around interpreting the specific meanings and thematic impacts the three symbolic rebirths have on the narrative structure and dicaprios mentality (how does each rebirth affect how connected he is to his wife, does he lose sight of his son after the rebirth from beast at the end of the film?). the film was wonderfully rich and dense throughout and one I think will improve on re watching. I particularly liked the cuts from micro to massive, sometimes moving from a devastating intimate closeup with dicaprios breath fogging the lens to a massive landscape with the fog rolling down off the mountains, it's a nice way to bring the immense intimacy of the wilderness on screen.

I find it baffling that hardy has not received unending accolades for the film as dicaprios has because he is even better in the film than the superstar everyone is talking about.

movielocke wrote:I find it baffling that hardy has not received unending accolades for the film as dicaprios has because he is even better in the film than the superstar everyone is talking about.

You request, and the Academy provides...

DarkImbecile wrote:

movielocke wrote:I find it baffling that hardy has not received unending accolades for the film as dicaprios has because he is even better in the film than the superstar everyone is talking about.

You request, and the Academy provides...

I'm not surprised, a few years ago I saw "crazy heart" right before nominations and just figured Gyllenhall was in, I had the same feeling last night watching Hardy, too good to be denied, for whatever reason the pundit herd just blinds itself to supporting / co lead when they have a monstrous best actor front runner to bleat about in mindless unison.

i'm in the camp that liked the movie although i can't say i thought it was great. ditto all the praise for hardy who is a capital A ACTOR from the gary oldman school. even when he goes too far (not that he does in this particular role) he's still mesmerizing. my problems with the movie are were more reality based than anything. i.e. theres no way dicaprio or, anyone else for that matter could survive what this character had to go through. as for the thin story, that's not the crux of a movie like this-the spectacle is what it really hinges on. and like mad max:fury road (another movie attacked by some for it's simple nature) this is visceral, elemental and brutal filmmaking of the most virtuosic kind. on a side note i'm honestly kind of amazed the entire cast and crew from both productions survived unscathed. the revenant might not be in the same class as something like marketa lazarova (a film inarritu no doubt screened before embarking on this epic) but it's still an incredible achievement made under similar, semi-impossible conditions.

There was a lot I was impressed by (Domnhall Gleeson and Will Poulter bring it just as much as the two leads, though with less screentime and I haven't seen a harsh winter this immersive since The Grey), but I was more impressed than I was moved by it. It's dramatic potential is sometimes muted by the impressive landscape shots, something I don't think Malick ever had a problem with. For example in The Thin Red Line when a young soldier is dying and it cuts to it's own landscape it's no less effective for it.

Was anybody else reminded of late-period Godard? The many shots of nature accompanied by the short string cues brought to mind Godard's use of the ECM library in his films of the past 15 years or so. Iñárritu demonstrated in "Birdman" that he's a fan, so I wouldn't be surprised if the use of music and image in those scenes were inspired by Godard.

jorencain wrote:Was anybody else reminded of late-period Godard? The many shots of nature accompanied by the short string cues brought to mind Godard's use of the ECM library in his films of the past 15 years or so. Iñárritu demonstrated in "Birdman" that he's a fan, so I wouldn't be surprised if the use of music and image in those scenes were inspired by Godard.

Oof, not for me at least. I thought it was largely Malick-derivative, with maybe some Tarkovsky thrown in here and there. But I found the film to be totally overwrought, so I would not think to look for anything Godardian here.

If nothing else, I found this film interesting as a kind of aesthetic experiment: take Malick's DP and production designer, pepper in many Malick-style z-axis push-in shots, shots looking up at trees, etc, graft it onto a more traditional Hollywood survival/revenge story, and what is the result? For me, the resemblance is purely superficial - watching this and Knight of Cups, it's pretty obvious to me that without Malick at the helm, all the pretty shots in the world done up in his style can fall flat as much as anything else. But I know a lot of people feel like KoC is the slog and The Revenant something worthwhile. Different strokes and all.

Video explores Tarkovsky's influence on "The Revenant". Not all of these are dead-on correct, but the overall influence is clear. A similar video could also be made for Mr. Malick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvkiG3lGuUQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://thefilmstage.com/news/watch-andr ... deo-essay/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those interested, an article on the "real" Hugh Glass.

http://www.historynet.com/hugh-glass-th ... legend.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And differences between the film and the "real" story to the extent that it's known

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/revenant/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This was also the subject of the latest BackStory podcast for their annual look at the historical accuracy of each year's Oscar nominees

Mad Max of course being the film closest to its real events.

If they wanted historical accuracy, Spielberg should have directed The Revenant.

This guy Jack Hamilton from SLATE really trashes the film. He's basically calling Iñárritu a charlatan.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/cult ... cture.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ah, yes, the old "movies that aren't explicitly pleasurable and fun to watch suck" argument...

Hamilton also namedrops Alfonso Cuaron as a "genius", when many of the criticisms he levels at The Revenant are easily applied to Gravity (not that I necessarily agree with these being attributed to either): flashy technique distracting from weak characterization and story; lack of fidelity or simplification of history/science; a lead performance that fails to showcase the actor's talents.

Similarly, I'm fascinated by this assertion:

I refuse to believe that there is anyone—anyone—who has seen both The Revenant and Mad Max: Fury Road and can rationally argue that The Revenant is a better film. Fury Road is an actual masterpiece rather than a pretend one...

Again, many of his problems with Inarritu's film are strikingly similar to those pinned on Fury Road by its critics. I get why Inarritu garners so much vitriol from certain critics and film buffs, but this insistence that no reasonable or intelligent person can possibly appreciate what he does seems to follow him around in way that's fairly unique among even other divisive filmmakers (Tarantino, for example) and the idea that his flaws (and he has flaws) are somehow special to him is also notably false.

Yes, that's a ridiculous, childish argument to make "no one" can rationally say that "Revenant" is better than "Mad Max". Many members of this forum have listed "Revenant" above "Mad Max", as have many critics, and soon many Academy voters.