Post: #26

(01-10-2016 05:56 PM)HonantheBarbarian Wrote:  Does it beat "Jerimiah Johnson" or "Seraphim Falls"?

I'm definitely intrigued.

Yes, it's far better. The production qualities, the technology, the cinematography, the acting, and the philosophical messages are all much, much better.

Judge for yourself.

Post: #27

Wasn't as good as I expected, I'd say it was about a 7.5

Post: #28

For me it was an excellent film embodying indomitable will and perseverance. Also really brings to life the inhospitable, harsh conditions of the wild. I mean we know how men lived long ago, how people survive winters, but the films portrayal made the feeling visceral. I found myself questioning my chances in such conditions, thinking about the level of comfort I've become accustomed to.

Most of the complaints I heard were something about the movie being too long, too boring in some parts. Yes, it could have been shortened considerably, but I felt that it would have taken away from the feeling of prolonged struggle and endurance (which was what the movie was about to me). My opinion is that not every scene in a movie needs to directly contribute to the advancement of the plot, and I feel that may have been the source of frustration for a lot of people. The other main complaint was about the plausibility of certain situations mainly concerning the main character's repeated survival after calamitous events. Personally I didn't think there was anything too crazy. But the main purpose of pushing those boundaries was to highlight the extent to which his will was being exercised and tested, and I think the audience is supposed to feel that strain. Personally it was draining for me.

As for the acting, I thought it was excellent. I'll start with Leo, because I feel too many people are viewing his performance as a labored effort to obtain an oscar, which is pretty unfair. He gave a phenomenal perfomance, especially with the physical aspects. Hardy was quite good, almost unrecognizable in his role. The one minor issue I had, which was more the writing than anything, was his villainous character was bordering on cartoonish, coming close the archetypal callous bad guy (instead of the multilayered character he started out as) especially towards the end.

My opinion is that your level of immersion will determine your enjoyment of the film. If your attention span is weak, if you find yourself labeling things as "plot holes", if you become agitated by "showy" or "pretentious" symbolism, or if you are analyzing dicaprio, the actor instead of the character he's playing (presumably to determine if he is deserving of an award), you may still appreciate the film but you certainly won't be blown away. Overall I thought it was one of the best films I've ever seen.

Post: #29

(12-31-2015 05:03 AM)azulsombra Wrote:  It's 2.5hrs with very little dialogue so it feels like 3hrs. Amazing cinematography and great acting by Leo as usual. Story was decent. I feel they could have edited this down to 90 minutes and lost nothing in the way of story and delivered a superior movie.

I'd give it 3/5 stars

I've been wanting to see it for the cinematography alone. 40 percent of the Revenant was filmed a new cutting edge camera which isn't for sale....just rental at this point.

http://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/

Post: #30

(01-10-2016 06:03 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  The production qualities, the technology, the cinematography, the acting, and the philosophical messages are all much, much better.

Judge for yourself.

(01-10-2016 06:46 PM)The Wire Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 05:03 AM)azulsombra Wrote:  . . . Amazing cinematography and great acting by Leo as usual . . .

I've been wanting to see it for the cinematography alone. 40 percent of the Revenant was filmed a new cutting edge camera which isn't for sale....just rental at this point.

http://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/

An interesting note about how this film was shot. It was done almost entirely with natural light, except for one scene.

http://petapixel.com/2015/12/21/the-reve...ral-light/

Film/movie/camera buffs will know just how big a deal this is. But not having to deal with artificial light allows the director to not worry about light placement or filming a scene a certain way because of the limitations placed by the location of the lights.

Of course this has to do with the advancement of technology. This movie as it was shot would probably not have been possible even a decade ago (or it would have been really hard), but camera sensors and editing software/techniques have come a long way since then. We could expect more movies to be shot like this in the future, but mark Revenant as one of the first higher-profile movies to be shot this way.

Post: #31

(01-10-2016 07:05 PM)Penta Sahi Wrote:  An interesting note about how this film was shot. It was done almost entirely with natural light, except for one scene.

http://petapixel.com/2015/12/21/the-reve...ral-light/

Film/movie/camera buffs will know just how big a deal this is. But not having to deal with artificial light allows the director to not worry about light placement or filming a scene a certain way because of the limitations placed by the location of the lights.

Of course this has to do with the advancement of technology. This movie as it was shot would probably not have been possible even a decade ago (or it would have been really hard), but camera sensors and editing software/techniques have come a long way since then. We could expect more movies to be shot like this in the future, but mark Revenant as one of the first higher-profile movies to be shot this way.

I didn't know that. Thats actually a huge deal. The first thing I thought was the dynamic range on the cameras are so huge and the article basically restated that; "concluding that the sensitivity of film wasn’t enough for dimly lit scenes — especially at dawn and dusk". I know from photography film doesn't handle dim scenes as well as digital and movie making is the basic same principals.

Post: #32

Good to hear the praise, planning on seeing this soon

(01-10-2016 05:04 PM)NewMeta Wrote:  Went into this having never seen the trailer or ever heard of it (didn't even know Leo was in it going in, truly fresh introduction).

Was boring for the first 10 minutes until he got mauled by the bear, then it all changed, it ended up being one of the sickest movies I've seen all year.

We're ten days in bro

Post: #33

DiCaprio, whilst we know why he says it, it's still disappointing:

http://dlisted.com/2016/01/08/leonardo-d...the-world/

Post: #34

Anyone know the correlation of Golden Globe winners and Oscar winners. Does he get it this time? He didn't speak much. So I guess he gets it for his incredible acting of faking being fucked by a bear.

Post: #35

(01-11-2016 05:47 PM)Teedub Wrote:  DiCaprio, whilst we know why he says it, it's still disappointing:

http://dlisted.com/2016/01/08/leonardo-d...the-world/

In the world? I'd humor acknowledgment of that statement if sjw's had the conviction and intellectual honesty to admit what culture(s) are "responsible" for the persecution. Until then, words are wind, faggots.

Post: #36

Best movie I've watched in a long time. A red pill must-see. I was engrossed & this comes from a man who has fallen asleep in just about anything I've watched for more than an hour in the last 4 years.

I agree wholeheartedly with Quintus.

Post: #37

Went to a late night screening yesterday. Thoroughly enjoyed the film. Well worth making a trip out to the theatre for the big screen experience instead of waiting for it to come to Netflix. There are many beautiful scenes that showcase the awesomeness of nature. One scene (not relevant to the plot, no spoiler) where we first hear and then see a herd of Buffalo on the run is a remarkable piece of cinematography.

I thought Tom Hardy was outstanding in his role. He delivers a profound but restrained performance. He didn't over do it and turn his character into too much of a frontier times caricature.

@QC: I had read your post about the masculinity of this film before heading in to watch the screening and had a good chuckle as I settled into my seat at the theatre. The coming attraction trailers I saw last night were for the latest Michael Moore film, where we see him acting like a complete clown, looking worse than ever and then some new movie that stars Helen Mirren as a 5 star general wrestling with ethics.

Post: #38

Post: #39

(01-11-2016 07:23 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  Went to a late night screening yesterday. Thoroughly enjoyed the film. Well worth making a trip out to the theatre for the big screen experience instead of waiting for it to come to Netflix. There are many beautiful scenes that showcase the awesomeness of nature. One scene (not relevant to the plot, no spoiler) where we first hear and then see a herd of Buffalo on the run is a remarkable piece of cinematography.

I thought Tom Hardy was outstanding in his role. He delivers a profound but restrained performance. He didn't over do it and turn his character into too much of a frontier times caricature.

@QC: I had read your post about the masculinity of this film before heading in to watch the screening and had a good chuckle as I settled into my seat at the theatre. The coming attraction trailers I saw last night were for the latest Michael Moore film, where we see him acting like a complete clown, looking worse than ever and then some new movie that stars Helen Mirren as a 5 star general wrestling with ethics.

Glad to hear you say this, man.

I think this should be a defining movie for us, and for the times we live in.

We got sold out, abandoned, betrayed, and stabbed in the back.

But we're going to come back and take our revenge.

One way or another.

Post: #40

^ blood oath

Post: #41

This film almost made me cry. Not only because it was a fantastic story and beautifully directed, but because it was completely devoid of grrrlsss. There was one instance where a Frenchman is raping a chick and then she slices his cock off which was perfectly reasonable.

When I saw the Indians at the beginning of the film I was expecting a side story of the noble savage living peacefully like the Na'Vi from Avatar and a depiction of whites being cruel to them for no reason in a caricature type fashion. None. It showed how life in the new world really was. Both sides at war and trying to survive and doing what they needed to do.

As for Tom Hardy's role (Fitzgerald), I didn't really see him as an a bad guy. At first I was thinking less of him but I doubt most men wouldn't do the same thing. He was trying to live another day.

One of my top 10 favorite movies. A must see.

Best actor: Leo
Best supporting: Tom

Post: #42

One of the best films I've seen in a long, long time.

It's always nice to see a film about human nature that doesn't try to hit you with some fucking social agenda. The lack of 'grrrrrl power' was refreshing as well.

Seeing it after seeing Star Wars certainly puts the two in stark contrast.

Post: #43

(01-10-2016 01:48 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I saw it today on the big screen.

This was fantastic. I was floored.

This is the most masculine movie I've seen in a long, long time. It's a smashingly good tale of courage, suffering, survival, betrayal, and revenge.

This is the screenplay that H. Rider Haggard or Alexandre Dumas would have written if they were alive today.

And, to cap it all off, and what really moved me as well, it has very definite mystical overtones, which seem to suggest man's insignificance in the great drama of Nature and her designs.

This is the movie that men should be seeing...not the insipid claptrap of "Star Wars" or "Mad Max."

I'm going to do a full review for my ROK article on Monday.

.

Just saw the article, containing some plot summaries.
No spoiler alert

Post: #44

Absolutely fantastic movie, the cinematography was gorgeous, and so were the settings.

The cold morning sunrises, amazing, you felt like you were there, struggling with him.

I saw this last week and I've told everyone to go see it, I really hope Leo gets a fucking Oscar for this.

He got the Golden Globe, maybe this is a tell.

Post: #45

Fantastic film with an evenhanded treatment of all sides, Indian and settler alike. I expected DiCaprio to do a great job but damn Tom Hardy impressed me. At least one of them deserves an Oscar. The bear scene was incredible, I don't know that I've had that feeling in a movie theater before. Glad to give my money to support a masculine film. No feminist bullshit, no unrealistic scenes of "empowered" women.

Mild spoilers:

One thing I didn't understand was the French guy who showed up at the settlement and said his men were killed. He had DiCaprio's canteen with him. Didn't DiCaprio just kill one man and the Indian chick killed the dude who raped her? The only thing I can think of is that the Indian chick ran off and returned with her tribe to kill the French settlers and the one man escaped. How did this man wind up at the settlement, did I miss something? I did get up to take a piss at one point.

Post: #46

Excellent movie, 10/10. The final scene and in particular the final shot before fade to black put a shiver in my spine like no other film I can remember.

Post: #47

The earlier posters in this thread were being hard critics, but I'm glad Page 2 people are coming around. I was worried the RvF readership had awful taste in film.

I have been waiting for this since I saw the teaser back in September. I went and saw a matinée in a mostly empty theatre yesterday. I plan to see it again preferably in IMAX or some form of more in-depth larger-format experience. You need to see this on the big screen and the higher-quality the experience the better.

This movie was suberb. It is gripping, intense, and immersing. It's a tale rife with struggle, hardship, suffering, anguish, hope, and the human condition is on display.

Leo's acting is second to none, and Tom hardy has been a personal favorite of mine for years now ever since I first saw him portray Bronson. Both of them are fantastic in this movie and they both deserve awards. I can't praise DiCaprio enough for his amazing talent on camera. Almost everyone of his movies over the past 15 years have been out of the park and he has only been getting better.

The cinematography is ground breaking, honestly. Some scenes take your breathe away and are almost unbelievable that they are real and not computer generated or super imposed.

I'm glad I avoided all the trailers and rumors about the film. I wanted to go into it knowing nothing about it and it payed off. I was blown away. Highly recommend this film.

Post: #48

Holy fuck was his son ugly. Geico caveman ugly.

Post: #49

Legit film. Loved it.

If I had a criticism it's only because I don't think the "natives" (they were not the first) and the conflict with Europeans was so black and white, but this movie had shades of gray mixed in so I won't hold it against the film.

Post: #50

(01-10-2016 07:54 PM)getdownonit Wrote:  Good to hear the praise, planning on seeing this soon

(01-10-2016 05:04 PM)NewMeta Wrote:  Went into this having never seen the trailer or ever heard of it (didn't even know Leo was in it going in, truly fresh introduction).

Was boring for the first 10 minutes until he got mauled by the bear, then it all changed, it ended up being one of the sickest movies I've seen all year.

We're ten days in bro

looool i watched it last year to be fair my own fault for posting in 2016