Post: #51

(01-12-2016 09:21 PM)Lucky Wrote:  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.

The Indian girl took off one way, Leo took off another, apparently he didn't get very far since he passed out near a fire.

My guess is, the Indians who were tracking Leo's crew in the beginning, tracked down the frenchies (probably saw the hung indian with the savage sign), killed as many as they could (that one frenchie got away), and the Indians followed Leo's trail, which is where he took off the cliff.

Post: #52

(01-13-2016 12:45 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 09:21 PM)Lucky Wrote:  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.

The Indian girl took off one way, Leo took off another, apparently he didn't get very far since he passed out near a fire.

My guess is, the Indians who were tracking Leo's crew in the beginning, tracked down the frenchies (probably saw the hung indian with the savage sign), killed as many as they could (that one frenchie got away), and the Indians followed Leo's trail, which is where he took off the cliff.

It wasn't the Indians who got them he said it was the wolves. During the conversation with the captain the Frenchman said that they were attacked by an unknown guy (Glass) who chased off their horses too and they were left to walk in the wilderness.

That's even more brutal.

Post: #53

(01-13-2016 03:32 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:45 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 09:21 PM)Lucky Wrote:  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.

The Indian girl took off one way, Leo took off another, apparently he didn't get very far since he passed out near a fire.

My guess is, the Indians who were tracking Leo's crew in the beginning, tracked down the frenchies (probably saw the hung indian with the savage sign), killed as many as they could (that one frenchie got away), and the Indians followed Leo's trail, which is where he took off the cliff.

It wasn't the Indians who got them he said it was the wolves. During the conversation with the captain the Frenchman said that they were attacked by an unknown guy (Glass) who chased off their horses too and they were left to walk in the wilderness.

That's even more brutal.

No shit ? It didn't seem like the horses were chased off, I was half in a Nyquil Coma when I saw that part, but it makes sense.

I gotta rewatch that part. The dude getting his shit cut off was brutal.

Post: #54

^

Yeah during that scene where he steals the horse and shoots the guy the Frenchmen's saddleless horses are definitely galloping away in front. It's pretty funny.

Post: #55

I thought the movie sucked actually. The cinematography was great but the movie itself came across as trying way too hard to be important and deep and ended up being kind of cheesy. All the native american "you are my son" stuff between Leo and his son seemed stupid and forced, as did the native american quotes and visions throughout. It started off great but then ended up basically going nowhere with zero characters to give a shit about besides Leo, and even then it was hard to care about him because he never spoke or socially interacted with anyone and there was no backstory to anything. The movie was literally two plus hours of Leo grimacing in pain.

I was really disappointed because i thought the movie was going to be about a group of fur trappers going about their business and going through the shit they went through with Indians and nature but that only lasted for the first five minutes of the movie. The bear attack/leaving Leo for dead should have been way later in the movie, and 20-30 minutes of him alone trying to survive would have been plenty to accomplish what took the movie two hours. Leo is my all time favorite actor and this was probably the worst movie I've seen him in. I hope he never works with this director again.

Post: #56

(01-13-2016 12:45 PM)kaotic Wrote:  The Indian girl took off one way, Leo took off another, apparently he didn't get very far since he passed out near a fire.

My guess is, the Indians who were tracking Leo's crew in the beginning, tracked down the frenchies (probably saw the hung indian with the savage sign), killed as many as they could (that one frenchie got away), and the Indians followed Leo's trail, which is where he took off the cliff.

That's what I figured. What a movie.

(01-13-2016 03:32 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  It wasn't the Indians who got them he said it was the wolves. During the conversation with the captain the Frenchman said that they were attacked by an unknown guy (Glass) who chased off their horses too and they were left to walk in the wilderness.

That's even more brutal.

God damn now I'm having flashbacks of the movie The Grey.

Post: #57

(01-14-2016 01:36 AM)Only One Man Wrote:  It started off great but then ended up basically going nowhere with zero characters to give a shit about besides Leo, and even then it was hard to care about him because he never spoke or socially interacted with anyone and there was no backstory to anything. The movie was literally two plus hours of Leo grimacing in pain.

I was really disappointed because i thought the movie was going to be about a group of fur trappers going about their business and going through the shit they went through with Indians and nature but that only lasted for the first five minutes of the movie. The bear attack/leaving Leo for dead should have been way later in the movie, and 20-30 minutes of him alone trying to survive would have been plenty to accomplish what took the movie two hours.

Whilst I wouldn't go as far as saying the movie sucked, in comparison to contemporary films, I would tend to agree with your comments. Whilst visually stunning, with some camera movements/shots leaving you thinking "how did they do that?", it felt poorly paced, with the three-act structure muddled.

And I'm not sure how near fatal injuries affect your ability to speak, even if it's a whisper. He didn't have a stroke. It felt like a purely fictional plot device so they could legitimise the "blinking" scene.

Post: #58

(01-16-2016 06:38 PM)Windom Earle Wrote:  Whilst I wouldn't go as far as saying the movie sucked, in comparison to contemporary films, I would tend to agree with your comments. Whilst visually stunning, with some camera movements/shots leaving you thinking "how did they do that?", it felt poorly paced, with the three-act structure muddled.

The director is an obvious fan of John Ford westerns and Kurosawa films like Dersu Uzala. If you watch a lot of those old classic films they have a similar pacing and sweeping grandoise ambition when it came to using and showcasing the natural environment. This is quite different from a lot of modern film these days which is full of fast cuts. It seems slow paced to us now because we're so used to modern film.

Even back in the 70's there were a lot of films which had minimal dialogue but were still awesome as fuck. Steve Mcqueen (the real guy not the forum fag who ripped his name) had a few films like this.

Quote:And I'm not sure how near fatal injuries affect your ability to speak, even if it's a whisper. It's not like he had a stroke. It felt like a purely fictional plot device so they could legitimise the "blinking" scene.

He got mauled in the throat and had a huge gash there. So the not being able to speak properly thing seems pretty legit.

Post: #59

(01-16-2016 07:00 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 06:38 PM)Windom Earle Wrote:  Whilst I wouldn't go as far as saying the movie sucked, in comparison to contemporary films, I would tend to agree with your comments. Whilst visually stunning, with some camera movements/shots leaving you thinking "how did they do that?", it felt poorly paced, with the three-act structure muddled.

The director is an obvious fan of John Ford westerns and Kurosawa films like Dersu Uzala. If you watch a lot of those old classic films they have a similar pacing and sweeping grandoise ambition when it came to using and showcasing the natural environment. This is quite different from a lot of modern film these days which is full of fast cuts. It seems slow paced to us now because we're so used to modern film.

Even back in the 70's there were a lot of films which had minimal dialogue but were still awesome as fuck. Steve Mcqueen (the real guy not the forum fag who ripped his name) had a few films like this.

Quote:And I'm not sure how near fatal injuries affect your ability to speak, even if it's a whisper. It's not like he had a stroke. It felt like a purely fictional plot device so they could legitimise the "blinking" scene.

He got mauled in the throat and had a huge gash there. So the not being able to speak properly thing seems pretty legit.

I think the fast pacing of modern movies is part responsible for the short attention spans of most kids. It has damaged their brain function.

Post: #60

Let me clarify what I meant by "poorly paced".

It does not equate to boring/slow (I was enthralled from start to finish), but rather, sequences that come at the audience in fits and starts with limited cohesion.

Rather than carefully using "pacing" to build tension, culminating in a pay-off/release for the audience with climactic scenes (of which there were many climactic scenes, too many I would say), it felt sporadic and therefore "poorly paced" in my opinion.

Post: #61

I thought the cinematography alone was breathtaking. According to wikipedia they filmed in US, Canada, and Argentina. No fake studio or fake snow stuff.

For some reason I'm always moved seeing giant herds of bison roaming free on the plains in movies. It would have been amazing to see those untouched herds back in the day. And trying to take one down with a one shot musket or bow/arrow to feed your family.

Post: #62

I think this is the type of movie you appreciate the more you watch it.

I really enjoyed it. I look forward to seeing it again.

Damn. I watched the trailer for the first time just now. I'm glad I stopped watching trailers a long time ago. They seriously show way too much of the movie. That bear scene should be seen without the slightest foreshadowing beforehand.

I'm glad I went into it blind.

Post: #63

I just watched this movie and I thought it sucked ass. It had so much potential. The cinematography was absolutely fantastic.. . Perhaps the best of any film. The acting was great. It was red pill. The direction was very good. But the script and dialog was shit. I didn't care about any of the characters and the pacing was bad. It was over two hours of watching overly zoomed in face shots of a silent Leo grimacing in pain.

If they had spent 75% of the film developing the characters and showing what fur traders did and their interactions with the natives, it probably would of been a kick ass movie. But no, it sucked.

The movie insisted upon itself.

Post: #64

Tom Hardy is a far better actor than Leonardo Di Caprio.

Post: #65

Just watched this movie. Pretty disappointing film overall. It had great potential, but it failed to leave me with any sense of satisfaction upon viewing.

The thing that bothers me the most is that the bear engaged in a penetrating act with Leo without first receiving verbal consent. I think I heard Leo say "no" several times. And we all know what "no" means.

The way that the bear is issued a quick death with first having his name smeared by the media was problematic. Of course, it's important for the viewer to recognize that a lot of the events in this film occurred long before civilized society was established, but at the same time, I feel like this movie set a bad precedent.

In modern society, we would take the proper steps to rob a predator like the mother bear of his manhood and self-respect before sentencing him to death.

Pretty disappointing. A lot more could have been achieved in this film with the careful use of a safe-word and some court mandated child support payments.

Post: #66

Okay, I finally got to sit down and watch it. Epic movie, I thought. Sure wish I would have seen it on the big screen. The ruthlessness of Nature and the true human condition are most certainly driven home.

That being said, this was based on a true story, and if the linked article is to be believed (I didn't research further), it's a pretty amazing one at that.

If there's one thing I have little stomach for, it's true stories retold with theatrical embellishment. It's gotten so bad these days that when a movie says "based on a true story" you can be 100% confident that you have no idea what the fuck that even means (can't remember if they bothered claiming it with this one).

None of this is a surprise anymore - that's Hollywood, and I understand their purpose is to entertain. However, I feel like it could have been a pretty wicked story in its own right, without the bullshit Indian son story mixed in. It wasn't the truth and it wasn't necessary for the story to be good.

Of course, the director would have wanted the embellishments in the plot added in to both a) give a modern audience a black and white enough villian to stomach wanting his blood and b) to have a more clearcut ending.

But in a sense I feel it robs us of the truth about an incredible man, one who actually existed, and a type that still walks among us today, if you ask me, waiting to show himself when condition, environment, or red hot rage demand. I feel like the plot would have been more loaded in the real story because while you would be able to understand his thirst for revenge on an individual level, it wasn't the universal, made-for-a-movie, "justice for your son's murder" kind of revenge. That would have made the emotional depth more complex.

I'm a bit disappointed after learning they threw out a perfectly good story to create one that was more sensational and "more complete." But it is still an amazing flick and you'd be doing yourself an injustice to skip it. I'll watch it again.

I guess if they didn't round out the plot with the audience-pleasing elements, they wouldn't have had the same budget or perhaps even be able to make the flick, so I suppose you take what you can get.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #67

I got through about 20 minutes before I called it quits due to overall tone and pacing.

Post: #68

(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.

.

Couldn't agree more. Incredible movie

Post: #69

So I just saw this movie last night. Overall really liked it gives you a good feeling for how tough just day to day living can be in the wilderness, didn't feel like the white man was totally condemned as being the only barbaric people, all the Indians proved to be just as barbaric. the only bone I have to pick with it is this: the whole trapper crew are being hunted by the Arikara who are looking for Powaqa the chiefs daughter, early on the chief meets with some Frenchmen to trade for horses and mentions that he is looking for his daughter, later hugh stumbles upon the same group of Frenchman and then sees Powaqa getting raped, so was she with the french the whole time? Or did the French randomly find her in the forest and just chose to keep her?

Post: #70

I liked the movie, with some exceptions, so read on if you don't mind being triggered.

I'll start with a comparison to the Daily Mail. Often times the (tabloid) news source Daily Mail is referred to as a 'conservative' newspaper, which one glance through it and it's obviously not conservative. However if you define conservatism as 'protecting and perfectly encapsulating political correct-ness' then you get a fair match of calling this newspaper 'conservative.'

How does this relate to the Revenant? In order to maintain a Daily-Mail-esque conservatism, the settlers as well as the French had to be portrayed as equally savage as the Indians.

Not only did the movie want to convey 'equality of savagery', but it also purposely portrays all of the characters with a dreary lack of morality. Maybe this is due to the producers being Hollywood types who either have no morality, or have a childlike understanding of it, or maybe they understand it but find it more important to create 'intellectual equality'. Regardless, all of these points are revisionist history which the movie could have better dealt with.

The producers clearly don't want to remind the audience of 'manifest destiny'. You do remember that, right? From your history classes? In other words, movie producers don't want to convey any quality of the historical superiority that Europeans brought and employed in order to both conquer and build America. Europeans came to this continent with superiority. You would never absorb that from the dreariness that the political status quo must employ when making history pieces. This movie could have been a true avant-garde if, for example, the settlers are portrayed as highly religious, yet hypocritically forced to lies, cheating, and stealing to survive, all the while finding Christian justification to do so.

Post: #71

(02-14-2016 02:54 PM)Grit Wrote:  I liked the movie, with some exceptions, so read on if you don't mind being triggered.

I'll start with a comparison to the Daily Mail. Often times the (tabloid) news source Daily Mail is referred to as a 'conservative' newspaper, which one glance through it and it's obviously not conservative. However if you define conservatism as 'protecting and perfectly encapsulating political correct-ness' then you get a fair match of calling this newspaper 'conservative.'

How does this relate to the Revenant? In order to maintain a Daily-Mail-esque conservatism, the settlers as well as the French had to be portrayed as equally savage as the Indians.

Not only did the movie want to convey 'equality of savagery', but it also purposely portrays all of the characters with a dreary lack of morality. Maybe this is due to the producers being Hollywood types who either have no morality, or have a childlike understanding of it, or maybe they understand it but find it more important to create 'intellectual equality'. Regardless, all of these points are revisionist history which the movie could have better dealt with.

The producers clearly don't want to remind the audience of 'manifest destiny'. You do remember that, right? From your history classes? In other words, movie producers don't want to convey any quality of the historical superiority that Europeans brought and employed in order to both conquer and build America. Europeans came to this continent with superiority. You would never absorb that from the dreariness that the political status quo must employ when making history pieces. This movie could have been a true avant-garde if, for example, the settlers are portrayed as highly religious, yet hypocritically forced to lies, cheating, and stealing to survive, all the while finding Christian justification to do so.

The movie reminds me about the "civilization" in the Great Lakes area. There was a strong notion that common civilities did not apply to those areas, as they were beyond the civil reach. The movie did a good job of showing a more realistic portrayal of frontier life.

Post: #72

I saw the movie over the weekend.

The movie and cinematography reminded me in many ways of another film, Touching the Void, about a mountain climber back in the 80s who got left for dead by his partner after falling into a crevice while descending the Chilean Andes. That movie was also based on a true story, and explored themes of resilience in the face of despair in similar ways.

I thought Leo did a great job and while the film did seem to fall back on cliches about the evil white man/noble savage stereotypes, it didn't feel overdone. That being said, I read the novel (by Michael Punke) that the movie was loosely based on and preferred the novels account of Glass over the movie.

Post: #73

Post: #74

^^^ This makes me want to take up film making. I could make something this bad!

Post: #75

Finally saw this. Tom hardy was excellent, never would've even known it was him. I also empathized with his character more, he just wanted to survive and viewed a wounded, mute man as deadweight.

I could've done without all the 'my son' shit though.