Post: #76

(05-15-2016 11:30 AM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  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.

Agreed. Tom Hardy absolutely stole the show, and like you I didn't realize who he was until well into the movie. His acting ability is above and beyond Leo's. He's extremely memorable. The halfbreed child thing and all of the really crazy, non sequitur dream sequences didn't seem to fit the rest. Very Deus Ex Machina, for those parts.

Post: #77

No idea why Tom Hardy did not win. Guy has talent. I liked him the The Drop also.

Post: #78

Tom Hardy was excellent. He's an actor with range. He can transform himself with aplomb. He will hopefully get the Oscar one day.

Can someone tell me what the big deal about Leo is? He has no range. He can do the whole intense, furrowed brow thing, but that's about the peak of his ability.

Great performance in Gilbert Grape, but that's about it. Compare him to De Niro in his prime and its no contest. He's highly overrated.

Post: #79

I don't think Leo is a horrible actor - Departed was on the other day, he was pretty good in that. He was good in Catch Me If You Can and others.

I think he has a good collection of movies. He just hasn't had that one film that put him over the top in terms of Oscar performance.

I think this was a pity Oscar or competition was pretty weak this year.

I mean sliding on snow and grunting doesn't impress that much.

Post: #80

Have to disagree with some posters on this thread that I really respect. Leo's performance was 2-dimensional and the film really was just OK. I'll give it credit for being a worthy topic, but the storytelling was just average. And the Glass character really doesn't have much of a character arc in my view.

Also, its basically a rip-off of the film Deliverance, which is an excellent film and which I highly recommend. If you watch both films, you'll see that they are essentially the same story told 150 years apart, which Deliverance led by a young Burt Reynolds who gave the performance of his career. I could list a dozen similarities but won't because I will give away plot points but will state the obvious ones of a male who gets raped. Its not perfectly parallel, but if notice how its not perfectly parallel I think you'll see that the way the story was structured in Deliverance was better.

If you compare the two films, they are basically both about man versus nature, although man vs other man conflicts arise. Revenant ostensibly is about revenge, but its really about man versus nature. I find Revenant lacking because if you contrast the two films, the characters in Deliverance were changed by their experience while in Revenant not so much.

Post: #81

I thought it was a remake of "Man in the Wilderness"