I guess I'll be that dude. I thought of it as being "okay"... a bit too long for a plot being that thin. In fact, it made me appreciate "The Grey" ever more. The true star was the cinematography & camera trickery as well as the special effects. Yes, there was some solid performances, but for what is essentially a revenge story in a man vs nature sort of way....it wasn't anything truly special. I notice many of you praise Tom Hardy's role and I agree that he was a scumbag, but they made him TOO obvious and cliche'd as the villain. Like even before everything went down, he was out there announcing he is the BAD GUY. I would of rather have it something that was subtle that led into him becoming demonic due to the extremes of nature and desperation for survival. But that's whatever. It's a decent film, but not anything amazing in my own personal opinion.
Leonardo DiCaprio /Tom Hardy 'The Revenant' (Official Thread)
- Thread starter Silver Surfer
- Start date
I honestly would be shocked if he didn't. Every review I've read has praised his performance even if their lukewarm on the film itself.
Him and Will Smith seem to be in the same boat this year. Almost all reviews have praised their performances but are split on the actual films. I was going to see both tomorrow but Revanent doesn't open wide until Jan 8th so it'll just be Concussion for me...
Super Cheech
I Feel So Westcoast
Thought it was a very good movie. The visuals were amazing.
Pinyapplesuckas
He's A Good Man
this shyt is boring as fukk. im gonna have to watch it again with my girl so i have less distractions but damn i am not interested in this at all.
Silver Surfer
Veteran
Pinyapplesuckas
He's A Good Man
if i watch a flick by myself i might start looking at my phone or reading something completely unrelated if it starts to bore me.
like 2 hours into this shyt and its finally starting to get interesting..
Just finished, thought it was good 
that ether from hardy even with his dying breath 
that camera work
excellent description
Not really. He wasn't really a villain like that. He was a man about his paper and didn't want to be slowed down by flabby n sick dudes. Especially one that clapped at soldiers fighting native americans.
But let's be real all the cacs were villains in this movie
Bane was trying to destroy gotham.
This guy just wanted to get paid for the skins he was collecting and decided to babysit Leo thonking he would die for some extra money
Pinyapplesuckas
He's A Good Man
Poetical Poltergeist
Precise and cold hearted
Try this trick if your mind is strong enough. Place that phone on the charger in the other room. fukk that phone. Happens to me too. Put that phone away. It ain't going anywhere. The coli will still be here.
I'm a jujitsu fighter not a boxer. I would have gotten away so I wouldn't have to kill a bear in front of its children.Plus lets be real we all know @Mowgli would have bodied that bear in 1 punch
And if the bear didn't want me to go? Knife in mouth while it tries to maul me
Pinyapplesuckas
He's A Good Man
real shyt. i get bored so easily by myself. it didnt used to be this wayTry this trick if your mind is strong enough. Place that phone on the charger in the other room. fukk that phone. Happens to me too. Put that phone away. It ain't going anywhere. The coli will still be here.
i liked the last 40 minutes or so of this so i feel like with a rewatch i might fukk with this flick more.
the same..that bear attack
The Devil's Advocate
Call me Dad
Shot chronologically on a 80-days schedule that takes place over a total principal-photography-time-period of 9 months. This unusually long production time is due to the cold weather conditions, the remoteness of the locations and director Alejandro González Iñárritu's and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki's aesthetic plan to shoot only with natural light for maximum realism. Only a few shooting hours are available every day and have to be carefully planned in advance.Just finished it. Will rewatch in theaters but some thoughts.
This is Inarritu's best movie as far as I've seen from him. Because I haven't seen Amores Perros and I haven't seen Biutiful and it's kinda funny because I'm the type of guy who'd probably actually enjoy those movies, but his "big league" stuff (21 Grams, Babel, Birdman) has been so utterly pretentious, and worse than that, so utterly average, that I never felt the intention of exploring the director. Which is where I'll stop shytting on Inarritu for as far this little review goes, because as said, this is the best movie I've seen by him and it's really good*.
On a technical level it's largely unfukkwithable. We all know Lubezki is the single greatest cinematographer working in the film industry today, and this is not just the most demanding challenge for him since Children Of Men, the challenge is far greater. And yet he captures the madness and insanity as effortlessly as we've grown accustomed to from the man. He really has no equal right now, and in general, between this, Mad Max, Victoria and Son Of Saul, bars have been raised this year to unfathomable levels as far as camera work goes. Crazy strong year in that aspect. The sound effects and music are equally great, and again, this movie can be put next to those three films I mentioned as the most technically impressive films of the year (and I'll just give Gaspar Noé's Love a honorable mention while I'm at it).
But...
I called it really good*, and that asterisk is there for a reason.
* While a solid 80% of the movie is pureon every level imaginable, there's quite a big lull in the middle (I'd say 20-30 minutes), and I tried to excuse it because the rest of the movie is so strong, but I can't. It bothered me. They could've trimmed it down, or at least tried to be a bit more inventive than having Leo crawl over the ground for five minutes, have a 30 second abstract dream sequence, watch him crawl over the ground again, drop in another 30 second abstract dream sequence and repeat that for half an hour. So it's not perfect, unfortunately.
Also, I hate to break it to the Leo fans, but I don't see what makes his performance here so great. It's physically demanding, sure. Incredibly demanding even, and props for that. But besides that, that's it. He drools and intensifies strongly, he mostly speaks in a raspy native tongue, and I applaud the effort. But the performance to end all performances, it really is not. In that sense I was more impressed with Tom Hardy, who didn't necessarily outdo himself either but his performance is dirtier and filthier than ever and has the same kind of visceral intensity as Leo has, albeit not as physical. And of course there's Domhnall Gleeson because which fukking movie doesn't that guy star in this year? Random note, I'm probably the only person in the world who will comment on this but I couldn't get over how much the chief looked like a Native American Takeshi Kitano. I looked the guy's name for that reason alone and his name is Duane Howard, which Google tells me is also the name of some nascar driver.
Anyways...
it was really good*, and it'll probably/definitely sneak into my top 10 of the year, but a bit more consistency (in particular, not having a boring, dragged out middle part) would've pushed this towards classic status. As it stands now however, I'd give it a strong 8/10.
Leonardo DiCaprio had to devoure a raw slab of bison's liver, even though he's vegetarian. He also had to learn to shoot a musket, build a fire, speak two native American Languages (Pawnee and Arikara), and study with a doctor who specializes in ancient healing techniques. DiCaprio calls it the hardest performance of his career.
