NealMcCauley
Member
Going to see the 7pm showing tonight. Looking pretty damn forward to it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Reviews for The Revenant (DiCaprio, Hardy, dir. Iñarritu)
- Thread starter inm8num2
- Start date
- Status
lazybones18
Banned
Just got done seeing it about an hour ago. My top spot for movie of the year. I won't spoil the final shot but it just screams "Give me a fucking Oscar already"
BronsonLee
Member
I hope Leo gets the Oscar, that way he can thank Inarritu during his acceptance speech, and then promptly bitch at Scorcese for not getting him one when it only took Inarritu one try
Discotheque
Banned
I hope he gets it so ppl can shut up about him already. Better actors, like fassgawd or gary oldman, don't have it yet but people are rarely this vocal about it
Pretty exvited to see this on sunday tho, mixed about innaritu but this looks like a revenge movie made by malick. Plus Tom Hardy's been putting in work lately
Pretty exvited to see this on sunday tho, mixed about innaritu but this looks like a revenge movie made by malick. Plus Tom Hardy's been putting in work lately
He said god is a squirrel. That's all you need to know.
NealMcCauley
Member
Could have stood to lose 15 minutes or so but I enjoyed it. Honestly wasn't expecting the movie to be that brutal. At times it felt like the writers watched a ton of old History Channel shows on frontier fur trapper life and cherry picked the most intense moments to put in the movie.
TheExhaustedWalrus
Member
Gonna try to see it either today or tomorrow. Been looking forward to it all year.
Just got back from seeing this. I loved the way it was shot and the acting overall was really well done. Freakin DiCaprio and Hardy hit it out of the park.
That being said, it was really freakin LONG. Probably too long for its own good. Each time a Native American entered the scene (the guy that was helping him and then the girl) I became more interested in their subplots and cared less about the overall revenge storyline.
By the end I can't say I cared whether or not he got revenge for his son.
That being said, it was really freakin LONG. Probably too long for its own good. Each time a Native American entered the scene (the guy that was helping him and then the girl) I became more interested in their subplots and cared less about the overall revenge storyline.
By the end I can't say I cared whether or not he got revenge for his son.
This was an interesting article: http://lwlies.com/interviews/jack-fisk-the-revenant-interview/
Ultimadrago
Member
So, I've been hearing this is pretty good. Any brief thoughts?
glaringradio
Member
I saw this last night and absolutely loved every second of it. An exhausting film to watch though. I think it probably helped that a few nights before I watched The Lobster, which was 40 minutes shorter, but somehow seemed like it was 2 hours longer.I fell asleep twice watching this yesterday. That's a first. I thought Leo was great but I certainly had issues with the pacing
Ultimadrago
Member
Answering my own question: Good film that was a tad long for its own benefit. The
dream sequences
intro battle
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Yep. Everything about this movie was pretentious. From Tom Hardy's pretentious accent to the director's hard on for needless one shot takes that pull you out of the movie. The cinematographer also had a field day with this movie just milking the scenery for landscape shots that add nothing to the story. Then you had DiCaprio (probably my favorite actor) eating a real bison liver for no apparent reason in easily the most pretentious acting performance since Sean Penn's performance in I am Sam. We get it Leo, you want an Oscar.
Hollywood needs to stop taking movies so seriously. We all know its fake. Adding a one shot take isnt going to make me believe that Leo really did fall off the cliff like that. Staring at the camera at the end isnt going to add anything to the movie or the character. WTF are you trying to tell us anyway? No one has any clue because no one knows wtf DiCpario wants other than revenge for his son and wife.
Hollywood needs to stop taking movies so seriously. We all know its fake. Adding a one shot take isnt going to make me believe that Leo really did fall off the cliff like that. Staring at the camera at the end isnt going to add anything to the movie or the character. WTF are you trying to tell us anyway? No one has any clue because no one knows wtf DiCpario wants other than revenge for his son and wife.
More_Badass
Member
Yes, that's definitely why directors use one-take shots...
And what exactly makes an accent "pretentious"? Half the time I see people use the word, it's like they're just throwing the word around because they think it makes their criticisms sound more intelligent
You could almost call it...pretentious
Opinions and all but I couldn't disagree more. The revenant - more than most movies I have seen recently - put me right there in the cold with them.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
I found the way the actors weren't experiencing real life and were paid to pretend to be 19th century frontiersmen to be pretty bloody pretentious. Walked out and demanded my money back.
I did the same for The Force Awakens, none of those actors were really in another galaxy and I just couldn't sit idly by any longer.
I also refuse to watch any animated film cuz that shit isn't even real it's just a buncha drawings.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
His accent was way too thick. There is no subtlety to it. No one could understand a word he was saying. Here is the definition of Pretentious from dictionary.com.
I bolded the second definition because i think thats what applies to pretty much every facet of the movie from the directing to the cinematography, acting and of course ridiculously exaggerated accents.
Lol.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Neither I or anybody I saw the film with had any difficulty understanding him. Not sure why you had so much trouble.
To the hyperbolic poster...
Eh, I think the film could of been shorter and tightened up in places and I wasn't as impressed with Leo's performance as the praise led me to believe it would be. Still thought it was a very good performance but maybe not his best. Left the theater thinking(which I rarely do) going through my head about a few actors I would of rather seen play this part.
Tom Hardy was great IMO. Probably the strongest of the bunch. Not sure I get the hate for the accent at all. Accents can be thick. You should come down here to Louisiana and I will gladly show you what real incoherent accent's are.
I thought the cinematography and the one shot takes had the opposite effect and really added weight and immersion. I probably could of substituted a few environmental shots(or shortened them) for a little more visual story telling and focus on the human aspect but that may be nitpicking. Thought the film was pretty good altogether.
Eh, I think the film could of been shorter and tightened up in places and I wasn't as impressed with Leo's performance as the praise led me to believe it would be. Still thought it was a very good performance but maybe not his best. Left the theater thinking(which I rarely do) going through my head about a few actors I would of rather seen play this part.
Tom Hardy was great IMO. Probably the strongest of the bunch. Not sure I get the hate for the accent at all. Accents can be thick. You should come down here to Louisiana and I will gladly show you what real incoherent accent's are.
I thought the cinematography and the one shot takes had the opposite effect and really added weight and immersion. I probably could of substituted a few environmental shots(or shortened them) for a little more visual story telling and focus on the human aspect but that may be nitpicking. Thought the film was pretty good altogether.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I am not saying it's a bad film or that I didn't enjoy it. If you pull up the OT for this movie, you will see that I had a lot of nice things to say about it especially the cinematography. I am just sick of Oscar bait and this movie just felt like it was trying too hard.
The movie has pretty cinematography but so what when it has nothing to say? What is the theme of this film? Did Dicaprio do anything in this movie other than endure physical torment to the point of parody? I guess pretty pictures, fluid one-shot camera movements and an actor who spits, convulses, moans, groans, eats a live fish and sleeps inside a horse carcass is laudable enough for 12 oscars? This movie had a paper thin script, a protagonist with no depth or characterization, a revenge story that ends in the most unimaginative and anti climatic way I can think of but it was lensed by a world class cinematographer and the shoot was grueling. So what? This movie is empty as hell
Pretty much all of this criticism is either somewhat objectively wrong or just kinda bizarre.
Most of what you complain about falls mostly or completely on the director and people outside the cinematographer.
slightconfuse
Banned
Movie was amazing. The shots on this movie were next level
Boombloxer
Member
I enjoyed the Grey a lot more.
This was a total miss for me, tried way too hard, long, drawn-out, boring with stabs at a deeper meaning that never really got there.
This was a total miss for me, tried way too hard, long, drawn-out, boring with stabs at a deeper meaning that never really got there.
To be fair, direction can harm the impact of the photography, even if it doesn't take away from the quality of it.
Objectively wrong? What's "objectively" wrong? That Dicaprio plays a full fleshed out character? That the pretty pictures didn't contextualize theme and meaning? Yes, the direction was self-aware and pretentious. That was my original point. The only aspect of the movie worthy of praise is some of the photography. Certainly not the script, story or thematic substance.
Transistor
Banned
Saw this last night in Dolby Atmos and I was absolutely floored. Definitely my candidate for movie of the year, and I really think Leo has a shot at this Oscar.
You responded to a post specifically about the cinematography and then in the same paragraph started listing problems of the film that mostly aren't responsibilities of the cinematographer then looped back with a closing statement handwaving away the good cinematography. On the one hand you concede it is quality and also say its shit.
Separating out each individual point, some are just objectively false. For instance no characterization. There absolutely was. Whether it was of high quality or not is more subjective but there was certainly characterization. The semi objective points would be no theme or meaning in the cinematography. There was. Was it the appropriate or optimal way to convey things? Maybe, maybe not.
Yes, other than avenging his son's death and being in love with a dead woman, what was the characterization on display?
Well, I mean right there you just proved my point. There is characterization.
And Leo wasn't the only actor in the film.
But frankly Im just gonna stop. Lots of films lack deep and complex characterization, I would say this film has decent complexity to many of its characters for what it is setting out to be. Which is a straight forward revenge tale in an interesting backdrop. Nothing profound in its characterizations or anything but I don't find that to be a requisite for a film to be good.
If it was I would hate films like Mad Max or Star Wars.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Why can't a film just take moments to be purely audiovisual?
More_Badass
Member
Didn''t you know? That's pretentious
Spaced Harrier
Member
I ate 2 Brunch Ice Creams watching The Grey in the cinema in order to Turn it into a 4D experience.
CharminUltra
Member
I hope this is out on blu ray sooner rather than later. Need to re-experience the intensity at home asap.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
I mentioned this is a different thread but I didn't mind it. It wasn't anything particularly great, but it was good. Definitely not Di Caprio's best performance by a long way.
I had 2 issues with the movie.
1) Tad too long for what it was. Such a visceral and basic revenge movie should have been a punch 1 1/2 hours. 2 hours AT ABSOLUTE MOST.
2) Cinematography. Tried to be too "epic" and artsy too often. Not EVERY single shot in the movie needs to be a postcard or eventuate anguish.
Overall though I thought it was good.
I had 2 issues with the movie.
1) Tad too long for what it was. Such a visceral and basic revenge movie should have been a punch 1 1/2 hours. 2 hours AT ABSOLUTE MOST.
2) Cinematography. Tried to be too "epic" and artsy too often. Not EVERY single shot in the movie needs to be a postcard or eventuate anguish.
Overall though I thought it was good.
Dr.Horrible
Member
Watched it earlier. I wasn't a fan, but glad most everyone else seems to be enjoying it. Hopefully it finally gets Leo an Oscar, though I really don't think his role was an Oscar worthy one. The bear scene was intense though.
- Status