The Revenant (2015)

[Athena]

Directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu. The screenplay by Mark L. Smith and Iñárritu is based on Michael Punke's 2002 novel of the same name, which was inspired by the life of frontiersman Hugh Glass. The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Will Poulter, and Domhnall Gleeson.

 

Limited release in the United States on December 25, 2015, followed by a wide release on January 8, 2016.

[Ohwell]

I definitely plan to see this one.

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Well, good luck Leo!

This could be your year.

[AimingforYoko]

I've already seen the bear scene on a lot of "Best Movie Scenes of the Year" lists. 

Sorry, no bear rape.

[Spartan Girl]

Well, good luck Leo!

This could be your year.

God I hope so.

[choclatechip45]

I saw this a couple of weeks ago through an early screening. I did not enjoy it all.

[Racj82]

Boring would be a word to describe it. Real boring.

[choclatechip45]

 

Boring would be a word to describe it. Real boring.

I fell asleep. Good thing I saw it for free.

[Ohwell]

I was going to see this. Now I think I won't. 

[raezen]

This is disappointing to hear. The trailer certainly made it out to be much more exciting than what is being reported.

[Racj82]

The fight scenes are very well done. The cinematography was also beautiful. Leo acted his ass off. But, the actual story is just boring as hell. I wouldn't say don't watch it because you might get something out of it I don't. But, I will never be seeing this movie again. Trust and believe.

[Schweedie]

I'll add my "thoroughly boring" to the choir. I expected much more from this, but - there's just nothing to it. Gorgeous visually, yes, but there was absolutely nothing else to actually hold my attention. Quite the letdown.

And yes, diCaprio acts for all he's worth, but it's far from his best performance and if this is the movie that finally gets him his Oscar, then that's just a shame.

[ennui]

When I see the commercials, I feel like it's a grittier version of Jeremiah Johnson.

[briochetwist]

I am so sick of hearing DiCaprio talk about the horrific cold.  It's cold here buddy, suck it up. My kids deliver newspapers in this shitty weather for significantly less money. To say the least...

[Rick Kitchen]

But they aren't out all day two hours' drive away from heat.

[briochetwist]

But they aren't out all day two hours' drive away from heat.

And neither was DiCaprio. Or the crew. It was filmed in BC, and in Alberta, in Canmore, Drumheller, and other places, that for one, aren't two hours away from anything. And even if it was, they aren't dropped off in the middle of nowhere ready to go, there are plenty of trailers out there.  Heated trailers.

 

He also doesn't seem to make any movie for less than $20,000,000 these days (with the exception of J. Edgar), so I'm still not feeling sorry for him.

[Rick Kitchen]

All of the reports I've read of the filming of this movie said they took two hours to drive to the sets from where they were staying.

[briochetwist]

I can totally agree that the set wasn't an easy one. Perhaps the two hour drive was based from Calgary, but there are certainly other places closeby. From what I've read, trailers were onset, the director himself refers to them when discussing arguments among crew, and the actors were flown in by helicopter. Sounds shitty, yes. But for $20 million dollars I could certainly suck it up. YMMV.

[Bruinsfan]

For $20 million I'd be willing to endure anything short of the Cannibal Holocaust shoot or what happened to Vic Morrow.

[briochetwist]

For $20 million I'd be willing to endure anything short of the Cannibal Holocaust shoot or what happened to Vic Morrow.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

Edited January 8, 2016 by briochetwist

[backgroundnoise]

Two and half hours of cold, wet, misery.  At about the 1 1/2 hour mark I was just hoping one or both would die, just to have it end.  This movie needed serious pruning.  It's like a overlong, indulgent Director's Cut.

 

Of the two leads, I thought Tom Hardy was the more interesting character and he had more nuance and range shown in his performance.  DiCaprio was fine, but the character was rather boring and one-note.

[Dejana]

I am so sick of hearing DiCaprio talk about the horrific cold.  It's cold here buddy, suck it up. My kids deliver newspapers in this shitty weather for significantly less money. To say the least...

 

I haven't seen Leo complaining, exactly, but the brutal film shoot is definitely a point of curiosity, contention and part of The Revenant's awards narrative. Other movies that were so grueling to film and went so massively over budget have been the subject of books and documentaries, so it's kind of an inevitable topic of conversation during the PR campaign.

[SeanC]

I don't know how Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu convinced producers to give him $135 million to make an R-rated Western, but I'm impressed that he did, and somewhat heartened that one can gather that much money for such a project in this day and age -- even if I can't quite imagine how the film would ever make that back. A quarter century ago, Dances With Wolves made the equivalent of over $770 million worldwide; it's hard to imagine the The Revenant managing even a quarter of that, whatever its quality.

And as to its overall quality, I would say it is on the whole quite good. The story makes for a gripping wilderness survival tale and revenge saga. It's shot by Lubezki again, so of course it looks gorgeous (I thought his style on Birdman came across as a bit gimmicky, since there was no obvious reason for it). The combat sequences are all stunningly executed, and keep you on the edge of your seat. At times, admittedly, Glass' continued survival begins to strain credulity (riding his horse off a cliff made me roll my eyes a bit).

On the demerit scale, I don't know that any deeper themes that Gonzalez Inarritu is aiming at really come together. Glass is dogged by visions of his dead wife (such new ground for DiCaprio as an actor!), and there are sputters of a theme about renouncing revenge as a pursuit, but I could not quite make sense of how this comes together in the ending. Glass, on being told by the man he's about to kill that doing so will not bring his son back, gets a stunned look on his face as if he only just realized that; the following action makes it all come across as almost the artier equivalent of an action movie's "I'm gonna let him do it" scene.

[Dejana]

I don't know how Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu convinced producers to give him $135 million to make an R-rated Western, but I'm impressed that he did, and somewhat heartened that one can gather that much money for such a project in this day and age -- even if I can't quite imagine how the film would ever make that back. A quarter century ago, Dances With Wolves made the equivalent of over $770 million worldwide; it's hard to imagine the The Revenant managing even a quarter of that, whatever its quality.

The budget was originally $60 million and went massively over. It was filmed only using natural light for the outdoor shots. That would leave days where there was only an hour and a half a day to film, and that's if the weather cooperated and Lubezki liked the light. If not, there was no filming, but everyone still had to get paid anyway. The cast/crew used the downtime to rehearse sequences that Inarritu would change his mind about when it came time to film, adding more time to the production. Then it was too warm for snow in Canada, so they had to move the entire production to Argentina. Crew members quit and Inarritu either barred a producer from the set or had him "redeployed to a trailer to wind down the production in Canada", depending on who you ask. Leo and Tom Hardy had pay-or-play contracts, so the studio figured they might as well get a movie out of it, so long as they were on the hook for star salaries, anyway.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Dejana

[SeanC]

Ouch, that's quite a cost overrun.

[reggiejax]

I saw this today and, judging from the reactions on this forum, I guess am in a distinct minority because I loved it. It is my pick for best of 2015, and if the movie, Inarritu, and especially DiCaprio don't win at the Oscars, I am calling shenanigans, Oscar trends be damned.

At the absolute very least it should win best editing just for the bear attack scene alone. Previous to this, the standard for bear attacks on film was the one in The Edge, which was frightening as hell and well done, but utilized a lot of quick edits. The Revenant, suffice it so say, does not.

[AimingforYoko]

That bear attack was brutal, I can see why the internet rumors started about what the bear did to DiCaprio, but they overlooked one little point:

The bear was a female, geniuses.

The narrative slowed down after they buried Glass alive, but I guess that was the point. It was a test of endurance for Glass, so it was for the audience. Some will find it engrossing, some will not.

I don't know how Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu convinced producers to give him $135 million to make an R-rated Western, but I'm impressed that he did, and somewhat heartened that one can gather that much money for such a project in this day and age -- even if I can't quite imagine how the film would ever make that back. A quarter century ago, Dances With Wolves made the equivalent of over $770 million worldwide; it's hard to imagine the The Revenant managing even a quarter of that, whatever its quality.

It was projected to make $20m opening weekend. It already made $14.5m on Friday. Never underestimate the power of a movie star. There ain't that many left.

[methodwriter85]

Leo has a good track record of making expensive movies that should be a big loss but still somehow make their money back. (See: The Great Gatsby, Wolf of Wall Street.) I'm not sure it's going to get 135 million, but with the rewards push it should do well enough.

Edited January 10, 2016 by methodwriter85

[Petunia13]

For $20 million I'd be willing to endure anything short of the Cannibal Holocaust shoot or what happened to Vic Morrow.

I thought Cannibal Holocaust was faked?

[reggiejax]

And neither was DiCaprio. Or the crew. It was filmed in BC, and in Alberta, in Canmore, Drumheller, and other places, that for one, aren't two hours away from anything. And even if it was, they aren't dropped off in the middle of nowhere ready to go, there are plenty of trailers out there. Heated trailers.

I don't doubt that the set had warm places to stay in between filming scenes. And Leo no doubt had a trailer filled with comforts most of us don't have in our homes, let alone at work. But to film this movie he did have to be out in the cold, and being out in the cold is no fun for anyone, whether you are an extremely well paid actor pretending to be turked by a syphilitic bear, or a resident of some town that is covered in snow 11 months out of the year.

[vibeology]

I just saw this last night and I have to say I'm conflicted. The movie was trying to say something about parents and children with Glass and his son, the bear and her cubs, the Ri chief and Powaqa and how when a parent is apart form their child they will be moved to great destruction and violence and vengeance. I don't know what the story is trying to tell me about that. The bear dies for her violence. The chief is still being violent even after Powaqa comes back to him. Glass kills that soldier in the flashback to save his son, but then doesn't take the final blow against Fitzgerald because it won't save his son. It's interesting, but I do think very messy.

One thing I'm certain of is that Alberta and Argentina are not a great visual match. I've not spent much time in Alberta, but it was very clear to me when the production made its move. The landscape just looked too different to my eyes.

The other thing I've taken away from this is that I don't like Tom Hardy. I didn't mind him in Mad Max where the action and the other characters outshone him, but besides that, he's never done anything for me. Inception, Batman and Sucker Punch were all movies where I did not like him. He seems very good, but he's not for me. Its an irrational issue but it certainly held back my enjoyment.

[Bruinsfan]

I thought Cannibal Holocaust was faked?

Well, the human deaths were. I wouldn't be keen on torturing animals to death and spending months filming in a sweltering rain forest, though.

[Petunia13]

Well, the human deaths were. I wouldn't be keen on torturing animals to death and spending months filming in a sweltering rain forest, though.

I've never seen the movie. I just read a brief thing on it on some blog yrs ago listing worst/weirdest horror movies.

[BitterApple]

I'm glad I came here to read reviews. I was going to see this today but I'm hesitating because, unless a movie is insanely good, it's hard to keep my attention span for two and a half hours. It sounds like everyone got bored halfway through; I think I'll wait til it comes out OnDemand.

[Ronin Jackson]

I just saw it. It's certainly not for everyone... Personally I was not bored at all, but it didn't really have the emotional resonance with me that it was aiming for. It was certainly a beautifully shot film with some eye-popping shots and long takes, and great acting. I feel like the scene where Glass' son was murdered and he was left for dead did not quite have the power it needed to have.

 

I was also seated near an unfortunate chatterbox who would whisper things like "Is this the scene where he eats bison liver?" Man I wish there was some way to filter out certain audience members... I love the experience of seeing a film in a theater on a large screen but it's always a crapshoot if you're going to be near a bad patron or not.

[thuganomics85]

Not quite sure what I think about this film overall.  On the hand, the scenery and directing was gorgeous, as was the cinematography. All the action scenes were on point; the final brawl between Glass and Fitzgerald in particular was brutal.  And both Leo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy certainly gave great performances as I suspected.

 

At the same time, I admit that the story-line was pretty formulaic.  To be fair, that isn't a bad thing always (after all, Mad Max: Fury Road was really just one big-ass chase sequence), but I just didn't find it gripping as I thought I would.  Part of it might be that I just didn't warm up to Glass, and I was more interested in Fitzgerald, even though he clearly wasn't a nice person.  And while the survival aspects were intriguing enough, it did get a bit too much near the end (Glass and the horse falling off the ledge.)

 

I guess I'll give it a few more days to think it over.  So far, my biggest takeaway right now is that my auditorium for this was pretty packed still, and it sounded like a lot of people enjoyed it.  Leo does seem to have the strange ability to make films that seem risky on a paper, a success.  Normally, I would think a Great Gatsby remake, a three hour long film about an asshole on Wall Street, and now a three hour survival/revenge movie, would be surefire failures at the box office, but leave it to Leo to prove me wrong.

 

Curious to see how it will fare at the Oscars.  Don't think I liked it as much as Spotlight (certainly not as much as Fury Road, but I'm keeping my expectations in check for that film's chances), but it would be pretty crazy if Alejandro Inarritu manages to win Director and Film back-to-back.  Plus, you know, Leo finally winning a golden boy for himself.

[nobodyyoucare]

Hugh Glass was an epic tale, the thing is he just wanted his rifle back. There was no dead son nonsense. He just wanted his very expensive very well made, very functional rifle back. Because for him and for most people back in that time and for a number of people today their rifle is their life. No rifle, no food, no life. 

 

The man did get mauled so bad that anyone even today would think he was dead. He would have been zipped up in a body bag by a doctor based on how ravaged his body was. But he dug himself out of a grave, traversed hundreds of miles with not only two broken legs but a flayed body that would be festering due to infections in a period of four months to get to civilization. Considering about 25-40% of deaths in hospitals are officially tagged as the person lost the will to live despite them being on the will to recover Hugh Glass had an incredibly will to live to get his rifle back. 

 

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/1/11/the-revenant-hugh-glass-and-his-rifle/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=insider&utm_campaign=0116

They got not only training in the rifles used which are period accurate reproductions. But they also had an advisory to set up the outpost, clothes and put the actors through a boot camp in how people lived in the wilderness in the 1820s. . 

Edited January 14, 2016 by nobodyyoucare

[Ronin Jackson]

As much as I thought the scene where he lost his son lacked the gravitas it needed, it would have been 100 times weaker from a storytelling standpoint if it was all about his rifle, even if that's what happened in the real story. The thing is film isn't real life, it's a film, and sometimes films based on real stories need something the real stories didn't have to give it narrative propulsion. I don't think the dead son thing is nonsense at all, it just needed more emotional resonance. 

[Ohwell]

I decided to ignore the negative comments and go see it.  Saw it today and I thought it was great.  There were times that I had to watch certain scenes through my fingers because I'm squeamish, but I was thoroughly entertained.  

 

I know that actors get paid ridiculous sums of money compared to the rest of us, but I think that Leo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy and the rest of the cast really earned their paychecks for this movie.  Especially Leo.

[OakGoblinFly]

And yes, diCaprio acts for all he's worth, but it's far from his best performance and if this is the movie that finally gets him his Oscar, then that's just a shame.

 

 

I don't think Leo winning for this role would be any more of a shame than it was for Denzel Washington to win for Training Day.

[AimingforYoko]

I don't think Leo winning for this role would be any more of a shame than it was for Denzel Washington to win for Training Day.

Or Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman. Or Scorcese winning for The Departed.

Edited January 16, 2016 by AimingforYoko

[SeanC]

Or Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman. Or Scorcese winning for The Departed.

No way did Pacino deserve to win that year.

But I think a lot of the dialogue around which role an actor wins for is a bit misguided, because they tend to rate the various performances an actor has given again each other, which isn't what the Oscars are about -- they're about who was best in a given year. I think DiCaprio's best performance was in The Wolf of Wall Street (and he'd have been my Best Actor vote that year), but if that performance was nominated alongside Jimmy Stewart in It's A Wonderful Life, Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront, Denzel Washington in Malcolm X and Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln, only one of the can win (barring a tie).

[Laurie4H]

Saw it tonight. First time I've been restless in a movie in a long time. My friends kept saying what a great movie it was but I found it excruciatingly boring. Leo is a great actor but THIS is supposed to be his Oscar winning performance? He barely had any dialogue. Anyone can crawl around and grunt a lot. I don't think that makes for an Oscar winning performance. And Tom Hardy got a best supporting actor nom? Half the time I couldn't understand what he was saying.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Laurie4H

[Laurie4H]

I'll also add that there seems to be theme in Leo's movies where he has flashbacks of a late wife.

[SeanC]

I'll also add that there seems to be theme in Leo's movies where he has flashbacks of a late wife.

There was a classic joke image that came out circa Inception of DiCaprio starring in Dead Wives Club, featuring him alongside the three crazy dead wives from his last three movies (Marion Cotillard, Michelle Williams and Kate Winslet).

[Ronin Jackson]

He barely had any dialogue.

 

There is much more to film acting than speaking. It's the non speaking stuff that is the most significant difference between theater and film acting. Whether LD gave an Oscar worthy performance isn't something I'm interested in debating (mostly because I think the Oscars are overrated) but I'd disagree that the fact that there wasn't much dialogue has any bearing on whether or not a film performance is good. Hell I'd even say that about a theater performance even if subtle facial expressions cannot be conveyed to all members of the audience the way it can with film... the physicality of the performance is still important. I do think LD was very good in a very difficult role, and no I don't think anyone could have done just as good a job by crawling and grunting.

[methodwriter85]

I thought it was great, but wow, the violence was so uncomfortable to watch.

 

I also thought that the ending was kind of a cop-out such that Fitzgerald is still punished, but Glass gets to wash his hands clean.

 

Will Poulter is going to make an awesome character actor as he gets older, I think.

Edited January 22, 2016 by methodwriter85

[Rick Kitchen]

Really good movie.  I think Leo deserves the Oscar.  I didn't know Domnhall Gleason was in it, and I was pleasantly surprised.  He always gives really solid performances.  I am amazed that the bear was totally CGI.  And did Leo really eat that live fish and that bleeding buffalo meat?

[Rick Kitchen]

Do we know in general what years this was supposed to take place in?  The uniforms of the soldiers attacking the Pawnee village looked like about 1820/1830, but Fitzgerald apparently grew up in Texas, which would not have been possible that early.

[SeanC]

Do we know in general what years this was supposed to take place in?  The uniforms of the soldiers attacking the Pawnee village looked like about 1820/1830, but Fitzgerald apparently grew up in Texas, which would not have been possible that early.

The historical Glass' adventure took place in 1823, which is, I believe, what they're going for here.