The Revenant

[Tommy Tainant]

Got round to watching this the other night and was quite looking forward to it.

What a disappointment. Hours and hours of grunting actors trudging through snow and icy rivers.

I nodded off after 3 hours and Mrs T woke me up a bit later. They were still trudging through the snow grunting away.

Tommys rating - shite, watch Jeremiah Johnson instead.

 

[rightwinger]

I watched it once

Had no desire to ever watch it again

 

[deannalw]

I thought it was a great movie. The directors decision to use only natural light was a bit risky, considering. But it made the imagery more beautiful than it may have been otherwise. He also represented the tale of Hugh Glass pretty accurately except for that business of his son.

I've been unimpressed with Decaprio in general but he did an outstanding job in The Revenant. And Hardy is always excellent and adds to whatever film he's in, imo.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with Dora the Explorer, Tommy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

We watched this again last night.
Artistically, I think it is extremely well done.
DeCaprio is extraordinary in this movie. For me, the best thing about this movie is the cinematography and the acting. If you are not into the art of movies, it probably isn't going to be for you.
It is wholly unrealistic. DeCaprio's character would have died at least 12-15 times in real life. At least 4 or 5 times in the bear attack alone. His acting gives you the ability to suspend reality... to a point. The worst was probably floating adrift in glacial waters for 10 minutes or so. Apparently hypothermia didn't exist in the 1800s.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

A point of interest - of course the movie is based on the story of Hugh Glass, who was more of a bad ass survivor than what was shown in the movie. Portions of the written Glass story, I simply don't believe. There is no way a human survived, alone, in the northwest winter literally having to crawl for 200 miles. Glass indeed did, on two occasions, survived alone after Indian attacks to his group.

Also how the Indians were portrayed in the movie. Pretty much a "no warts" version of reality.
The Ree Indians (Arikara actual name) were known for raiding and killing any and all white Europeans anywhere they happened upon. They hated white fur traders because the whites traded with the Sioux tribe, which were hated enemies of the Ree.
The story of this movie in reality, was the traders saw the Ree Indians on the shore. The Ree wore Sioux clothing to trick them, and when they got to shore - the Ree murdered about half of them.
To which, the traders later raided their village while the Ree warriors were gone, and burned the village down. This is why the Ree were so adamantly trying to find and kill this group of traders, and followed them for 100s of miles... not because of a daughter of an elder.
Also not shown in the movie was how they killed some of the white traders. One of their favorite ways to torture and kill was to take pine needle branches and shove some of the needles into their bodies... hang them upside down... and set them on fire. Not exactly peace loving people.

 

[Flopper]

Although it was a 2 hour movie it seemed a lot longer. Hunting down bad guys to drink their blood is not very original. There were a few laughs but overall, it was a waste of 2 hrs.

 

[Hellbilly]

I watched it once

Had no desire to ever watch it again

I have to fast forward during the bear attack scene.

 

[marvin martian]

Got round to watching this the other night and was quite looking forward to it.

What a disappointment. Hours and hours of grunting actors trudging through snow and icy rivers.

I nodded off after 3 hours and Mrs T woke me up a bit later. They were still trudging through the snow grunting away.

Tommys rating - shite, watch Jeremiah Johnson instead.

Try it when you're not on drugs sometime. The movie is only 2h 36m, retard.

The Revenant (2015) - IMDb

The Revenant: Directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu. With Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson, Will Poulter. A frontiersman on a fur trading expedition in the 1820s fights for survival after being mauled by a bear and left for dead by members of his own hunting team.

www.imdb.com

 

[rightwinger]

I have to fast forward during the bear attack scene.

I saw it when it first came out
Way too long a movie and tedious watching DeCaprio crawl through the woods wincing in pain

Worth watching once, but not something I would go through again

 

[Billo_Really]

Got round to watching this the other night and was quite looking forward to it.

What a disappointment. Hours and hours of grunting actors trudging through snow and icy rivers.

I nodded off after 3 hours and Mrs T woke me up a bit later. They were still trudging through the snow grunting away.

Tommys rating - shite, watch Jeremiah Johnson instead.

Check out "The Hateful Eight". By Quenton Terrentino. It's pretty good for a western.

 

[marvin martian]

Check out "The Hateful Eight". By Quenton Terrentino. It's pretty good for a western.

Who?

LOL

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What I wondered about this movie is why did they feel the need to change the story so much?
They left out all kinds of interesting things that happened to Glass, and Fitzgerald both.
That would have filled in a lot of the grunting and crawling time in the movie.

But again, I can appreciate the cinematography and how ell DeCaprio acted.

 

[Flopper]

What I wondered about this movie is why did they feel the need to change the story so much?
They left out all kinds of interesting things that happened to Glass, and Fitzgerald both.
That would have filled in a lot of the grunting and crawling time in the movie.

But again, I can appreciate the cinematography and how ell DeCaprio acted.

Most script writers are authors and a book just becomes an inspiration for the script. I have seen movies where the only similarity between the book and movie is the title. For example, Warner Bros. bought Hemingway's novel To Have and Have Not to the screen. There were so many changes you can't even compare the two. About the only similarity between the screen version and book is the title and the name of the central character. Yet Warner Bros advertised the movie as Hemingway's great masterpiece. Hemingway threaten to sue Warner so they produced a new movie that followed the book pretty closely but they had to change tittle to Breaking Point and there was no reference to Hemingway's book.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Most script writers are authors and a book just becomes an inspiration for the script. I have seen movies where the only similarity between the book and movie is the title. For example, Warner Bros. bought Hemingway's novel To Have and Have Not to the screen. There were so many changes you can't even compare the two. About the only similarity between the screen version and book is the title and the name of the central character. Yet Warner Bros advertised the movie as Hemingway's great masterpiece. Hemingway threaten to sue Warner so they produced a new movie that followed the book pretty closely but they had to change tittle to Breaking Point and there was no reference to Hemingway's book.

Sure, and I can get the "inspired by"... but what is difficult to understand, in this example, is why leave out things that are more interesting than what they did put in.
The movie follows what is actually recorded to have happened reasonably well.
The biggest changes was how they portrayed the Ree Indians, and then cut out several things that happened to both Glass and Fitzgerald that would have made it a better movie.

To note - Glass never lost a son, and never got his revenge on Fitzgerald because Fitzgerald joined the Army.

 

[Flopper]

Sure, and I can get the "inspired by"... but what is difficult to understand, in this example, is why leave out things that are more interesting than what they did put in.
The movie follows what is actually recorded to have happened reasonably well.
The biggest changes was how they portrayed the Ree Indians, and then cut out several things that happened to both Glass and Fitzgerald that would have made it a better movie.

To note - Glass never lost a son, and never got his revenge on Fitzgerald because Fitzgerald joined the Army.

The answer to your question is at the heart of how movies are made today. There was a time when the studio financed the movie, actors were assigned to productions, and authors were allowed a voice in the production. Today, most financing comes from investment sources outside of the industry that demand a voice in the production, both budgetary and filming. Megastars actors like DeCaprio put clauses in their contract that often effects the outcome of the movie. And where 95% of movies were once filmed entirely on soundstages and Hollywood backlots, most movies today are filmed mostly on locations outside of the studios control. Availability of locations has a major impact on the movie. I know this does not directly answer your question but the answer is usually many different factors. Occasionally, everything comes together and you have a great movie, most times they don't.