The Revenant (2015)

Alejandro Iñárritu follows up Birdman with a grisly western starring Leonardo DiCaprio. Looks intense.

 

I only watched 45 seconds, and should it get good to great reviews, I am in. This appears to be a remake of the 1971 film "Man In The Wilderness," with the fantastic actor Richard Harris. I am glad this remake is in Inarritu's hands -- there is good reason to be optimistic.

 

I can't see the title "The Revenant" without thinking of the wacky vampire movie of the same name, from the 2000's.

 

A piece on the ambitious production.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-leonardo-dicaprios-revenant-shoot-810290

 

I just saw this film, it is by far the best film of 2015. I love the realism/naturalism and overall ambience of the film. I hope this is one for the ages. It very well deserves to be ....

 

Looking forward to this. Tell me more...

 

Trailer is remarkable - really beautiful "big sky" shoot, certainly one to see on the big screen. While not shot in IMAX, they did use a new large-format system - the ARRI ALEXA 65 system for "65 mm digital cinema". (Though I'm not quite sure what "65 mm" means in terms of digital image/video capture.)

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2015/9/30/the-revenant-second-trailer-online

 

i've read that the bear scene is simply remarkable.

 

For me, The Revenant is easily the most anticipated movie of the "fall" movie season (even if it won't be released until January 2016). I was immediately entranced by the wide open shots of bone-chillin' cold in remote wilderness, the adventure and discovery, and the wonder of coming into contact with an alien, non-European culture (Indians). I get so tired of cartoonish action that goes along with CGI.

 

Except for the bear, zero CGI. Very, very natural and organic. Absolutely beautiful. You'll feel like you are out there. This movie will have you freezing in your seat. Absolutely stunning action sequences. A few will take your breath away.

Not much "wonder" about meeting another race. In the setting of the film, the European settlers are already dyed in the wool Indian slaughterers and haters.

 

It means that the camera sensor is roughly the same size as 65mm film stock, which is larger than the typical 35mm of film and digital "full frame" sensors. Much more detail, resolution, tonality, etc.

 

Yeah the Red Camera website used to have a sensor comparison for their cameras on their site a few years back. Some big ass sensors they can use.

 

my brother in law worked on the bear for that, I can't wait to see it.

 

I can imagine. I happen to have just finished reading James Axtell, The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures on North America (1985), where he focuses on the interaction between Indian, French, and English cultures as they collide in the struggle to dominate the northern eastern U.S. Some of the book was kind of slow, but I was captivated esp. by chapter 13, "The White Indians," pp. 302-27, which discusses white English settlers (adults and children) who were captured and/or simply adopted (e.g., traders, trappers) the Indian way of life. As Hector de Crevecoeur (an American farmer) wrote (w/ only slight exaggeration), "thousands of Europeans are Indians, and we have no examples of even one of those Aborigines [= Indians] having from choice become Europeans. " Of course, the younger the better, in that the white captives were intended to "replace" members of the tribe that had died. These captives were immediately accepted as equals (to native children) in the family and the tribe -- there was no discrimination between captive and native born offspring.

 

it brings to mind how Blood Meridian might look if it was tackled by the same director.

 

yes... This has my favorite nature cinematography since Aguirre, The Wrath of God. It's "YOU ARE THERE" photography. Manhola Dargis of the NYT just dismissed it. She's going to be so sorry she said that... She missed the magic of the cinema Lumiere.

 

as did some jaded critic from Film Comment

 

I am looking forward to this movie and the Dargis review did nothing to dissuade me.

 

Really looking forward to this. Just re-watched "Birdman" yesterday and loved it as much as the firs time.

 

This film is an entirely different beast. It's beautiful and poetic in a brutal way, but I don't think has the layers that Birdman does. Set your expectations accordingly.

 

No, I didn't think this looked to be anything like "Birdman". But really having liked what Inarritu did with "Birdman", I'll watch what he puts out in any genre.

 

I feel like a lot of the negative reviews I've read were b/c the reviewer expected a different kind of depth, something like what Birdman provided, and b/c of that expectation the film is flying above their heads a bit. I'm with you on Inarritu, he's beginning the stage of his career where he's going to give us some amazing work in the years to come. I'm looking forward to it.

 

I loved most of the bear scene with the way it seemed to be physically tossing DiCaprio around like a rag doll, but while the CGI was convincing, it wasn't perfect. Something about the fur. Actually not the fur itself, but the way the fur draped over the body didn't look right. You didn't get the sense of there being a bulk of muscle and fat under the fur. Still, that's just a minor geek observation in an otherwise well done scene.

That's a perfect way to describe it. The scenery is breathtaking. At its heart, it's a simple revenge plot, but it's told in such a visceral fashion that your attention never strays for a second.

I also chuckled at the Han Solo scene

Spoiler: Spoiler

where DiCaprio cuts open the dead horse, Tauntaun style, eviscerates it and climbs into the cavity for protection from the cold.

 

The few reviews I've read that comment negatively on the movie still praise the cinematography as being stunning. Given that film is a moving picture, that's often reason enough for me to see a film, other weaknesses notwithstanding.

John K.

 

Could also be titled "That Poor B@stard".