The Revenant (2015)

That was the only scene that bothered me. I think they should have made it clearer he was either 1) only in the water for a two or three minutes (there's a dissolve in there that always indicates "time" so its a little confusing) or that Leo was almost near death when he came out of the water. I also felt that was the one instance when he should have been suffering a little more. It's the same reason I love watching Bear Grylls.

 

OK, if you're a wilderness scout with a warm trailer & catered food spread...you just duck in there for a couple hours.

 

Hey, plus he had previous experience from "Titanic"

Oops. Apparently he could have survived. I just looked at some survival charts on the web. He had a couple things going for him.

1) He was fully dressed (in that beaver skin, too. I want one of those). that apparently helps
2) He pulls himself onto a log. That's also supposed to help a lot. Getting part of your body out of the water really helps.

According to the charts on the web, in the coldest freezing water, you can do up to 15 minutes that way before passing out or getting to weak to move. I guess other movies overdo the hypothermia threat! The main part is surviving the first minute when you hyperventilate. I figured he might have been in the water 5-6 minutes at most. That looked like a fast current pulling him away from the indians. As the Myth Busters would say: Plausible!

 

What struck me was that next to these panoramic shots the camera was right IN THERE in the action. In a few instances the lens gets steamed up and some (blood) spatters. It makes the violent scenes an even more direct and almost physical experience.

 

Yeah, they were amazing. My favorite shot is when he's discovered and is backing into the river. It's such stunning photography. The camera stays right on him, up close and tight, moving into the water with him. No fakery, no edits. And it's still beautiful photography. Its not crappy shakycam hand held. The cinematography always keeps that perfect balanced, smooth, professional Hollywood look. Any lesser production would have reverted to "reality" cinematography of the shakeycam I so dearly hate.

 

Yes that was something new I'd not seen before. Very interesting.

EDIT:

 

My feet were freezing just watching him in the water!

 

Mine were freezing everytime they walked up a creek. That's why I was wondering what they used for boots. I guess leather slathered with hog fat or something along those lines.

 

Or no gloves, ever. That was one I kept noticing.

 

So, you like it when a so-called survivalist gets caught sleeping in a hotel room, during filming of his show?

 

I saw this. I dont like westerns, or pre-westerns like this one, but damn if it didnt have me on the edge of my seat throughout the whole flick. There were kids loudly yapping through all the previews, but when this movie got going I never heard their voices again. This movie is that serious. I didnt even notice the cinematography. This flick is out of my wheelhouse, but I think I didnt blink through the whole thing.

 

To beat a dead horse further (no pun intended), and to pick up on Godshifter's thought that Leo's character didn't scream "mountain man," and conjotter's observation that Tom Hardy stole every scene that featured both actors . . . (I agree with both).

I had a similar though stronger hesitation about Leo being cast in The Gangs of New York -- specifically, he was cast as a protagonist opposite a larger than life bad guy -- played by the superb Daniel Day Lewis. I didn't buy it for a second -- it was like David without a slingshot (= equalizer) versus Goliath. Liam Neeson, who checked out early in that movie, was a far more formidable opponent for the character portrayed by Daniel Day Lewis.

To a lesser extent, I feel the same way about Leo. It is not an academy award winning performance. Hardy's character is mean, tougher, and more bad ass -- he is always threatening to upset the delicate balance of the expedition, at a time when the cohesiveness of the group is necessary to survive in the direst of circumstances.

Please, to all Leo fan boys, I am not trying to pick on him. The issue has to do with a choice made by the casting director. I reall do like this guy as a person and actor.

Finally, no one is going to fall at 32' per second, hit pine branches from that height, and come out unscathed. The stronger the branches, the more resistance in slowing down his fall, but also in breaking ribs, lacerating internal organs, etc. A far more plausible explanation for not being hurt by that fall is the depth and softness of the snow bank. If snow is not packed down hard and is deep, it can really function to break a fall and minimize injuries. But it wasn't that deep and soft, because the dead horse was laying on top of it. Hey, the movie is still great regardless. (I'm not even going to touch hypothermia.)

 

Yeah, Hogfat!

er...

 

Spoiler alert!

Spoiler: Spoiler

If one is being picky and desiring true realism (sans creative license and suspension of disbelief) there are several instances of "The Revenant" that do not ring true.

First, and foremost, you cannot kill a grizzly bear with a knife as easily as Leo's character does. Unless he hits the heart, the bear would bleed out, but not die instantly. Leo's knife is not long enough nor is he stabbing in the right place to kill the grizzly that quickly.

Further, in terms of plot logic, after Hardy's character kills Hawk, there is an extended period of time between when Bridger returns and asks where Hawk is. If Fitzgerald's intent is to be done with Glass, why doesn't he just kill him after he kills Hawk? He could easily tell Bridger he died and Hawk went off into the woods to grieve.

The tree might have saved Leo's character's life, but he'd be in about as bad shape as he was from the bear, from a fall that distance and then crashing down through a huge tree; huge abrasions, broken limbs, and more from something like that.

There are several others, but these came to mind first.

 

Spoiler

Even Rambo didn't fall through a tree unscathed. I guess DiCaprio had a lot of furs for protection.

 

Saw it today. Great to see a film with this intensity that did not rely on whiz bang CGI, explosions, and modern music totally out of context. Cinematicly, very satisfying. The sound track served the film very well. One thing for sure though, they're not going to use the music for the next "Up with People" show.

Spoiler

The bear did not die from the knife. It just took awhile for it to die from the gun shot.

 

Spoiler: thefall

I thought maybe the horse took the brunt of the fall. Anyway, I didn't really care it was such a fun scene. I literally gasped, because it was a huge surprise.

 

12 Oscar Nominations.

Leading the pack.

 

I agree completely. I loved the look of the movie and it's...um, majestic feel, but I thought the amount of obstacles for Glass to overcome turned him into a frontier super hero, just wearing pelts instead of a cape.

After a certain point though, as his problems kept mounting up I started to snicker to myself thinking..wow this guy is REALLY having a tough couple of weeks, or (however long it was supposed to be.)

SPOILER ALERTS:
The last big climactic fight seemed so over the top to me that I started to chuckle again.

As you mention, a person has to suspend reality, forgetting about infections from the bear attack, a 500 pound (or whatever) bear laying on top of him, hypothermia, falling off a cliff, etc., etc.
It's a bird, it's a plane, no it's...Frontier Superman!

But the movie is beautiful to look at and entertaining enough and the 2.5 hours went by quickly so I'd recommend it to friends, while telling them to suspend credibility for the length of this movie.

And, as folks have mentioned already, we saw the movie tonight and the house was full, but after the movie started I literally didn't hear ONE word from anyone, or a cough, or a sneeze, or....anything, which struck me as extremely odd these days, and also a refreshing change of pace.

 

Bad review from The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...caprio-violent-meaningless-glorification-pain

I still haven't seen the movie but I felt the same thing from just the clips and trailers.

 

As others have mentioned, just a shame the story is a total crock.

So many 'based on true events' just then go and make a totally false movie not really based on those event at all.

Give it another 10 years and we'll have 'The J F Kennedy Story' where he doesn't get assassinated....and he's black.

 

I loved it. I thought it was powerful and gripping, although it's so relentlessly grim that I wondered how these folks seemed to fight for every breath in the face of such hopelessness. The cinematography is stunning and the backdrop of Western Canada is foreboding but beautiful. The performances were all great. It's my favourite film of the year so far.

 

That reviewer is lousy. She loves junk and pans decent films. Women hate The Revenant because they can't relate because there's not a single scene where two women poignantly relate their "feelings" to one another. "The Revenant glorifies violence (really?) and what does that say about our society?" Give me a break. It looks realistically at a sad driving force behind mankind, lady. It's called "man's inhumanity to mankind." But "Captain America Winter Soldier" doesn't REALLY glorify violence? That endless parade of machine gunning people down is in the name of jolly good fun? What a dimwit.

 

I'm sure this "telling of the tale" has just as much authenticity to it as any of the novelized version of this story has, in the same way that the legend of Johnny Appleseed or Daniel Boone are probably glossed over and mythologized. We're not talking about history here like the JFK assassination, we're talking about one legendary story from 100 years ago. On what facts is any telling of the "tale" based? All anyone knows is that someone was attacked by a bear and showed up at camp weeks later -- the rest depends on the narrative of one man and who knows how fictionalized and twisted that single account has become over the last 100 years? It's the stuff legend is made of and we all know how factual legends are. Now they're saying half the famous Donner party story is half ********, based on accounts of some survivors. Probably cooked up by an 1800's tabloid. You know, "The Deer Hunter' was 100% fabrication. Does that lessen it's effectiveness as a film or statement on violence?

 

I don't agree.

Fiction is fiction. Fact is fact.

If you are basing a story on 'some facts' then I feel you should try to stay as true to those facts as possible. Not introduce or fabricate stuff that never happened and then promote it as "based on a true story" or "based on true facts". Even if most of it is based in folklore then you don't go "hey lets add in a dragon!" if a dragon is never mentioned in any versions.

If the events are not good enough in themselves to make a accurate and interesting movie then find another.

With all the wittering going on re. the Oscars I feel it is only a few years till we see Will Smith playing JFK.