This was really bad

this was really bad

P E L T S
E
L
T
S

you

why was it bad? elaborate you fucking cunt instead of just saying a great film was bad to be an edgy holier than thou cuck

i really really really liked it since i watched it x1.5 speed.

not op but it was just 2 and half hours of leo grunting following a stupid basic revenge plot. great cinematography, pretty good acting but not really what i would call a great movie.

Close to three hours of walking, congrats on beating LOTR in that feat. Not to mention the payoff at the end was horrible

The Revenant is simply the representation of the artistic bankruptcy plaguing the contemporary film industry.

Like Birdman, Iñárritu's last endeavor in hackery, this latest attempt is to convince the masses that what they are viewing is something deep or meaningful, when all it has done is push forward shallow technicality and exaggeration to make the frame pulsate with vulgar loudness. Characters are mere veneers, the cinematography is pretty but so conspicuous as to be rendered aggravating and the thesis is about as overdone as DiCaprio's acting. The camera feels like it has been waiting all day for a climactic shot and the film's deliberately difficult production history is laid bare in the indulgent cinematography.

Thematic complexity and philosophical subtext take a back seat to what amounts to as basically an action movie with action stars wrapped up in the veil of arthouse. And much like Salome, what lies beneath is ultimately puerile, obscene and holding fascination only for adolescents.

Iñárritu is guilty of something far greater than simply making a bad movie. He is guilty for the crime of gestating his pretense and self-importance, forcing many others to labor over it in a misguided attempt to create art and daring to call the afterbirth a film. Perhaps instead of taking his cast and crew to the ends of the Earth in search of a better shot, the Mexican counterfeit filmmaker should have taken his juvenile and crass sensibilities to the seedy San Fernando valley. There he could have at least made a profit of filming all the money shots he wanted.

name a single movie with Di Caprio that worth it

literally can't. he's only in oscar bait and box office bait

I know OP. that's why haven't watched it. I have a movie 6th sense.

Inception is all I've got, I know Sup Forums despises the movie as bait but I found the acting, plot, and cinematography great.

You sound like a woman.

It went stale quite fast

Why did Leo go back to find Tom Hardy?
Why not just stay at the camp. He was safe there.

Why did Tom Hardy say he was going to stay with Leo but then try to kill him?
If he didn't want to help him, why volunteer?

'no'

(You)
Stupid bait, won't even bite

Hardy's character, forget his name wanted a bigger payday.

i refuse to believe someone as stupid as you exists

Patrician right hurr

>a great film
kek

all it had going for was visuals (not the terrible CGI bear)

watch the movie

I HAD TO WATCH THIS MOVIE WITH SUBTITLES BECAUSE OF TOM HARDY

MUMBLING FAGOT

>muh pelts

literally why does he do that in every movie

>MY ENEMIES DECEASED
>DIE LIKE A BITCH WHEN MY ALBUM HIT THE STREETS

I thought is was pretty good but forgettable. Visuals were great.

Nigga, you best be trolling.
This film is one of the finest that I have seen in the cinema in a long time.
First, the cinematography was elder-god tier. Those establishing shots were panoramic in the extreme. The entire opening battle sequence was one take. One take! You know how many there are like that in modern films?
It wasn't a
>muh revenge
story, it was about fatherhood, it was about overcoming adversity and the sheer strength of will, it was about fighting for your own sense of justice, it was about the survival instinct, it was about man and wilderness.
The acting was excellent. I don't want to hear any meme shit about Leo because he did not phone in this performance and Tom Hardy was a more than credible adversary.

What's more this film is the only one, the only motherfucking one, that advocated masculinity in its purest form.
It was Predator-tier masculine.
There was no feminism, there was no unnecessary shoe-horning of women, there was none of that anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better bullshit that infests Hollywood.

So you can jog the merry fuck on and enjoy something else with Scarlett or Jennifer or Chloe or Emma or some such shit.
Twat.

Plebmind

>First, the cinematography was elder-god tier
Stopped reading there
Disgusting plebeian with no cinematic knowledge

Casual detected

It didn't have any quips.

>The entire opening battle sequence was one take. One take!

This has to be bait

It was ok.

>Cheesy cliche Native American visions throughout the film
>CGI bear who moved well but was super fake looking
>Leo's character is amazing at everything
>Leo's accent is terrible
Tom Hardy and the pretty scenery are pretty much the only reasons to watch it.

>it's only good for le visuals

I can't believe how many stupid people inhabit this place. Literally too stupid to think critically about a film. No wonder the only things you dumb faggots post are redditfrogs and memes.

it was way too drawn out with mediocre acting

why are you defending this hack muh oscar director?

Leo deserves an emmy but not for The Revenant. Hardy did deserve an emmy for the his performance in The Revenant. These are undisputable facts.

It was good.
Beautiful imagery, and a good message.

If someone ever hurts my lgf I would do the same. Even if it meant shooting up a police bus with the cunt inside, I'd throw my life at the wall for her. Why? Because life without her would be suffering. They took my life, I will take theirs, as I am already dead, as the movie said.

There are better films. Sure. But it's definitely not a bad film. It's just not a must-watch or anything.

>emmy

The cinematography was good, the cinematic style was not.

>this level of contrarianism

Tom Hardy was the only good thing about that film.

The final fight scene ended up being hilarious because they made Tom so comically evil

>Te Revenant, the new Leonardo DiCaprio western, bids to be also the last western. That once-quintessential Hollywood genre has lost its popularity to sci-fi and comic-book flicks that trendily dramatize social tensions — along with offering escape into perpetual adolescence. The Revenant reworks the older westerns’ exploration of American history, and of the issues arising from the clash between civilization and perceived wilderness, into a spectacle replete with contemporary social distress. That makes it an Obama western.

>DiCaprio’s Hugh Glass, a guide and hunter for a fur-trading expedition in the 1820s, humbly embodies the country’s humane, multicultural hopes, yet he’s stuck amid venal, weak-principled countrymen. Burdened with the racist legacy of European settlers, Glass is haunted by the killing of his Pawnee wife and guards his biracial son. Glass’s ambivalence and fortitude are tested by his trouble with John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), a low-life among the government-sanctioned trappers. The unhinged, Bible-quoting carnivore Fitzgerald is a lying, killing incarnation of America’s evils.

>The epic, overlong murderous opposition between Glass and Fitzgerald reveals perfidious man in nature, and nature as alienating as it is “red in tooth and claw.” Their conflict symbolizes the war between civility and savagery, though it is not the classic sheriff-vs.-outlaw antagonism. In this End of the West western, the greed, selfishness, and brutal cynicism come straight out of our contemporary paranoid atmosphere. The Revenant portrays the U.S. as a ghost of its once idealized, rough-hewn self, a nation troubled by its treacherous past while slogging through an onerous, deadly present — thus, an Obama allegory.

>Oscar-winning Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu doesn’t apologize for American history; he even avoids the Mexican–American War and the policies of European colonization that might specifically explain Manifest Destiny. Yet, by playing a Clooney–Damon–Pitt game, Iñárritu uses the western genre for a simplified critique of American temperament: Glass always physically conflicts with threatening forces, including bedrock, redneck conservatism.

>His virtue is lamely represented by romantic memories and race-conscious fatherhood. (“They don’t hear your voice, they only see your skin,” he warns his teenage son.) His struggle is epitomized in a showpiece battle with a grizzly bear. It’s like a superhero origin myth via computer-generated F/X. Glass is left nearly dead, prey to Fitzgerald’s ruthlessness. Fisheye close-ups of DiCaprio in agony recall A Clockwork Orange’s cynicism, and his snowy travails repeat that Quaalude crawl in The Wolf of Wall Street. After relentless melodramatic setbacks, phenomenal resilience wins him revenge.

>Remember how Vietnam-era westerns (Little Big Man, Soldier Blue, Bite the Bullet, High Plains Drifter) expressed liberal American guilt? Well, the trendy ISIS-era politics of Iñárritu’s western fantasy prohibit cathartic heroism. This frustration and reticence add to The Revenant’s Obama aspect. DiCaprio and the prodigious Tom Hardy sink into their characters’ obstinacy to show white American moral descent (while the knowing Native Americans bide their time stereotypically — a millennial flip of their passivity in Dances with Wolves). After ear-chewing combat with Fitzgerald, similar to Laurence Olivier and Gregory Peck’s mauling each other in The Boys from Brazil, Glass stares at the audience with a look of “This is not who we are” hopelessness.

i dont think it was bad. the way it was shot was so much more interesting than all that we've been getting recently. I guess you could say the plot was basic, but not every movie has to have a plot so difficult you can barely keep up with it.
only thing i dont understand is how leo's character healed so quickly. didnt he have a broken leg? And why is he so willing to get in water when its freezing outside?

>The Revenant is an accusatory western. Iñárritu forces the audience to judge imperialism, starting with Emmanuel Lubezki’s preening, relentless camera (just as in last year’s dreadful Birdman) weaving among the corrupt characters. Lubezki’s photography is pellucid, as always, but whereas he achieved a newly discovered, paradisiacal look for Terrence Malick’s The New World, the American wild here seems inhospitable, dangerous. Before the mano a mano brawl, a Bierstadt-worthy sun ray moves through a mountain pass. The fleeting, stunning sight suggests a dying of light, a nation’s coming eclipse.

THE BEACH! you pleb

My personal opinion is that for what boils down to a revenge story, it was too much too long. And Innaritu's pretension at achieving something spiritual or enlightening through his MUH NOBLE SAVAGES and horribly out of place dream sequences really sours the experience. Should have just stuck to the Glass against Nature original story instead of bastardizing it with his own pseud politics.

The movie wasn't awful, it wasn't great, it was just mediocre and forgettable. The opening 30 min were the only parts I really liked. I'd rather that had been the whole movie.

...

that's literally how he talks

fucking hell couldn't they hold a stick up or some shit so his eyes followed into the lense would have been better than that shit

totally agree.

You are on /tv. What did you expect?Its better than watching biographies about sick people, holocaust movies, comic books movies and everything with explosions these days.