The Revenant

You told me this was boring Sup Forums but I enjoyed it greatly. Did you bother watching a decent rip? The photography carries it.

It's great but Sup Forums hates Inarritu and Leo.

Besides a couple sloppy cgi edits and a bit of a drag midway through, pretty awesome flick tbqh

Sup Forums is capeshit-eaters.

>It's great but Sup Forums hates Inarritu
How can you hate Inarritu?

>Alejandro G. Iñárritu was insistent that computer-generated imagery not be used to enhance the film, stating, "If we ended up in greenscreen with coffee and everybody having a good time, everybody will be happy, but most likely the film would be a piece of shit."

>endless grunt fest "acting"
>shitty irrelevant story
>look at me wave the camera around on one take and this totally isn't just a slow version of shaky cam lmao

>pretty scenery fixes all this

Hardy was great.

>Shot chronologically on an 80-day schedule that took place over a total principal photography time period of nine months. This unusually long production time was due to the cold weather conditions, the remoteness of the locations and director Alejandro G. Iñárritu's and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki's aesthetic plan to shoot only with natural light for maximum realism. Only a few shooting hours were available every day and had to be carefully planned in advance.

>shitty irrelevant story

It is beautiful

UHNNNNNNNNNNNNRGGGGGGG

>give this man his oscar

THEY FUCKED IT UP.WHY AN INDIAN SON AND WIFE?DO WE REALLY NEED THAT?WHY HE GETS HIS REVENGE?THIS SHOULD'VE BEEN A SURVIVAL MOVIE NOT A FUCKING FAIRY TALE REEEEEEE

you must live in a shitty country op

as a Canadian I found the landscapes trite and boring, like they were afraid to go more than 500m away the Yellowhead Highway..

srsly. not even close to showing the real unbroken country

>YOU must live in a shitty country
>as a Canadian I

shut the fuck up you fucking leaf

its really good Sup Forums is just full of idiots that think being contra plebs makes them better than everyone else

It's one of the most notorious pleb filters in existence, and it's really recent too

>>triggered ameritard

it must be tough to see people next door have healthcare while youre still searching for thumbs

/its ok yer too gen y to get that reference

Sup Forums reacts really bad to pretentiousness, and to be fair the marketing surrounding this film was really stuck up its own ass. It's not a bad movie by any means though, and the cinematography is beautiful if gratuitous at times.

An Egyptian probably found Lawrence of Arabia's landscapes fairly boring, doesn't make them bad.

>le everything is blue and grey meme

Sad to see Innariairititu stoop to fucking Michael Bay levels of """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""photography""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Nobody hates Leo what are you talking about.

>ameritard
Guess again leaf.

kek

A lot of people seem really offended by the notion of a movie that is beautifully shot having very little "deep" meaning.

This is the only thing I can come up with for why so many had such a negative reaction to what is pretty clearly an experimental large budget revenge movie.

It's like they can only appreciate the film if it has some hand waving philosophy shoved in.

Is that a plane reflected in the water, or is that from the dream sequence?

>not appreciating Alberta

fuck off back to Newfoundland until oil picks back up you cuck

It's a technical masterpiece with a great hardy performance and good action, everything else though....meh. The movie became repetitive with all the landscape shots, it soon became unimpressive. The dream sequences really brought down the film, it kept trying to get the audience to care about leo and his son, but did absolutely nothing for me. They were easily the worst part of the film, inarritu was trying to hard during those parts. On multiple rewatches the violence becomes less and less impressive, it's just Leo killing and grunting for 2 hrs with no emotional ties, it just becomes a chore. Also the film did not need to be close to 3 hrs, it was needlessly long. Overall it's alright, 6-7/10. Anyway these are my thoughts

Im from a part of Sweden that looks pretty much the same as that, and i was impressed with how well it was shot

The landscape is not meant to be majestic but overwhelming and even scary.

What part of Sweden looks like this? I live in the south west coast and nothing closeby comes close.

not him but sweden is a lot more colorful than the revenant,

You'd still have to look pretty hard and far off. Not nowhere as overwhelming as say Norway.

The film is interesting and compelling for sure. I honestly wouldn't be able to begrudge it any of the boatload of oscar nominations that it will surely receive. The photography is good. The acting is good. And some sequences genuinely astound in a "how on earth did they do that" way which is rare in movies these days. There are undeniably some very spectacular sequences... actually two.

But its strengths are off set by its banal attempts at philosophy or profundity or what have you. And the really annoying presence of Innaritu in every frame. He is an auteur who needs to grow up. The constantly moving camera can be irritating and annoying and actually kill objectivity rather than invite it. Inarritu is basically an auteur who doesn't trust his audience to get his point or has these crazed ambitions of having his direction be noticed, like see how great of a director I am. That is actually juvenile. I think powerful direction is as noticeable in austerity as it is showmanship, Hou, Haneke and Eastwood don't need to constantly pull gimmicks out of their ass to convince me they are putting up great direction. Like I literally longed for a scene where the frame would hold still for a few minutes and the action would play out but no such luck.


This is basically pseudo-art cinema. A mainstream film with "art" trappings that make certain folks from the general audiences feel edified at having had an "art film" experience. This is anything but.

I might sound exceedingly condescending towards the movie but I do appreciate it. It has a visceral quality that is definitely one of a kind. But approach with caution, it is also very tedious and indulgent.

Its what I wrote on my letterboxd account one year ago.

>I honestly wouldn't be able to begrudge it any of the boatload of oscar nominations that it will surely receive.
Just how old is this pasta?

Fair enough. I don't think you should approach it as anything but a slow-burner story with good photography.

It's actually quite good.

To bad its full of shitskins

It was meant to be bleak, grey and cold to show the remote and harsh nature of the land.

>don't you know it's good because we did it real and hard
>look at leo's "acting"!
>look at me wasting Tom Hardy to produce a cartoon badguys
>I will add dream sequences so you know I'm an "artist"
>Now turn a story about survival into a revenge flick that also forces the audience to judge the evil white man and sympathize with le noble savage
>Lubezki shoot this shit and don't capture any of the beauty or produce any visual poetry like you do with Malick because I'm a hack who doesn't know how to properly use you
>the soundtrack is actually good though

Fitzgerald was actually a decent character and not just cartoon evil. And the movie implies numerous times that the Indians are pretty brutal aswell. I will agree that Leo went slightly overboard.

>And the movie implies numerous times that the Indians are pretty brutal aswell
They depicted them as violent yes, but entirely justified because they were looking for the chief's daughter who was being used as a fuckslave by the evil white frenchies

The dream sequences really weighed this movie don along with the >muh dead wife stuff. I think that the natives were just randomly slaughtering people because the guy was looking for is daughter is lost on people. They nearly killed an entire company of trappers who had nothing to do with her being taken. Fitzgerald was unironically my favorite part of the movie because soft cunts would not survive back then. And the photography and it's ability to convey the cold and harshness of the land was the best part of the movie.

Leo's performance was perfectly fine, although I would've preferred someone more rugged looking/sounding. Tom Hardy, for instance.
As other anons have said, the dream sequences were really shit, except for the one shot with Leo's wife horizontally levitating above him, that actually gave off an unsettling vibe as in a real dream - but it was a shot that lasted a second or two.
Also, whatever the fuck he meant by the ending shot, it didn't work.

do you also enjoy powerpoint slideshows

>norway
those parts aren't even populated

My problem with leo in this film is that he's such a weak physical specimen and yet we're supposed to believe he's some kind of indestructible mountain man survivalist.