The Revenant (2015)

[4815162342]

Hardy was very good, though a couple times the character went way to close to Yosemite Sam meets Snidely Whiplash

[TalismanRing]

2 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:

Hardy was very good, though a couple times the character went way to close to Yosemite Sam meets Snidely Whiplash

 

There wasn't a lot of character to work with.  If the film had stayed closer to the "true" story then he'd have had moral ambiguity to work with.  But he's written and played like a cartoon baddie.  This movie really wasn't an actor's film even with all the face time Leo and Tom got, which makes the nominations...

[Jake Gittes]

Hardy's Fitzgerald isn't particularly complex but when surrounded by all the sub-Malick pretensions and Di Caprio making suffering faces his squirmy assholery feels like the most authentic and interesting thing in the world. I'd much rather have watched an entire movie about him. 

[filmlover]

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 5:43 PM, 4815162342 said:

 

But Leo's "moral choice" at the end is hypocritical idiotic bullshit and then his complete Oscar begging look for the final shot is ridiculous.

 

LOL I'm still chuckling over that last shot of Leo looking into the camera and pleading "Give me my Oscar!!!" That will so become a popular GIF when this comes out on DVD.

[Michael Gary Scott]

It was decent I thought. I agree Hardy was the best performance in the film. Too long for my taste not a big Innaritu fan so I will rant for days if he wins back to back directors. 

4/5

[FTF]

On January 21, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Michael Gary Scott said:

It was decent I thought. I agree Hardy was the best performance in the film. Too long for my taste not a big Innaritu fan so I will rant for days if he wins back to back directors. 

4/5

 

lol your writeup and then that score don't match up.  

[Ezen Baklattan]

Starts off decently enough, but it soon becomes abysmal. Nothing here is captivating, original, or coherent. It felt like 8 hours.

[AniNate]

Been awhile since I've seen a truly scathing review from you [emoji1]

[Ezen Baklattan]

1 hour ago, tribefan695 said:

Been awhile since I've seen a truly scathing review from you

Usually it takes a while for me to come to hate a movie, so its special when it turns me off right away.

[redfirebird2008]

On January 21, 2016 at 6:50 PM, TalismanRing said:

 

There wasn't a lot of character to work with.  If the film had stayed closer to the "true" story then he'd have had moral ambiguity to work with.  But he's written and played like a cartoon baddie.  This movie really wasn't an actor's film even with all the face time Leo and Tom got, which makes the nominations...

 

I will agree the writing was one note for Fitzgerald, but Hardy's eyes made it a lot more interesting IMHO. 

[Lordmandeep]

Hardy played the same role he plays in every film.

 

The grunting bad guy.

 

I forwarded most of the scenes with only him. 

[redfirebird2008]

1 hour ago, Lordmandeep said:

Hardy played the same role he plays in every film.

 

The grunting bad guy.

 

I forwarded most of the scenes with only him. 

 

Sounds like you haven't watched very many of his movies. 

[Cmasterclay]

Also sounds like you wouldn't know good acting if it hit you in the mouth, tbh. 

[filmlover]

1 hour ago, Lordmandeep said:

Hardy played the same role he plays in every film.

 

The grunting bad guy.

 

I forwarded most of the scenes with only him. 

So I guess you didn't really watch the movie then?

[Lordmandeep]

 

20 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Also sounds like you wouldn't know good acting if it hit you in the mouth, tbh. 

 

He was great in Warrior.

 

This is was just what ever really.

 

I doubt when we look at Hardy career in 10 years, we will be hyping his performance in this film. 

 

That is all I am sayin... 

Edited January 24, 2016 by Lordmandeep

[redfirebird2008]

Could be wrong but I doubt Lordmandeep is an awards voter or critic, so he also admitted to stealing the movie. 

[Lordmandeep]

4 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

Could be wrong but I doubt Lordmandeep is an awards voter or critic, so he also admitted to stealing the movie. 

 

Likely not, I am not white 

[Hatebox]

For about an hour this is one of the best sensory experiences a movie has ever offered. But when you realise it has little else to it, the second half becomes trying and by the final standoff you've given up caring. I had no problem with the 'divisive' direction, but the movie's just too damn long for such a thematically empty plot.

 

Unlike most on here, I'd be fine with DiCaprio winning the Oscar. He's had more interesting performances, but I'm just a sucker for someone going through that much shit for a movie.

 

PS - my girlfriend loathed it. I've never seen someone so happy to leave a theater.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Hatebox

[redfirebird2008]

Definitely 20-30 minutes too long. 

[Dale Cooper]

I thought it was good all the way through with the first act being teriffic. It was a very different role for Leo but I thought he was very, very good and would make a deserving winner this year. Hardy was decent but he was a bit too hammy for my liking. He was entertaining, though. And yeah, needless to say, it was a breathtakingly beatiful movie.