The Revenant (2015)

[rockNrollaDIM]

Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful looking movie. Those long sweeping shots of the rivers, mountains, valleys... God! Hand the Oscar to Lubezki, it's no contest.

 

The film as a whole didn't actually do much for me, but whatever. Leo was fine, Hardy was good. Domnhall Gleeson was horribly miscast and it kept taking me out of the story. Something just didn't quite work. I wasn't really rooting for Leo's character, and the vengeance isn't gratifying to anyone, though of course that is intentional. I didn't dislike it, but it certainly won't demand a re-watch from me. 

[The Stingray]

Atmospheric, visceral, uncompromising and utterly gorgeous. An experience quite unlike any other. It is the type of film cinemas were made for. Excellent performances from DiCaprio and Hardy.

 

Near-masterpiece.

 

9/10

[darkelf]

Innaritu's comedic genius shines a couple of times (dat ending is the undisputed funniest scene of the year) but not even a great Tom Hardy performance could save this empty and pointless piece of beautiful-looking shit.

 

4/10

[DeeCee]

A well made but rather empty film. It was a bit dull and just seem to go on and on. 

[ShouldIBeHere]

This could have easily been much better.

 

The beginning is pretty awesome and the movie has some of the most beautiful cinematography in recent years, paired with a wonderful sense of magnificent shots and scenery.

 

However, the middle drags quite a bit, especially around the part with the Indian helping him. That whole chapter felt a bit redundant.

 

The last 30 minutes got more intruiging again, however, I couldn't help but feel a bit underwhelmed by how it all ends. In a way it is a logical ending... but somehow I would have liked for something more surprising and "telling". The low-points of the movie are the visions/dreams of his dead wife.

 

Hardy is really, really good (I am rooting for him to win the Supporting Actor Oscar), Leo as well... sure, WoWS was a better performance (as several of his other roles) but in this year's field it wouldn't be an undeserved win by any means. I think people overlook that not many actors could carry a movie like this. And how easy it would have been to overact the whole thing and make it look undeliberately comical (the only moment that went there is the last shot... that was indeed "funny").

 

7/10

[Jessie]

On ‎05‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 5:41 PM, Gopher said:

Well composed and executed crap. 

 

I'll probably be in the minority but I thought Leo was given nothing of substance to do in this film. He grunts and groans and cries a lot, looks into the camera and asks for his Oscar. Gonna be a joke when he wins. 

 

true, but he does deserve an oscar

[Joel M]

I think Inarritu was going for something profound and poetic but the movie was neither of those things, something like the Grey was way more lyrical and poetic and it didn't have birds flying out of dead wives chests. That said, I did like it very much just as an over-the-top revenge/survival story. I think the best thing about the movie is how BIG it feels even if it's more of a small scale story. It feels like a blockbuster even if it doesn't look like one. I wasn't bored by the long runtime I was pretty immersed in the world from the start till the end, but it definately could be 15-20 minutes shorter witout missing anything of substance.

 

All four main actors are very good in different ways. Leo and Hardy both went big which was fine and it really paid off in their final standoff but my favorite performance was Domhnall Gleeson. He was amazing.

 

A-.

 

 

[The Stingray]

Yeah, I agree that it works best as a "simple" revenge thriller. It's when Iñárritu goes for some deeper poetic Malickian existentialism that the movie falters. Like, those flashbacks of DiCaprio's wife felt redundant and didn't work at all, imo.

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by The Stingray

[Goffe]

doesn't hold up very on a rewatch, the middle act is a slog to sit through a secondd time.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Goffe

[stripe]

Beautiful, intense, ambitious, but overlong and a bit pretentious at times. As it has been said, the weakest moments of the movie came with the reiterative visions of Leo's dead wife.

 

Great performances by Leo and Hardy.

 

It features a couple of instant classic sequences (the indians attack, the bear attack, that horse)

 

B+

 

Not my favourite movie of the year, but it would be a worthy BP winner.

[a2k]

C+

The movie never engaged me fully nor did it completely loose me. It had a some very acts but they didn't stitch well together. The cinematography was beautiful. At times it got very slow I had to force my self to concentrate on the film by appreciating the technical aspects of the movie and thinking how hard it must have been to make this movie.

Hardy was very good. Leo acted well but 'Best Actor' hype is a bit much.

[movieboner]

I saw the film for the first time on a screener and gave it an F. Later, I watched it again in a theater when it was released and gave it an A. This is the type of film that needs to be seen on the biggest screen as possible with super sound quality. Like Mad Max, The Revenant relies on imagery to pull you into their world and mesmerize you. Powerful acting from Leonardo Dicaprio and Tom Hardy with a great supporting cast adds to the film's quality and gives us characters we care about. To many people, it does seem empty/hollow because the atmosphere is so gloomy and some visuals are long and boring.

[filmlover]

20 hours ago, movieboner said:

I saw the film for the first time on a screener and gave it an F. Later, I watched it again in a theater when it was released and gave it an A. This is the type of film that needs to be seen on the biggest screen as possible with super sound quality. Like Mad Max, The Revenant relies on imagery to pull you into their world and mesmerize you. Powerful acting from Leonardo Dicaprio and Tom Hardy with a great supporting cast adds to the film's quality and gives us characters we care about. To many people, it does seem empty/hollow because the atmosphere is so gloomy and some visuals are long and boring.

You went from an F to an A in the span of two viewings? Bro...

[movieboner]

The enormous difference between watching a screener and in the theater. Better sound and picture quality makes all the difference, especially for a visual heavy film.

[filmlover]

5 hours ago, movieboner said:

The enormous difference between watching a screener and in the theater. Better sound and picture quality makes all the difference, especially for a visual heavy film.

The viewing environment of a movie does not completely change said movie's overall quality. Come on now.

[jb007]

Watched it in IMAX last night, though I had watched it before.  

 

Overly long and boring. The shots linger too long. One gets tired of longlasting shots of the moon etc. Leo is good but has been way better in several other movies. Nothing else impressed me other than the beautiful locales and excellent cinematography. Glad this did not win best picture.

 

C

 

[James]

Wow, I never thought I'd see a bad movie starring Leo. Yeah, it was Oscar bait but even so. It was beautifully shot and nicely acted, but it was overlong. You could have cut half of it and not lose a thing. It was just plain boring and I really like this type of movies. Are all Inarritu's films like this? I wanted to watch Birdman, but I kinda changed my mind after this one.

 

C

[Goffe]

11 hours ago, James said:

Wow, I never thought I'd see a bad movie starring Leo. Yeah, it was Oscar bait but even so. It was beautifully shot and nicely acted, but it was overlong. You could have cut half of it and not lose a thing. It was just plain boring and I really like this type of movies. Are all Inarritu's films like this? I wanted to watch Birdman, but I kinda changed my mind after this one.

 

C

Having seen all Inarritu films, I can safely you won't like any of them. They are all very long (although none of them felt as long as TR) and all of them rely extensively on suffering porno, except for Birdman, which goes against everything you seem to like.

 

If you really want to watch one of his older films, his first 3 films are basically a remake of each other. People seem to dig Amores Perros the best, but I think 21 Grams is more your type. Babel is my favorite of the 3.

[Thrylos 7]

Horrible movie, one of the worst and most boring ones I have ever watched . Even the nice cinematography becomes boring after a while . Thankfully I watched it on my tv and didn't spend money on it . The trailers for it were completely deceiving, IMO . 

 

F .

[filmlover]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 3:07 AM, James said:

Wow, I never thought I'd see a bad movie starring Leo. Yeah, it was Oscar bait but even so. It was beautifully shot and nicely acted, but it was overlong. You could have cut half of it and not lose a thing. It was just plain boring and I really like this type of movies. Are all Inarritu's films like this? I wanted to watch Birdman, but I kinda changed my mind after this one.

 

C

This and Birdman are wildly different movies, plot and tone-wise.