I want you all to tell me why you like this movie without saying
>it's beautiful, and stunningly realistic
>Leo went through hell
>meh natural light (which was color-graded anyway btw)
>it has long takespro-tip: you can't
I like fast bears.
Tom Hardy
Leo gives a fantastic performance
Tom Hardy gave a fantastic performance
The story is bare and to the point which I liked
Created a great sense of urgency and danger in the attack scenes
>>64734396
ending scene:
>Leo stabs hardy five times, then fucking has the nerve to say revenge is up to the gods
>let's hardy float down stream, ruining all the money that hardy stole, letting the people back at camp starve
>clearly didn't care about anything but revenge
>no larger stakes for leo to track hardy down (would have been the money but that was introduced 3/4 of the way through and totally glossed over and in the end, ignored)
totally shit cop out ending and if you have a rebuttal then i'd love to hear it
>>64734275
why do there have to be other reasons? that 4 pretty good reasons
>>64734275
It was better than The Martian, and The Theory of Everything
Good but no great performance by Leo, great performance by Hardy. The plot was very barebones but the story is ultimately about survival against nature, god, man, and even those whom you trust. This is exemplified by the way the movie was shot, the directors does a great job at depicting all of these forces and how they go at odds with Glass. And yes the technical aspect also plays a role it's art for the sake of art, here we see a director showing tremendous skill with his medium.
>>64734275
Tom Hardy takes off the mask and still manages to deliver awesome lines
they were all dead and the whole movie took place in purgatory
>say why you liked it without mentioning many of the reasons why it's good
Damn, OP. You got me. How you going to celebrate? With whom?
>>64734532
what pisses me off is that everyone's talking about how beautiful it is but nicely composed shots a good movie does not make. they didn't resonate, they were paper thin
also more people talk about leo's hardships than the actual character/real life hero. accidental or not, inarritu has exploited this legendary tale, and distracted dumb audiences from the point of it
>>64734528
He was the revenant, a.k.a a vengeful ghost.
Not a fucking hero.
>>64734528
>Leo stabs hardy five times, then fucking has the nerve to say revenge is up to the gods
call back to what the Indian told him
>let's hardy float down stream, ruining all the money that hardy stole, letting the people back at camp starve
wut? 1. he doesn't know about the money (only the captain does) and 2. probably doesn't care anyway
>clearly didn't care about anything but revenge
yes, that is the point - until his final line
>no larger stakes for leo to track hardy down
murdering his son (his only family), trying to bury him alive and leaving him to die in the wilderness aren't enough stakes to track him down?
>>64734528
>let's hardy float down stream, ruining all the money that hardy stole, letting the people back at camp starve
We don't really know how much Hardy stole and the point of the movie was not for Leo to retrieve it.
>no larger stakes for leo to track hardy down (would have been the money but that was introduced 3/4 of the way through and totally glossed over and in the end, ignored)
Leo wanted his revenge you said it yourself, Hardy left him for dead, lied about it and killed his son as well.
>Leo stabs hardy five times, then fucking has the nerve to say revenge is up to the gods
He was at peace. He gave Hardy the same chance for survival that he had which he knew was slim but gave him that anyway
>>64734396
>Leo gives a fantastic performance
He was shit m8. Too fat and unconvincing. Should have cast Josh Brolin or Christian bale instead.
I can do the same OP
I want you all to tell me why you like this movie without saying
>good dialogue
>good pacing
>good acting
>good cinematographypro-tip: you can't
>>64734681
>they didn't resonate, they were paper thin
whoa I never thought of it like this. awesome point.
>>64734796
That's a shit movie though
Its another gimmick movie like Boyhood and Birdman
>>64734275
It's very tense and atmospheric and the cinematography was brilliant.
That being said, I don't think it was the best movie this year.
>>64734275
I've always had a huge love for nature and the outdoors, and allow myself to get caught up in the gritty romanticism of the American frontier. This movie portrayed that era extremely well and told both a simple story and one filled with relatable symbolism that let me chew on the experience after I finished watching it. I also knew about Glass before any of this and have always wanted to see his story made into a motion picture, and I think even though they added and changed alot of the legend they still did it justice.
>>64734275
>I want you all to tell me why you like this movie without saying it's beautiful
welp
>>64734829
maybe if you have ADD
This thread is shit and OP is a retard.
I am a wilderness tracker and I liked the real to life tracking skills protrade in this film.
I also saw it for free and given free pop corn.
Tension.
Both in the writing and the directing. It's fucking hard to do. It's what makes movies exciting. This movie managed to do that. It made us want a character to succeed.
>>64734967
It's a completely forgettable "story" movie
You don't get anything deep out of it beyond, "Huh, some people are pretty shitty and some people are pretty good." It's manipulative trash, but yes admittedly competently made manipulative trash.
>>64734275
Why are you making rules against mentioning actual attributes that made the film great? Are contrarians really trying this hard to hate the movie?
>Amazing cinematography
>Meaningful symbolism
>Actual emotion is shown
>Some of the most immersive action in film, period
No matter how much he tries, Inarritu is no Malick or Herzog, and that is never clearer than here, where he transforms what could have been a fascinating exploration of a man's resilience against the cruel, unfeeling magnificence of nature into a simplistic revenge picture. Lubezki does great work work as usual, but to what end? Too polished and prestigeous to be as daring as everyone involved seems to believe it is. This is "art" for the Superhero/reddit crowd.
It did bother me that Leo and that Indian ate raw bison parts when there were three fucking fires right next to them. Neither were on the verge of death at that point.
>>64735272
>a simplistic revenge picture.
shiggy diggy
>>64735272
You need to work on your writing if you want to be the next Cinebro. Try being more polemical and reactionary.
>>64735320
>nitpick
>>64735272
Agreed, apparently tired of making fun of superheroes Iñárritu decides to make another Serious Movie
As usual, it's a lifeless, uninspired slough, this time featuring corny-as-shit dialogue, hammy acting (didja hear that Tom Hardy can do accents? DIDJA?), an inane/offensive noble savage narrative, and a general lack of directorial purpose
Even strong cinematography doesn't make bad movies good
>>64734275
Bear.
>>64735427
I know haha. Movie was decent, but not the best of 2015/16 in my opinion
>>64735455
I realize this is bait, but some people actually believe something along these lines and that disappoints me.
>>64735512
Yea haha. xD
>>64734871
Birdman was actually good though.
>>64735320
It was an act of solidarity you stupid fuck
>>64734605
>The plot was very barebones but the story is ultimately about survival against nature, god, man, and even those whom you trust.
so the plot is not original. that's one defect.
>>64734275
It'd be a great movie if it was about 20 minutes shorter.
Prove me wrong.
>>64734275
>well-directed
>compelling characters
>Fantastic performances, especially Tom Hardy
>excellent visuals
>great soundtrack
>managed to have little to no dialogue and still be extremely compelling and interesting to watch.
>excellent camerawork during the more intense scenes, the opening indian fight could get a bit dizzying but that's about it.
>smart use of CGI for the animals to make them look less fake-looking.
>great music
>Did I mention how great Tom Hardy was in this movie? He was pretty great.
Good performances, good dialog where it happens, a sequence of events that puts you in Glass' mind, great thematic energy. It's an exhibition of what this Era of filmmaking is truly capable of, not just a CGI green dude punching a helicopter due to its scale and complex, layered shots.
>>64735455
>his time featuring corny-as-shit dialogue
I know you're baiting but I just want to point out that the "he found God" speech was fucking great.
>>64735745
Imagery not energy. Energy applies too. It's very intense.
>>64735715
Agree with everything except-
>Fantastic performances, especially Tom Hardy
>smart use of CGI for the animals to make them look less fake-looking.
>Did I mention how great Tom Hardy was in this movie? He was pretty great.
Tom Hardy's accent was awful, and the CGI and color grading was the movies biggest letdown.
>>64734275
I like it because Hugh Glass is insanely fucking based and one of the finest examples of a real American man and I'm glad to see him getting some mainstream recognition (even if the movie's presentation of his story is fairly fictionalized)
>>64735660
Why did the native have to eat it raw? Leo came afterwards
>>64735769
>y-y-ou're just baiting
Watch more films or fuck off back to whatever board it is you've crawled out of, troglodyte.
>>64735062
>He watches movies for philosophical stimulation rather than to see cool shit
the arrows flying around were dope this nobody can deny
>>64735868
>Tom Hardy's accent was awful
In what way?
>and the CGI
well what the fuck did you expect? a live bear?
>and color grading was the movies biggest letdown.
I prefer my movies to have little to no color grading as well, but it was used smartly. At least it didn't have a piss filter like Sicario.
>>64734275
I knew the /tv/ hivemind would start to shift the minute that it did so well at the Golden Globes. Always trying to stay ahead of the popular contrarian curve. Same thing will happen with Mr. Robot as well.
>>64734275
The fight at the end at the end was the best shit ever.
"You should have raised him like a man instead of a little girly bitch"
DANG OL' TREENIGGERS I TELL YA HUHWAT GAWD WAZZA A SQURL AND HE ATE DAT SUMMABITCH MUH PELTS HE DONE BURRED RIGHT
>>64734275
This guy Leo Dicrapio is overrated as FUCK goddamn
>>64734275
Saw it last night. It's just a half-baked revenge flick made more palatable by "muh Indians" and held together by superficial shots of landscapes that are indisinguishable from preloaded Mac backgrounds. It's raught with extremely poor casting choices other than Hardy and (arguably, although I thought he did well) Leo. Seriously, was anybody else surprised how much Gleeson sucked? After watching Ex Mach I figured he was more capable than his performance in The Revenant led me to believe.
