Finally went and saw this. I gotta say, I am utterly disappointed. Maybe I've got ADD and shit but this was way too long, at least and hour of filler and Leo meme'ing and grunting. The plot wasn't even that good. I mean, I like revenge stories, Count of Monte Cristo is my favourite book and all, but damn after waiting so long I didn't even care.
At least the cinematography was gorgeous, but fuck, I'm glad this didn't get best picture. Hell, it's not even Leo's best role, they gave him that oscar out of pity I reckon.
Anybody felt like this didn't live up to the hype?
I stopped watching after that "JUST LEAVE 'IM" scene.
Haven't finished it to this day.
I just can't take movies that are so clearly oscarbait seriously.
>>66909054
You're simply not ready for Inarritu friend. You're not picking up on the subtle sociological themes & masterfully-executed yet intentionally-mistransmitted messages that always seem to fly right over lesser minds undetected. Inarritu is eternally poignant, forever relevant, Steeped in an understanding of the world and exuding it unto others like a blessing from heaven. An important thinker. One of the best we got.
Since when does a movie need to be over 2 hours to be considered quality? Like, fuck, what a snoozefest
should have gone with the original story desu. would have given more opportunity for beatiful shots and for Leo as an actor.
but nope. gotta go with the oscarbait route.
>>66909209
That could be it, except I loved Birdman and most of Innarritu's films.
>sociological themes
You're joking, right?
Adding loads of unnecessary scenes doesn't make it deep. Most of the symbolism was weak.
Also, alright he's immortal and shit but when he survives that fall before spending the night in his horse's corpse, I cringed real hard. What was the point of that apart from removing any credibility to the film?
>>66909363
> when he survives that fall before spending the night in his horse's corpse
yeah that scene was completely unnecessary
he's a hack
this is what Tarantino would be like if the accusations that Tarantino is nothing but a plagiarist were true.
great, he's seen Aguirre and wants to duplicate some of those feels, but he obviously has no actual perspective on the material. so revenant sucks.
ditto birdman and synecdoche ny/black swan/any other 'blood and sweat of the artist who suspects his career is meaningless' film that it apes.
>>66909426
the scene in the beach following the indian and ending with the falling burning tree seemed like a Tarkovsky rip-off
>>66909209
>exuding it unto others like a blessing from heaven. An important thinker. One of the best we got.
>>66909209
Arigato konichiwa bait-kun
>>66909426
Inarritu's a goddamn visionary you dumb bitch. You dont know shit. AGI's on the up and up and he appeals to a wide age range. AGI's underhanded masterful jabs and plethora of personas will crush you like under a steam rolling truck. A true creative. Unlike bar-lowered shit-content-pushers like Tarantino or some other cancer. You gonna see every AGI film nominated for Best Picture from now on and you'll hate some more but nothing you post on this sorry-ass excuse for a board has a calculable fraction of the mass appeal as AGI's been able to concoct faggot. Remember that.
>>66909515
you had to read that post to the end to realize it was bait?
>>66909515
>>66909573
>>66909576
>Le Reddit bait meme
>T-that'll show him!
>>66909575
>Inarritu's a goddamn visionary you dumb bitch. You dont know shit.
cute but not really adding anything to the discussion here
>AGI's on the up and up
Like, on a personal level he's not a crook or whatever? okay.
>he appeals to a wide age range
I would say this is true, but I would counter by saying that all the ages he appeals to would find other, better films more appealing.
>AGI's underhanded masterful jabs and plethora of personas
name some
>bar-lowered shit-content-pushers like Tarantino or some other cancer
explain why you feel this way about Tarantino. What makes his films worse than AGI's?
>nothing you post on this sorry-ass excuse for a board has a calculable fraction of the mass appeal as AGI's been able to concoct
Not really a good comparison because my posts on this board do not constitute an effort to make films.
>>66909576
I respect every post, even baits. So I read them until the end out of courtesy because at least he made an effort to write something even if it was a shitty bait
>>66909575
Ok, fuck what I just said, I'm not reading this shit
If Di Caprio had to get an Oscar, I think he should have gotten it for pic related not for grunting for two hours and surviving from a 50 feet fall without even breaking a limb
>>66909825
one hunned percent agree with this shit
also if spielberg's most thematically challenging film hadn't been such a flop maybe he wouldn't have spent the next 15 years making garbage like Warhorse and Bridge of Spy
>>66909887
I had no idea it was a flop. That makes me sad, I've rewatched it countless times, perfect for any occasion, it never fails to put me in a good mood. Haven't enjoyed any of Spielberg's movie since then tbqh
>>66909998
>flop
it made 352 million on a 50 million budget.
>>66910094
Oh yeah, definitly not a flop then
Maybe>>66909998 meant that it was a flop by Spielberg's standards, I don't know
>>66910387
>>66910094
I thought for sure it was poorly received, but even critically it holds a 96% on RT
so I'm not sure what the fuck I was talking about
it sure seems rare that I meet anybody who doesn't consider it less-Spielberg but I guess that's just anecdotal
>>66910452
Somehow we all feel the movies we like are underrated. Humane nature I guess
The only real Oscar DiCaprio was snubbed on was The Aviator. Criminally underrated Scorcese film, easily his best performance of all time.
>>66910698
I need to rewatch it, only saw it in the theater when it came out. I always hear that he gives a meme performance in this but even though I think I enjoyed it, it's all too foggy in my mind for me to contradict that.
>>66909054
i agree completely anon, it was too long and all the stupid native hallucination shit where hes just staring at the sky were unnecessary and couldve been cut to make it shorter. The story was lackluster and has been done before so it wasnt anything new, and the ending was just bad all the build up to a denied climax for the sake of being 'spiritual' and 'the right thing to do'
That being said the cinematography was fucking incredible A+ 10/10 and it was all natural lighting which makes it even better. Every shot was gorgeous and the soynd design too, my only problem with it was the 'try to make a cut but dont make it look like its a cut' on the first battle/fight scene where the camera just goes super close to a boot or underwater for no reason to hide a cut. and Tom Hardy's acting was fantastic.
Id say worth watching for the visuals alone if it werent so long
>>66911311
Yeah, Cinematography and Hardy's acting were clearly the redeeming qualities but that can't save a film.
Hardy's acting didn't save Legend (what a crap movie holy fuck) and if I want to look at pretty mountains I can just go skiing in the Alps.
The CGI bear looked kinda fake IMO. Oh, and thanks to whoever made the trailer for letting me know about this scene before even seeing the movie, it made much less impact on me because I was already expecting it. I fucking hate how trailers tend to spoil films even more these last years. I should really go to the theater at the last minute.
