When did everyone start hating this? It's Malick with a coherent plot. It's fun, well-shot revenge porn.
once leo won the oscar.
>"whelp, guess i better go see the movie that earned leo his oscar"
>watch a shitty ripped copy of it on their laptop
>"wow, that sucked"
Basically the exact same thing that happened with Gravity: Oscar hype causes the plebs to seek it out, they see it on a small screen with inflated expectations, and are disappointed.
I don't know but I feel like Birdman and revenant are both Oscar bait but I haven't seen them so I can't judge.
>>67604404
Gravity grossed a shit-ton of money months before the Oscars rolled around. The backlash against that movie is probably due to Neil DeGrasse Tyson's tweets.
>>67604404
Same here, except that I wasn't a douchebag and watched in the cinema. There was nothing oscar worthy about that piece except that it was a bit ethnic. The establishing were actually nice but dragged the movie on too long. The sleeping in a horse scene felt so forced.
>>67604582
>There was nothing oscar worthy about that piece except that it was a bit ethnic
What the fuck does that even mean? How is the movie ethnic? How does it being "ethnic" make it Oscar-worthy?
My theory is that many people here want to like obscure things that no one else likes, and then pretend they're the only ones able to understand why it's great. This doesn't work with good movies that become popular.
>>67604484
All that irony
>>67604683
I'm going to a venture a guess that he is referring to the half breed son. Because I guess it was totally, completely unheard of that Mountain Men would be fucking Injun gals and taking them as wives.
>>67604683
I think he meant "authentic", probably a cell phone auto correct
I'm sorry, I just didn't think the Revenant or Spotlight were all that special or deserving of their awards, and in any other context we wouldn't be discussing the Oscars as an infallible barometer of quality. Animated categories were the biggest travesty thought.
>>67604878
No one said that winning an Oscar is an indication of quality, which is proven by Spotlight winning Best Picture and Mad Max winning 6 Oscars. The Revenant is good simply because it's good, not because of its recognition.
The only watchable movie to win an Oscar this year. I understand people disliking the lack of characterization, but anyone calling it 'boring' should be shot.
>>67604976
That's not what threads here on it have been primary about though, praising or criticizing it based on merits, flaws or personal taste. It's either been "based Leo, 10/10, both the Oscars and RT back me up" or "It's sucks lel, 0/10, stop liking what I don't like".
I personally liked a lot about it, it just didn't come together for me in a satisfying way that I felt merited either Leo or Iñárritu's awards.
And Lubezki's cinematography, while impressive on a technical level, didn't suit it I felt. It belonged to a different type of movie, another type of narrative than we got.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_v2O8OYvCo
Read the comments. It's like the term "Oscar-bait" just refers to any film that requires effort to make. It used to mean movies that exploited modern political issues for attention, like Spotlight, The Big Short, and The Danish Girl. There's nothing baity about The Revenant; it's just Cuaron's Children of Men mixed with Malick's The New World. It's the culmination of the style that the three Mexican friends (Lubezki, Cuaron, and Inaritu) have been developing since the early 2000s.
>>67605518
I agree with your sentiments on it.
They're a reason why I didn't like it though, not that it's a bait or not because I didn't appreciate the hard work on it. Rather, I just don't think what they attempted came together in a satisfying way. It came out sort of like if Mel Gibson had decided to make Bravehart an arthouse movie, with an actor due for an Oscar in the lead instead of someone that could have been the most capable for the job.
>>67605411
I always hear people say that the film is technically impressive, which is usually referring to Lubezki's cinematography. It's a positive critique, but it still annoys me. Kamiński is technically good. Deakins and Nykvist are technically good. Lubezki's photography is artistically good; it's not just beautiful to look at, it's atmospheric and visceral in ways that completely turn a simple revenge story into something that comes across as authentic and real. The DP makes this movie.
>>67604582
>>67604582
How does "being ethnic" even translate into oscar-worthiness?
Just because a character is a particular race doesn't make it good automatically
it's shit with the exception of hardys performance and lubezkis "the director is making me go too far in a few places" meme cinematography.
one of the most fraudulent pieces of hackwork ive seen in years.
inarritu is the quintessential psuedo-arthouse bait hack who does nothing but steal and has no desire to express anything but the need for approval and awards.
everything this retard does is calculated for "artistic" approval, and he exposes himself by always overdoing it and putting his works into context with each other just makes it shamefully obvious.
fucking. cancer.
>>67605993
What did Inaritu steal? And don't post that bullhsit Tarkovsky video (Tarkovsky had a pan-in shot of a woman, so does The Revenant!)
The Revenant is simply the representation of the artistic bankruptcy plaguing the contemporary film industry.
Like Birdman, Iñárritu's last endeavor in hackery, this latest attempt is to convince the masses that what they are viewing is something deep or meaningful, when all it has done is push forward shallow technicality and exaggeration to make the frame pulsate with vulgar loudness. Characters are mere veneers, the cinematography is pretty but so conspicuous as to be rendered aggravating and the thesis is about as overdone as DiCaprio's acting. The camera feels like it has been waiting all day for a climactic shot and the film's deliberately difficult production history is laid bare in the indulgent cinematography.
Thematic complexity and philosophical subtext take a back seat to what amounts to as basically an action movie with action stars wrapped up in the veil of arthouse. And much like Salome, what lies beneath is ultimately puerile, obscene and holding fascination only for adolescents.
Iñárritu is guilty of something far greater than simply making a bad movie. He is guilty for the crime of gestating his pretense and self-importance, forcing many others to labor over it in a misguided attempt to create art and daring to call the afterbirth a film. Perhaps instead of taking his cast and crew to the ends of the Earth in search of a better shot, the Mexican counterfeit filmmaker should have taken his juvenile and crass sensibilities to the seedy San Fernando valley. There he could have at least made a profit of filming all the money shots he wanted.
>>67605780
>it's atmospheric and visceral in ways that completely turn a simple revenge story into something that comes across as authentic and real.
I disagree with you on that. It felt as we were still in Birdman mode, overly claustrophobic and subjective, like we were present there with Leo instead of it backing off to lend to the harsh, uncaring reality of his struggles and how nature antagonized him. And yet, it never got subjective enough for me to lend to what Leo was supposedly feeling, to engage the audience in his revenge. It just came of as chaotic, like Lubezki had an imaginary
Terrence Malick in his head directing him when both the script and actual direction pointed in other directions. Long story short, the DP took me out of the movie.
>>67606097
>this is a real post
>>67605726
this is ironic because
both of you should probably start with apocalypto
This movie was very bad. It is completely shallow and tries throwing in absurd dream sequences in an attempt to convince us there has been a spiritual journey for Leo, despite the fact that he has not conveyed this at all. Hardy's performance, and actually almost every other performance, was absolute shit. The cinematography was nice but something felt off, as if it was coated in glass. Despite how real it was, it still came off as fake. Watch something like Aguirre and you know you are looking at fucking mountains and wilderness, but here it may as well have been a set because it all looked so perfect and cherry picked instead of just shooting what they could. Also, the violence felt very fake and weightless, the opening ambush scene was totally vapid and not even exciting because every time someone got hit the camera jolted and there was a strange sound effect in order to convey alleged brutality, but it was just tacky. Also the plot in general is a fucking mess and the ending has to be one of the most retarded climaxes I have ever seen.
>>67606210
I've seen Apocalypto. It's a much better film in my opinion than The Revenant. Though I'm not even saying that Revenant is "bad", mind. I'm just saying that I don't think it's the masterpiece many people claim it is.
>>67606142
>I couldn't comprehend the themes or subtext, therefore they don't exist
Nothing about the symbolic significance of Leo wearing the bear's hide as he hunts Fitzgerald, mirroring the same inherent need to protect his child that caused the bear to attack him in the first place? Nothing about the Christian conception of Grace that caused him to give up his revenge? Nothing about the portrayal of the cyclical nature of revenge? Nothing about the Malickesque pantheistic worldview?
>>67606477
all of those things are retarded and i don't care for films that contain them, even if they are well done (which is very far from the case here)
>>67604268
"style over substance" the movie
>>67606477
>Malickesque pantheistic worldview
Get out, heretic
>>67606477
>falling for pasta
>revenge
>revenge
>revenge
>"worldview" copied from another actual auteur director, one who ironically uses the same cinematographerror
this is either sublime bait or you should consider suicide
>>67606423
ok, so knowing and with those opinions, im going to assume it's safe to assume you've seen both stalker and the mirror... right?
protip: it's not just about the visuals/technical elements, but the fact that it's both that and what im referring to makes it much worse
>>67606177
You couldn't be more wrong. The second-person perspective was absolutely able to put me in an empathetic position in ways that more typical cutaways couldn't. During the Indian attack the camera's ability to stay with the soldiers as they're shooting the attackers instead of cutting to reaction shots of them dying articulated the feeling of being surrounded better than any individual scene in movie history. I almost felt like one of the soldiers, and very few films have portrayed Native Americans in ways that the white man must have perceived them at the time. You know why they called them savages after that scene.
>>67606644
>>revenge
>>revenge
>>revenge
So a movie isn't able to deal with the question of revenge?
You could completely remove all the scenes involving Glass's gas-sniffer family and the film would be much better for it. Every overly-pretentious and dull scene involves them and themurder of Glass's wife's sonovershadows the other shit that Bane did to him.
>>67606177
>And yet, it never got subjective enough for me to lend to what Leo was supposedly feeling,
Leo's fault, not Lubezki's.
>>67606644
Love Stalker, didn't really care for The Mirror, though I might give it another shot some day. I'd again rate both over the Revenant though, whatever influences Tarkovsky might or might not have had on its making.
>>67606754
>I'm right, you're wrong
Stop. The film played to us and our tastes differently and I'm about as likely to suddenly start loving it as you are in hating it based on whatever you read in this thread. Neither one of us are keepers of an objective truth, it all comes down to taste and argument for the sake of entertaining ourselves.
>>67606822
the point is it doesn't go very far beyond that. it pretends to be a lot deeper than it really is. once you get passed the obvious themes and the little bit of subtext that there is (which is puerile and not very subtle at all), there isn't anything really there.
it's a tarantino flick disguised as an art movie
>>67606754
you really need to watch more movies, this is shameful. you're EXACTLY the audience that inarritu counts on.
>>67606964
>Stop. The film played to us and our tastes differently and I'm about as likely to suddenly start loving it as you are in hating it based on whatever you read in this thread. Neither one of us are keepers of an objective truth, it all comes down to taste and argument for the sake of entertaining ourselves.
Fuck off. Do you speak couching all of your opinions in "well, to me.." and "let's agree to disagree." The fact that the critique is coming from me automatically implies that it's my subjective opinion. You don't have to state the obvious fact that my views aren't objective; it's an annoying, pussy-footed way of talking. My post was meant to articulate why I liked the photography and to give an example. I'm not grading your paper on The Revenant.
>>67606999
>you really need to watch more movies,
Ad hominems discredit your opinions. Go away.
>>67606999
>the point is it doesn't go very far beyond that
But that's the theme. A Serious Man doesn't go very far beyond the theme of suffering and the problem of evil, yet we don't give it shit because that's that movie's theme. It's not what a movie's about, it's how it's about it.
>>67606952
Not as much as you'd think.
Having spent time on sets and in editing looking at various results, the DP and his/the directors choices on how a scene is framed for the audience can often elevate a mediocre performance and tear a good one down. I'm not saying Leo was necessarily the best choice for that role, but overall I don't feel the cinematography complimented him either. I just mostly felt like the two were "acting" in two different films, and how it reflected on the other actors I blame the DP, or possibly Iñárritu's direction to the DP.
>>67607215
I know, I'm just reminding you because for some reason this seems like a big deal to you.
Like you have something to defend rather than just discuss.
>>67607428
The fact that the cinematography interacted with the characters in ways that elevated horrible actors (Will Poulter; Domhnall Gleeson) into giving good performances in ways that transcend their past work prove that the problem was Leo.
>Having spent time on sets
I love the implication here. Bringing up the fact that you held up a boom mic once to elevate the importance of your opinion.
>>67606477
>Nothing about the Christian conception of Grace that caused him to give up his revenge?
good thing those indians came along to finish hardy off though
>>67604268
I loved it. The only thing that peeved me was that Tom Hardy was a bit inaudible.
>>67607267
you sound a little nervous pal
>>67607361
a fair critique of my opinion.
i don't know. it bothers me though that thats all there is here, yet it's juxtaposed against so many elements (and the production itself) that are so badly overdone. more than it should, probably.
>>67604404
>leo deserves an Oscar because the cinematography looks good on the big screen
>>67607472
No need to tone police either. It doesn't bode well on the strength of one's opinion when they start calling you out for calling them out. "Why do you care so much? It's just my opinion" reeks of attempting to change the subject. I care because I have nothing better to do right now than to discuss The Revenant. It's not my favorite movie of all time, I just enjoy arguing about it. The reason I can come across as defensive is that when people attack the movie the Hegelian anti-thesis is inherently defensive.
>>67607710
I know right
Stupid fucking tripfag
>>67607710
>>67607855
How does that affect anything? If the movie is about Leo finding grace and not taking his revenge, the Indians killing him doesn't change that.
>>67607853
you're on /tv/ here's a tip: if your post contains more than one "I" no one is going to like your post. No one cares about what you think or what you're up to right now
>>67607940
>taking protagonist through specific religious journey
>completely undercut said journey by having external circumstances undo the significance of that experience for the sake of audience satisfaction
>guys this is a beautiful story of hatred and then forgiveness
>but don't worry the bad guy gets all fucked up anyway :)))))))
>>67607974
Is this an APA paper? There's no reason to speak in the third person when you're replying to someone else arguing about how you feel.
>>67608061
>thinking fitzgerald was the "bad guy"
>thinking there were any "bad guys" in this film
how to spot a pure turbo-pleb right here
>>67607637
I'm not implying anything. I'm just telling you that I have some experience so it's something I've noticed. Take that for what you will, I'm not attempting to appeal to authority, I'll fully admit I wouldn't have been able to make The Revenant despite my feelings on it and I'm positive that applies to all of us here.
And in Leo's case, though underwhelming and not the best actor for the job, I didn't see how he was at fault. He had so little to work with beyond reacting physically to harsh situations, a role Tommy Wiseau and Daniel Day-Lewis could have pulled off similarly with little variation in talent.
>>67607853
I said as much before, but now we are just responding to one another for the sake of who has the last word.
>>67608061
That was totally felt like studio interference. It went over budget by like $70 million, so I don't blame them for having a standard revenge ending. But that still doesn't change Leo's arc in any way. He's the one that chooses not to kill him.
>>67607853
fuck off, tripfag
>>67608122
this also isn't your personal blog, a concept you're clearly struggling with
>>67608144
Completely missing the entire reason I used the term bad guy
Fucking idiot think before you hurry to reply
>>67608165
>He had so little to work with beyond reacting physically to harsh situations, a role Tommy Wiseau and Daniel Day-Lewis could have pulled off similarly with little variation in talent.
The character dealt in two major emotions: anger and suffering. Leo did the suffering just fine, but it takes a better sort of actor to portray the seething hatred that he must have felt for Fitzgerald. I never had a problem empathizing with Glass's pain, and I felt like the cinematography had a positive effect on that aspect of his performance. It did a good job of expressing the atmosphere of his surroundings, which is the main aspect of a man versus nature story. Lubezki made me feel the cold and the isolation.
>>67608258
A forum is just a series of hundreds of personal blogs that interact. No one affects third-person objectivity here.
>>67608292
you seem upset darling
why don't you make a capeshit thread to make yourself feel better
>it's a jeff mangum poster gets exposed as a tryhard psuedo-patrician and starts crying after getting blown the fuck out episode
every. single. time.
>>67608710
>angered anons who can't reply to your directly resort to shitting on your without articulating an argument
I definitely won this one
Its pretty good, but its more of a Nat Geo documentary compared to The Hateful Eight
>>67608876
nah, you cherry picked/selectively ignored, disregarded, or twisted anything that didn't fit your little hugbox narrative. again.
the only thing you won is further shame and embarrassment
>>67608984
>hugbox narrative
D'you bother to read the thread? Arguing that complaining about tone and form is stupid is the exact opposite of being in favor of a /tv/ hugbox. Argumentum ad hominem is the only tool you idiots have; no surprise you'd defend it.
99% certain that if this was 1975 and Barry Lyndon had just come out you would all be complaining about 'meme cinematography', 'muh natural lighting', and 'style over substance'. Time will redeem The Revenant.
