Mabuse

Didn't see that one. He sucked in Gatsby if that's any consolation.

RichC2

I just think the guy is just inconsistent, sometimes in the same movie. He was the weak link in Titanic, he didn't fit Gangs of New York, was unconvincing during several parts of Wolf of Wall Street, great in Catch Me If You Can and The Departed, miscast in The Revenant.

He's better than many, but he has limited range. He doesn't seem to have a very commanding presence in most of his movie.

inri222

Bingo!

Lately except for Django Unchained he is usually the lead character in a film. What happens to him is his co-stars such as Tom Hardy, Daniel Day Lewis, Michael Shannon, Mark Wahlberg, etc. give better performances and make him look like he can't hold it down.

Mabuse

You just made me have an epiphany. Here I am railing about how he doesn't fit in period films and yet I just realized I don't have a problem with him in Titanic, the biggest period film of them all. Strange.

Why So Blu?

Baby face my ass. There's just so much base make-up can cover up. He's older now. He's 41. Get off that fucking Titanic bullshit.

creekdipper

We finally got to see it Wednesday and both thoroughly enjoyed it. Interesting movie to compare notes. I agree with much that has been said; disagree with some others...even my wife & I disagreed re: the need for the visions/hallucinations/flashbacks, but no deal-breakers re: pacing, etc.

I didn't care for some of the anachronistic dialogue & thought Hardy's accent & performance were over-the-top at times (probably in the minority here...and I'm a big Hardy fan). Honestly, can't see how the guy survived to the point of the initial Ree attack...you'd think somebody would have bumped off his whiny butt during a pee break in the woods. I guess nastiness was a desirable trait for such a crew, but surely even that has its limits.

Several curious discrepancies...some maybe victims of cutting room edits. For instance, where did Leo get that second pistol during the horseback escape? Had to be a second pistol since reloading flintlocks takes time, especially on the back of a galloping horse moments after jumping on.

I bought the novel on which the film is "based in part" but didn't want to read it until after seeing the film, and currently I'm trying to finish some library books. Haven't searched for a link that would point out changes/deletions/additions although I can guess at several sequences that seemed to have been inserted for "cinematic" reasons (great trailer material!).

Anybody have a general idea of how closely it stuck to the novel? I'm guessing maybe half.

inri222

http://filmschoolrejects.com/feature...ar-chances.php

The Problem with Leonardo DiCaprio's Performance in The Revenant

.....But even amongst all that beauty and violence — two things that are in heavy supply when the film opens with a long, seamless sequence that could rival even Saving Private Ryan‘s Omaha Beach sequence — there was this nagging problem that I couldn’t shake with regard to DiCaprio’s performance. He always looks like he’s trying so hard to act the stuffing out of every single scene. There’s little that feels natural or lived-in about his performance, even though I know that he really did some of the gruesome things that ended up on screen. It’s no wonder that he’s been calling this one of the most difficult roles of his career. I’m sure that it was. You can see the hardship on screen. But at times, in those most dramatic moments of dialogue or quiet reflection, the self-seriousness of his effort is almost comical.

Contrast that with the performance of Tom Hardy, who plays a fellow 19th century frontiersman whose moral compass is a bit more askew and who ends up in an adversarial battle of wits with DiCaprio. Hardy disappears into the role of a racist, ghoulishly pragmatic man with a Southern twang and general distrust of anyone who isn’t paying him. It’s a one-note character (he’s simply not a nice guy), but it’s a character delivered with relative ease on the part of Hardy. If you didn’t know any better — or perhaps didn’t recognize him under fur and beard — you’d hesitate to notice that it was Hardy delivering yet another great performance. Within a few moments of screen time, it’s as if he’s lived in this world his entire life.

When it comes to DiCaprio, the first thought is more along the lines of, “Hey look, it’s Leo! He’s really acting hard.”

RichC2

I agree with that, that was the problem I had with him in some parts of Wall Street as well, he just looks like he's trying hard without actually pulling it off.

He's definitely not baby faced, he looks a little odd actually.

VHS?

Ky-Fi

Anyone remember this version? I saw this on TV as a young kid, and the bear attack really disturbed me. I only recently remembered the movie and figured out it was the same story as The Revenant.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AeJp7cvcpwg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Defiant1

He has a baby face that has gotten old, which has a bit of a Benjamin Button effect. Blond men tend to age quickly.

creekdipper

Thanks for posting that trailer, Ky-Fi. I just realized that out of the thousands of movies I've seen in a lifetime, this story is the only one that I've seen TWICE in movie theaters (MITW & Revenant). I've seen plenty of remakes, and it's curious that this would be the one plot that got me into the theater again.

Had to laugh at Richard Harris doing his usual "open-mouth" thing in the trailer. That was one of his schticks.

The trailer brought back some memories. I had remembered the ship on wheels, John Huston's distinctively-odd voice, Percy Herbert as one of the guys who abandoned our hero, etc. Funny...I remembered "Captain Henry" but forgot that they renamed the protagonist "Zach Bass."

I looked up the wiki link and saw that James Doohan is in the cast. Also that Harris' Indian wife is named Grace in the film, and she is played in Revenant by an actress named Grace Bird (nice irony).

Both movies have a character named "Coulter"...in the opening of The Revenant, the guy suddenly appears naked and arrow-shot (and identified by one of the crew calling out his name). That obviously has to be the famous John Coulter who escaped from Indian captors and led them on a long chase ("John Colter's Run"), although he survived in real life, whereas he appears to perish in the movie. He was part of the Lewis & Clark expedition, and he left the wilderness for good long before the events in The Revenant. There's still a commemorative "John Colter Run" done every year. I wonder if his story didn't partially inspire Cornel Wilde's classic African escape movie "The Naked Prey" (available on Criterion).

Edit: Well, just looked up a John Colter link on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Colter that possibly answered a couple of questions:

The original script for director Cornel Wilde's 1965 movie, The Naked Prey, was largely based on Colter being pursued by Blackfoot Indians in Wyoming.[21]

Roger Zelazny and Gerald Hausman meshed the stories of John Colter and Hugh Glass in the 1994 novel Wilderness.

creekdipper

Did they ever mention in the film how far Glass traveled? In the real-life account, he reportedly crawled & dragged himself (with broken leg) around 200 miles. I have trouble sitting in a car for 200 miles.

Wiki link to the actual incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass

Lots of interesting tidbits. Journey took around six weeks, and he survived mostly on berries and roots. Supposedly drove off some wolves from a carcass at one point. He used maggots to clean the festering wounds. The link did tell of him meeting some friendly Indians who helped him...according to it, they "sewed a bear hide" over his back to cover his open wounds.

The link does mention historical counterparts by the same names as Fitzpatrick & Bridger as the men who stayed behind with Glass. Bridger, of course, became one of the most famed mountain men, but didn't realize that other noted mountain men such as Jim Beckwourth & Jedediah Smith were supposedly part of the expedition.

Also interesting to note the many times the story has been adapted to literature (including poetry & novels), tv series, films, and even an Of Men & Monsters song entitled "Six Weeks." I have not only the novel The Revenant (bought at library sale last year) but also "Lord Grizzly" (which either won or was nominated for a National Book Award)...yet have yet to read either.

A couple of interesting notes about Michael Punke's novel on which the film is "based in part" (from wiki link):

When reviewing the novel for its 2015 re-release to coincide with the film, critic Brian Ted Jones described the novel as not fulfilling the expectation of "the novel's higher bar", describing it as more like Punke's non-fiction, and stylistically not very well executed.[4] Jones also described the novel's subtitle "A Novel of Revenge", as misrepresentative, claiming the novel's real plot device "is actually more prosaic: He wants his stuff back."[4]

After the novel was optioned for adaptation, publishers chose to republish it in hardback in January 2015. However, because Punke had become a Deputy United States Trade Representative and US Ambassador to the World Trade Organization, the State Department prohibited him from doing any publicity for his book in preparation for the film release (one representative noted that "He can't even sign copies").[1]

Just a fascinating story that, like Glass, refuses to die.

Throwing Copper

Watched it again. No way should this win Best Picture or Leo for Best Actor. I'm seriously shocked that this is doing really well at the box office.

This is an arthouse film that should have topped off at about $40 million. You just never know with people these days.

creekdipper

It resonated with people who make do with the bear necessities.

TomOpus

You helped out with the box office seeing it twice.

creekdipper

Nah, probably not. Don't think Hollywood includes revenue from bootleg flea market copies.

Finisher

It's basically accessible Malick with some Tarkovsky sprinkled in.

Best actor is always about competition in any given year and who is the most deserving who hasn't won yet. This performance isn't in Leo's top five but he'll win because it's a soft year and he hasn't won yet. Similar to when Scorsese finally won.

As for boxoffice, Leo, to his credit associates himself with quality directors and quality projects. Even if you're not a fan, you have to admit he's extremely careful with his choices and they almost all do well financially. He's sort of like Tom Cruise 2.0 in that regard, although perhaps a slightly less commercial version. And once a film gets in the best picture conversation, expect tremendous legs by default.

B.A.

My brother and I took my dad to see this for his birthday, and all of us really enjoyed it.

I thought it was an incredible piece of film-making. The cinematography was beautiful. Too bad we didn't see it in IMAX.

The bear attack was amazing.

My dad said this made him feel colder than Dr. Zhivago did.

I thought the cast did a great job, particularly Hardy. He has yet to disappoint.

Leo did a very good job. I'm interested to see how often he used a stand-in.

I kind of felt exhausted by the end of it, and felt the urge for a shower.

OldBoy

it's well within his top five. you speak tomfoolery!

Throwing Copper

Get the fuck outta here with that nonsense. People who make do with the bear necessities aren't going to movies in theaters.

Mabuse

Really? And you call yourself a film fan?

Solid Snake

I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that.

JumpCutz

It was such an obvious reference, you 'd have to be pretty dim bulb not to catch it.

dex14

http://redcarpetrampage.com/