The Revenant

WARNING: This review is hidden because it reveals the content of the film.
Click here to show this review. Twelve Oscars? Wow. That is surprising. The reviews on this site are all over the place. It would appear that ‘action’ movie buffs or DiCaprio fans would like this graphic film. This is a good movie BUT here are several serious issues with it.

When you hear that is has great cinematography, the question remains: Do you know anybody in the history of photo taking that took a BAD picture of western Canada? Come on-mountains and waterfalls are not a great challenge for creativity. Just click and shoot. This movie would remind you a bit of Saving Private Ryan. Both movies begin with a flourish. Then a journey begins with a few interrupting skirmishes along the way. The difference between them is that in Saving Private Ryan there was at least some dialog where you could garner sympathy for the characters or their relationships. And both featured the usual intense facial close-ups to enhance the “acting”. That is a no-brainer for any director.

Some trivia: in real life Hugh Glass actually laid on a rotting log so that maggots could feed off his infected wounds! (A La Gladiator) The director left this out? WOW. The word Revenant comes from French word Revenir that means to return. Now back to the movie. Every Canadian that watches this (and at this time of year) would scoff at the lack of attention to hypothermia. Extended walks through frigid water and streams. No mitts. Rarely any head gear. Even with wet suits you have about 30 seconds before your body shuts down. And if you are going to use the insides of a horse to warm up then you leave the organs inside. The organs are 98.6 degrees. As for the director’s presentation of the journey, it would appear that he wanted the audience to appreciate the length and arduousness of Hugh Glass’s trip. There were many long un-needed, still scenes that used a loud and weird sound track (Nails on chalkboard while wearing glove? ) While his effort is appreciated it would seem to have been overdone. Many reviews complain about the movies’ length. So this point may be valid. CGI in all of today’s movies is phenomenal. This one used some CGI and there were noticeable flaws especially the animals (including that bear.) The audience though would be distracted by the action in each scene. If you watch the movie a second time you will see these flaws quite easily. But why would you want to watch it again? As for the acting, there are no bad actors out there, only bad directors. For this movie you could replace the main characters with any number of actors with the same results for this film. Even guys like Sylvester Stallone, Jonah Hill, Jamie Foxx, well just about anybody…. Just put on some make-up and use lots of close-ups. This movie might be better to be seen on the BIG screen for the mountains etc. Otherwise it would be a renter. That Tom Hardy seems to be in everything these days. He is a good “bad guy”. lol.