The Revenant: Iñárritu, DiCaprio

I found the 'everything is very clear and possibly something is happening that Leo's face can't see' scenes much more acid-etched than the 'and now, a hallucinatory passage' ones.

i suspect this is thread-relevant

@NickPinkerton Jan 4
Proposed addition to Sarris's The American Cinema categories, to meet the new demands of the 21st century: Messianic Mediocrity.

https://twitter.com/electrolemon/status/684863663010787330

looks pretty but overdramatised story

go for the lulz stay for the cinematography

xp oh my god

surprisingly big 1030 am crowd for this when i just went, its a bit of an arduous watch for an arduous story. does look often gorgeous. leo is always good and hes good here. idk hard for me to get too worked up abt this either +/-

like def is a theme abt as much as nature nearly kills leo, it also provides for him and like not only in obvious ways, a few times hed be dead just if the immed landscape was different idk that stuff was p cool; the revenge thru-line is m/l just to have a plot

I enjoyed this and theres some incredible scenes and breathtaking cinematography but a few Malick-isms cant help to hide the fairly slight story.

I don't think anyone's trying to hide it?

can't help but wish this could have been done by malick or herzog but it was still great

I really enjoyed this

its a great cinematic experience, overblown or not

xxp only if Herzog followed the bear instead.

a bear wd have to force me to see this

Seems like a good date idea

Bear rom com

"a few Malick-isms cant help to hide the fairly slight story."

on the whole you can same the same for Malick.

say the same *

I like the balance of Malick-isms in The Thin Red Line. I seem to enjoy it more every re-watch.

i dont want to get caught in the internet innaritu hate before i even see the film, but this does actually make me want to see it -

http://lwlies.com/articles/alejandro-gonzalez-inarritu-the-revenant-interview/

“I’m not a philosopher, I’m a filmmaker, but I think we have a long way to go before we fully understand the subconscious. The problem with film is that now people view it as an accurate representation of reality. I’m much less interested in reality in cinema than I am exploring the way we truly experience life, which is far away from reality. Reality is really just memories, little slices of sensation that we interpret as accurate versions of an event or moment in time. There’s a lot of things left to explore, and I’m just scratching the surface of the subconscious, of the spirit world. But unfortunately right now I think we’re going in the exact opposite direction.

“The Revenant was a way for me to express an extreme human experience through what I call ‘pure cinema’. It was a huge exercise for me to work out how I could tell this story with as few words as possible, in a very emotional and sensory way. When you strip out dialogue you do so in order to understand your subject – to understand what he’s thinking and feeling and trying to do – and by doing that you’re left with the image, literally to moving images and sounds. You have to go deep to really get to what this guy is about. For me, it was an exercise in molecular storytelling.”

People have been thinking this sorta stuff since 1905. Update your thoughts plz.

sure, but theres some sort of weird backlash between a certain online contingent who think they are just far smarter than this film (which may well be true), and well, everyone else, who might actually be pleased to see a big major release that isnt about superheroes (exaggerated binary there, i know). i mean, i find the self serious pompsity of his films sort of irritating/insufferable, but id prob still rather watch this than knight of cups (if were talking modern malick vs fake malick). also, although i havent truly liked anything he has done since 21 grams (and even then not as much as amores perros), i will probably still check out his films because of those early ones.

Its a rubbish binary. That 'everyone else' doesn't scan - there are big release films that aren't about superheroes.

rubbish, ok, but a popular, enduring binary. i know its bogus, but it also holds true in a sense, that there will always be smaller (hollywood - cos thats what people mean when they have these discussions, they dont care about arthouse releases) movies being made and released, they just dont make quite as much as the more typical modern tentpolers. here are the top ten grossers in the uk of last year -

1 Star Wars: The Force Awakens
2 Spectre
3 Jurassic World
4 Avengers: Age of Ultron
5 Minions
6 Furious 7
7 Inside Out
8 Fifty Shades of Grey
9 The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

apart from minions and inside out and 50 shades, all the rest are franchises. and unless you count 50 shades, none of them are 'serious' or 'adult' dramas. the top ten for 1985 however is somewhat more diverse -

1 Back to the Future
2 Rambo: First Blood Part II
3 Rocky IV
4 The Color Purple
5 Out of Africa
6 Cocoon
7 The Jewel of the Nile
8 Witness
9 The Goonies
10 Spies Like Us

TBH looking at the top ten of any year is never going to really throw up much that isnt a 'big' movie (looking outside the top ten to 11-30 is a better reflection).

ANYWAY, my point is that i doubt this can be as bad as the smarter-than-thou cinephiles want it to be, nor is it likely to be as good as the oscars seem to believe it is. but it is still likely to be better than queen of the desert, herzogs last hollywood movie (im seeing comparisons to werner for this too, cos yknow, its about a man conquering the wild and battling against nature etc etc). make of that what you will.

Not a criticism, but I'm not sure how 50 shades and Minions aren't franchises?

i forgot about minions being a spin off from despicable me. obv 50 shades IS part of a franchise, and an adaptation of a work that is already successful, but i didnt include it as being a franchise as its the start of a new one, rather than just the latest sequel to one already existing. but point taken.

Don't agree with the notion => not as many franchises in the 80s => more diverse.

Not even sure as to the point of the lists. Its gone off this tangent of populist arthouse guy has not v good ideas to...idk what. None of the 80s films were exploring anything too 'out there' (unless you start throwing irony about).

Is the Revenant really going to sell many tkts

Its a rubbish binary. That 'everyone else' doesn't scan - there are big release films that aren't about superheroes.

when i saw hateful 8, nearly every trailer was a franchise superhero movie. i mean "it is not a superhero movie" is hardly praise, but even accepting blockbusters and what they do, there is a truly pathetic level of creativity or daring involved.

and like one superhero per movie is no longer enough, they have to cram a few more in to sate people.

im saying there are two schools of thinking about him/this film, and both seem to inform the press/awards buzz it has gotten so far. im just saying, there is a bit of context to both. its not like innaritu isnt at least TRYING to do something braver than the main of what constitutes big hollywood moviemaking today. not saying he pulls it off, or that he isnt a humourless, pretentious, stiff (this is what bugged me the most about birdman beneath its guise of crazy anything-can-happen-ness) bore, but yknow, he at least has some lofty ideals in mind, regardless of what the results are. i think hes just someone who could 'relax' a little more in his work. he tries too hard to be great all the time.

i hate inarritu but i really enjoyed the hugh glass episode of the dollop should i see this y/n

i dont want to get caught in the internet innaritu hate before i even see the film, but this does actually make me want to see it -

http://lwlies.com/articles/alejandro-gonzalez-inarritu-the-revenant-interview/

“I’m not a philosopher, I’m a filmmaker, but I think we have a long way to go before we fully understand the subconscious. The problem with film is that now people view it as an accurate representation of reality. I’m much less interested in reality in cinema than I am exploring the way we truly experience life, which is far away from reality. Reality is really just memories, little slices of sensation that we interpret as accurate versions of an event or moment in time. There’s a lot of things left to explore, and I’m just scratching the surface of the subconscious, of the spirit world. But unfortunately right now I think we’re going in the exact opposite direction.

“The Revenant was a way for me to express an extreme human experience through what I call ‘pure cinema’. It was a huge exercise for me to work out how I could tell this story with as few words as possible, in a very emotional and sensory way. When you strip out dialogue you do so in order to understand your subject – to understand what he’s thinking and feeling and trying to do – and by doing that you’re left with the image, literally to moving images and sounds. You have to go deep to really get to what this guy is about. For me, it was an exercise in molecular storytelling.”

― StillAdvance, Friday, January 15, 2016 6:40 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

People have been thinking this sorta stuff since 1905. Update your thoughts plz.

― xyzzzz__, Friday, January 15, 2016 7:13 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

True, but it does feel like the current era has a particular stick up its ass about "realism."

yes. hence, godard's pointed, and wholly necessary intro in goodbye to language: "Those lacking imagination take refuge in reality."

“The Revenant was a way for me to express an extreme human experience through what I call ‘pure cinema’.

lmao

When you strip out dialogue you do so in order to understand your subject – to understand what he’s thinking and feeling and trying to do – and by doing that you’re left with the image, literally to moving images and sounds

how did Pabst and Murnau survive without dialogue

yeah this guy is ridiculous

xp

Needs to study more philosophy and psychoanalysis.

Or just read something. Might help.

those paragraphs posted upthread are just embarassing, practically every sentence begs a riposte or a correction.

True, but it does feel like the current era has a particular stick up its ass about "realism."

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Friday, January 15, 2016 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Don't agree w/this. But also I'd add that people don't think in these categories, its much more important they feel entertained, not short-changed and that their time isn't being wasted.

Its a rubbish binary. That 'everyone else' doesn't scan - there are big release films that aren't about superheroes.

when i saw hateful 8, nearly every trailer was a franchise superhero movie. i mean "it is not a superhero movie" is hardly praise, but even accepting blockbusters and what they do, there is a truly pathetic level of creativity or daring involved.

― japanese mage (LocalGarda), Friday, January 15, 2016 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Fair enough but I'm sure people might say similar when they went to the cinema in the 80s re: action hero blockbusters when they kicked back to watch Rambo II.

What I'd compare this stuff to is auteur Hollywood like Malick, and compared its severely lacking.

otoh Carol was quite good as a fairly big release.

can definitely see why this against the grain anti-realist approach would appeal to those who might actually be pleased to see a big major release that isnt about superheroes

but the grain in Carol is lovely!

inarritu is just okay; not great, not the worst. so i downloaded this. as with all of his other movies i've seen, it's alright. it entertained me. what i've learnt through my snobby film years is i don't impose on the movie things it doesn't want to be.

sure, inarritu is arrogant in how he decides to express himself, but as someone who also does art, i guess that's how he psyches himself up and inspires himself somehow. i don't really care what he says.

the cinematography is amazing. the story is simplistic, but this is pretty much business as usual for hollywood movies.

likewise, leonardo dicaprio is just okay, as well; not great, not the worst. he has been in better roles.

i'm dubious about the collective conscious people talk about in this thread

so glad the Internet wasn't around in the 70s

This was pretty amazing I thought

Scoff at Innaritu talking about pure cinema all you want but that's kinda exactly what I was thinking when I saw this.

Hardy did sound a bit too much like Yosemite Sam for my liking though

Scoff at Innaritu talking about pure cinema all you want but that's kinda exactly what I was thinking when I saw this.

I agree. Most of the criticisms of this movie here are about Innaritu's pretentious and lofty media statements than anything.

I don't rate Tom Hardy at all tbh. It'd be a even better movie without him tbh.

I'm going to make an epic survival movie about a man sitting with a full bladder for close to three hours. Based on a true story.

I thought this was maybe 50% wannabe Malick (legit Lubezki or no), 20% wannabe Herzog and 30% "The Edge," but it was OK. Sure, I'd prefer people pack seats for "The Assassination of Jesse James" or "Tree of Life," but anything that gets people sitting in near silence for long dialogue-free stretches is OK with me. Looked great. Give the camera operator a raise.

Where the hell did Domhnall Gleeson suddenly come from?

Yeah, he's everywhere at the moment

Where the hell did Domhnall Gleeson suddenly come from?

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, January 17, 2016 4:18 PM

Ireland.

I thought it implied a lot about white settlement in native land

― akm, Monday, February 29, 2016 11:54 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, that's in the film, but then there's also the Arikara leader who speaks only in exposition, where like 70% of his lines are "Maybe they have Powaqa" or "If we go this way, we might find Powaqa" like his men (or the audience) are too stupid to remember their goal.

I thought the most perplexing stuff was why this hyper-realistic movie of people in the real world doing real historically stuff real-y tossed in those bits of magical realism, of floating wives and ghost kids. Worked in "Tree of Life," but not here.

Kind of happy this didn't win last night. I enjoyed parts of it I guess, but overall it was like if Malick, Tarantino, and Herzog collaborated on a film, but decided to remove any of the mystery, wit, or weirdness of their own work.

otm. Best director I can see, best picture nah.

Rescreening this film after reading the source novel... if you didn't like the movie than do yourself a favor and avoid the book.