|
A huge part of the reason The Revenant is getting so much praise is the feat of it all.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:yeah The Revenant's my least favorite but i still liked it quite a bit. it's a great four-movie streak, hope it keeps going. any other good looking westerns on the horizon? Jane Got a Gun is the only upcoming one I'm aware of, and it reunites Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor! It's cool to see a female-lead western, but it doesn't seem to be getting much buzz from what I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Slow West has a bunch of things in common with Revenant. Both are slow paced westerns where the frontier is a place of death and suffering. Slow West however is only 84 minutes long and manages to fit everything that needs to be said in. It's also has a wonderful dark slapstick sense of humor which is pretty similar to that one bit where the bear falls on Glass. I wish Revenant hat more moments like that to lighten the mood inbetween all the Passion of the Frontiersman stuff. It's remarkably well made especially considering that it's the directors first feature. Hateful Eight is a bit better though and I haven't seen Bone Tomahawk. 2015 was just a fantastic year for westerns and I hope this will lead to a bit of a resurgence in the genre though it probably won't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Hardy's accents..ugh. Pretty good actor otherwise but I do wish he'd stop mumbling his way through movies. The movie looks beautiful but is obviously more than a bit ponderous and filled with too many heavy-handed Christian themes. Some of the CGI is really jarring too (not including the bear attack scene which I thought was pretty well done). Not bad though, I'm a sucker for Westerns and I hope Hollywood keeps them coming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Honestly curious what cgi you're talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Real people mumble. Brando could recite Shakespeare clear as day, but he mumbled when appropriate. Hardy's mumbling is appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Honestly curious what cgi you're talking about? The only thing I can think of is the scene with the bison, which stuck out a bit. Though I can't blame them, since filming a live bison stampede / wolf attack would have probably been more dangerous than using a trained bear for the attack scene, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
CGI crow-on-branch. CGI boars. CGI deer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
The bear scene was well choreographed but from an effects standpoint looked less good than the bear fight in Game of Thrones, which is kinda damning
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
The main crime the bear fight scene made, was that it ruined the scene immediately after. The CGI bear and the prop bear were completely different colours, so as soon as it cuts back you think "oh so now it's a prop bear" which takes you out of an otherwise intense scene. Honestly didn't even clock the crow as CGI though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Saw it finally and it was good but I think I overhyped myself too much. Movie was beautiful. For sure deserves some awards for cinematography and special effects. The lighting always felt perfect for the scene. I don't think any of the roles were meaty enough to commend anyone there, but I totally understand the viewing DiCaprio as a good actor rather than a great one. Every time he was on screen it was like, "drat, dude is acting his rear end off there." Meanwhile Gleeson and Hardy are just falling so naturally into their characters that you don't even really notice the acting until you think about it later. Which isn't the kind of showy stuff that garners awards, but is the type of thing that takes tremendous natural talent and commitment to acting as a craft. It's why Ledger won for Batman and not for Brokeback Mountain despite the latter being a much more difficult role to make work and be taken seriously. I agree, I feel like Hardy didn't have to rely on exposition as much, you see him scrambling to salvage pelts during the attack, you see the scalp scars, and you get the entire backstory. I'm probably wrong but it made me think of Walter White, circumstances force him to make the 'evil' decision for his self-interest/preservation (the $300 for staying to bury Glass), and he eventually embraces the dark side of himself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Anyone calling Slow West anything other than "forgettable" is beyond me. I was compelled as I watched The Revenant but I've liked it less and less as time has gone on. It's like a bad, long version of The Grey. Glass was hard to care about and Hardy was so crazy good that I had trouble not wishing he would just get away with it all. Very pretty but substantially empty in terms of character, stakes, plotting, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Captain Magic posted:Anyone calling Slow West anything other than "forgettable" is beyond me. why thank you
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
RCarr posted:This is the first time I've ever heard the phrase tree-friend of the family. Is that a real thing people said? For a film about rocky mountain fur trappers there actually was a surprising lack of n-bombs in the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:For a film about rocky mountain fur trappers there actually was a surprising lack of n-bombs in the film. Well there were no niggers around, and they had other poo poo to worry about (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
There was that one black in the camp at the start but he got offed IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
I was pretty amazed the film was cert-15 in the UK. I've never seen anything approaching that level of intense gore without an 18 on it. I'd think a couple more N-bombs would have stuck it up a classification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:For a film about rocky mountain fur trappers there actually was a surprising lack of n-bombs in the film. Didn't Fitzgerald call hawk a "tree-friend of the family" on multiple occasions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
I really liked the final scene up until the part where the Ree randomly show up and kill Fitzgerald despite them having no loving idea who he even is or why is fighting Glass. Would've been much more fitting if he just let him float away to die alone in the wilderness helpless and maimed. I hear the real story went a lot differently and also that Hugh Glass was literally a pirate.Captain Magic posted:Anyone calling Slow West anything other than "forgettable" is beyond me. I dunno man. I saw it months ago but I can remember every single scene sometimes even down to the shot. I saw the Revenant less than a week ago and I can barely remember most of it aside from the highlights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
The Arikara kill Fitzgerald because hes a white man trespassing on their land what more reason do they need, after everything shown in the film? Sparing Glass only makes sense when we see the woman he rescued riding among them
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
They showed us that he was wearing Chekhov's Scalp in like the second scene of the movie. There was never any other possible outcome!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
I found it really intense and some of the scenes were really amazing. The bear attack, the vistas of "North Dakota" (which I assume was Canada in reality) and stuff were all really very pretty. Tom Hardy was totally amazing as Fitzgerald too. The bit where he told the story of meeting God and just stared for a while was one of my favourite bits. It did drag on for loving ages though. There was no need for all the visions of his wife, as a lot of people have said in the thread already. We get it and you don't need to keep showing us. And when stuff just continually went wrong people in the cinema were laughing, it went too far. Like a person telling a story that ridiculous poo poo just piles up and up in and you stop believing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:"When the gently caress am I getting an Oscar already? What do I gotta do, get hosed by a bear?" if leo gets an oscar for being raped by a cgi bear i dont even know what this world is coming to. real bear rape or nothing, leo!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Taear posted:And when stuff just continually went wrong people in the cinema were laughing, it went too far. Like a person telling a story that ridiculous poo poo just piles up and up in and you stop believing. I had the opposite reaction, I thought he lucked out too much. There's a dozen things that should have killed him in that harsh environment, I certainly don't think it went too far in terms of how difficult it is to survive out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
I had to walk a mile in a foot of snow during the height of the blizzard conditions this weekend in the northeast and a walk that usually takes me about 10 minutes took me almost an hour, my eyebrows froze over, and it took me another hour to regain feeling in my feet even next to a fire. The endeavor really gave me an appreciation for the real-life Hugh Glass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
If anything they downplayed how hardcore the real Hugh Glass was. He actually found some maggots and made them eat the necrotic flesh to avoid infection. Something I don't remember being in the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Nah, it was loosey goosey all over the place. Some stuff was downplayed and other stuff was embellished to the extreme.
BeanpolePeckerwood fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Guess I'm in the minority because I find Hardy to be overrated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
Hardy's performance is the best part of the movie. On another point, I'm bummed that it's not more true to the Glass story-one of long-term hateful survival. There's a ton of amazing poo poo that happened in real life to this dude that isn't translated to screen. Knowing his real life story elevated parts of the film and made other parts limp, for me. Though the first fifteen minutes have me convinced that Inarritu should be making loving action movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:It's a real good brother piece to Gravity. Both are mad adventures into the worst wildernesses. One's a father's undead-like suffering trudge for revenge, one's a mother's sad internal search for rebirth. Both leads get chilly. and they're both poo poo that got more praise than they deserved. everyone going on about the feat of making this is an idiot, they played in the snow for a few months. boyhood was more of an achievement and everyone glossed over the decade it took to make to focus on how boring it was, the only reason they aren't doing the same here is because it's some rugged vicarious bullshit and retards of all stripes eat that sort of thing up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Foo posted:Guess I'm in the minority because I find Hardy to be overrated. He has some serious issues picking roles well, and seems to need to carry the bad part a lot more than he should. If you haven't seen him in Locke or Drop, you definitely should.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Lately Hardy seems like he's constructing his performances around mannerisms more than character. he's better in the Revenant than Mad Max, but i wasn't really blown away by the performance. he does best in his monologues, when he's trying to convince Glass to allow himself to be killed, when he describes his scalping, and when he's talking about God. Locke is of course a good showcase for this as well (as is Bronson).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Lately Hardy seems like he's constructing his performances around mannerisms more than character. he's better in the Revenant than Mad Max, but i wasn't really blown away by the performance. Legend was an example of him being OKish in an absolutely piss-poor movie. Such a confusing actor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:If anything they downplayed how hardcore the real Hugh Glass was. He actually found some maggots and made them eat the necrotic flesh to avoid infection. Something I don't remember being in the film. In fairness, maggots are less hardcore than cauterization via gunpowder. Maggots are gross, but they don't hurt. They very precisely just eat dead flesh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I had somehow forgotten about the gunpowder entirely. That part was really cool and more cool than maggots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:In fairness, maggots are less hardcore than cauterization via gunpowder. Maggots are gross, but they don't hurt. They very precisely just eat dead flesh. Eat Flesh! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
I really liked this movie but I'm also a millennial so this thread has been very helpful to show me why it was actually bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:In fairness, maggots are less hardcore than cauterization via gunpowder. Maggots are gross, but they don't hurt. They very precisely just eat dead flesh. Well I'm glad I saw this movie and know about Hugh Glass so that in the off chance I find myself out in the wilderness with a festering wound, I know what I need to do. Build a sweat lodge
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Mr. Unlucky posted:and they're both poo poo that got more praise than they deserved. Excuse me sir but Boyhood took TWELVE Years to make!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Judakel posted:Excuse me sir but Boyhood took TWELVE Years to make! It may also take 12 years for me to get around to WATCHING it! *waits for laughter... continues waiting... sits back down*
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:16
|
|
