The Revenant: Iñárritu, DiCaprio

http://www.youtube.com/embed/B3mPXPkiJtk

Wrong link above. Here it is. Like a video-game version of a William T. Vollmann novel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRfj1VCg16Y

I am excited this movie is coming out because it means Leo can finally get a decent haircut.

should be good on mute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoebZZ8K5N0

looks good

of course it looks good

heard a rumor tom hardy punched inarritu in the face on set during filming

wholeheartedly approve if true. am interested in the movie regardless

Mostly/entirely shot with only natural light.

First half of the trailer could be an Electronic Arts preview for a new game.

lots of pouty actors in this

looks like a stupider less fun take on Dead Man

lots of pouty actors in this

A lot to pout about on the frontier!

heard a rumor tom hardy punched inarritu in the face on set during filming

think there was a real attempt at a herzog/kinski type environment for this. by all accounts it was hell.

I'm actually cautiously looking forward to this. Seems like the story/setting might curb Innaritu's worst instincts

heard a rumor tom hardy punched inarritu in the face on set during filming

he deserves the Nobel Prize.

i dont even hate all of that dude's movies (amores perros is still the jam, 21 grams has its moments) but there has not been a single account to suggest he is anything other than a complete pretentious twathammer

Did anyone punch Tom Hardy in the face though?

heard a rumor tom hardy punched inarritu in the face on set during filming

he deserves the Nobel Prize.

I want to enjoy the warm glow of this possible fact before it gets repurposed as For Your Consideration "difficult birth" trivia or whatever.

A lot to pout about on the frontier!

i didnt mean the emotions per se, i meant squinchy-faced lippy actors up to the age of 40

Good reviews overnight from the first screening.

Adam B. Vary
‏@adambvary
Will Poulter says they'd rehearse every detail in scene for in THE REVENANT in the woods, come back a month later, & not remember anything.

DiCaprio diplomatically calls making THE REVENANT "a beautiful blur," & the scramble to shoot in natural light "like an unfunny SNL."

Dicrapio is an unbeautiful blur.

i like the michael hurley song

some of the trailers used this song from last year, really cool piece of modern classical inspired by looming global warming apocalypse :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGva1NVWRXk

like used about 30 seconds of it obv

so David Thomson has flipped for this

http://www.filmcomment.com/blog/david-thomson-the-revenant-alejandro-g-inarritu/

“Wilderness” is no longer a romantic word for environmentalists to enthuse over in their drawing rooms. It is the inferno that disdains civilization, and offers “beauty” as a torment to our hopes and vanity.

For anyone who spends much time in wilderness, it is neither of these overheated exaggerations.

Still haven't seen Birdman, and I wasn't sure if I could see a film called The Revenant, which is a shorter title than Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes, but probably, maybe, better. If there's a Michael Hurley song, though, maybe.

Just as Iñárritu’s Birdman deconstructs performance, so The Revenant is tense with self-assessment.

I dread the film school essay that will cite this sentence

didn't realize & cant believe this cost $135 mil to make

that's when they give u money to burn, after yr Oscar

He was halfway through shooting this when the Oscars happened, but there hadn't been much snow yet :-(.

“Wilderness” is no longer a romantic word for environmentalists to enthuse over in their drawing rooms. It is the inferno that disdains civilization, and offers “beauty” as a torment to our hopes and vanity.

It's weird that they'd quote Herzog and not cite their source.

For the first hour I was immensely enjoying this, some great cinematography by Lubezki for sure. I am not a fan of Inarritu, but thought I'd give this one a try. For the last hour and a half it is a typical load of Inarritu balls - just overdone yawnsome bombastic bollocks.

I don't get how extended scenes of strained facial expressions make a movie. Yet here you go!

https://41.media.tumblr.com/1e14e54c66adbd981a4f01b7d232d707/tumblr_mi09cxzrHJ1r0btqdo1_500.jpg

Got through to the end, enjoyed thoroughly. the nature alone is worth viewing.

I enjoyed it a lot, but didn't know that much about it - I only saw it as a cheap mystery movie, we were convinced it was going to be Spotlight.

You really feel like you're in Leonardo's bronchial passages, for all the NATURE it's very close in, one neat gimmick with the camera lens in particular. My friend claimed that the lack of space disqualified it as a western.

I made me want to rewatch Ride with the Devil.

You can definitely see a lot of money on film - but some of the cost is they outlasted Canada's snow and moved it to Argentina to finish?

Also regarding the Tom Hardy punching (and general Herzogianism) - apparently Hardy didn't like some of the realism the Iñárritu wanted, so the director let Hardy choke him out - someone took a photo, and that is the cast t-shirt.

iirc The weather in Argentina was also terrible and delayed shooting.

I really despised the trailer - lol @ natural lighting/well shot etc. Pure hammy technocratic nonsense. Lets burn a pile of money instead.

Friend wants to see this so I'll go on about how terrible this is afterwards on here too.

I generally dislike Iñarritu but I thought this was hallucinatory and/or intense.

fisheye lens very much in use

Reading in American Cinematographer magazine how some of their lenses warped due to extreme conditions and some of the resulting shots were kept in because of their unique look. But fisheye wasn't intentional it seems.

Nice Jodorowsky "Holy Mountain" homage early in the film, too.

"lol @ natural lighting/well shot etc. Pure hammy technocratic nonsense. Lets burn a pile of money instead."

yeah how dare anyone admire the technical and aesthetic elements of a film, wtf kind of post is this

apparently xyz just wants people in a room talking, single static cam

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

Funny cause it could have so easily been achieved with CGI that I'm not sure whether it would have made any difference.

Yeah, seriously. I'm not sure I gave it any thought beyond thinking it was a bit on the nose.

I'm glad they made the filming as grueling and painful as possible

hey, Glass was black in an earlier script.

The subtext revolves around the fact that Glass is an African-American male in the 1820’s West. Basically, the author examines what it means to treat someone with the respect they deserve based on their abilities and aptitudes. Glass is, by far, the most competent of the men in his group, but he is also the best of them by whatever ethical maxim you choose. His treatment in the story is a commentary on meritocracy in general.

I say all this in the removed terminology of “meritocracies and ethical maxims” because I believe this Black List draft leaves its subtext wildly unploughed—as many weeds as fruits spring from this story land. A de facto proof of this is Leo’s casting as Glass. If being an African-American is so unimportant to the story that it only gets made when it is re-written for a White actor, then being an African-American was never important to Glass’ story to begin with.

I will see this film when it comes out in theatres because I want to understand what Inarritu’s draft does to resolve this problem. As we will see in question three a new engine [at minimum] is required for Glass. Many of the plot points in this story hold no water if Glass is white.

https://searchingforcharliekaufman.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/the-revenant/

not the most authoritative, but wiki says "Glass was born c. 1783 in Pennsylvania, to Scots-Irish parents who had immigrated from Ulster in Ireland."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass#Early_life

but yeah i guess with all the liberties they took, might as well make him into a fairy black prince for all i care

also lol

How long exactly? After pilot Sully Sullenberger famously landed a jet in the Hudson River in 2009, Scientific American asked emergency room physician Christopher McStay how long passengers could have survived in the 5 C water.

“Generally, a person can survive in 5 C water for 10, 15 or 20 minutes before the muscles get weak, you lose coordination and strength, which happens because the blood moves away from the extremities and toward the center, or core, of the body,” McStay told the journal.

People with a good deal of body fat may last longer, he said. But DiCaprio is clearly not among them.

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/a-bear-mauling-didnt-kill-leo-dicaprios-the-revenant-character-but-hypothermia-shouldve

Still haven't seen this, but finally got around to The Grey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvkiG3lGuUQ

The Grey>>>The Revenant.

this was excellent, I'm surprised at the backlash here but I guess I should expect it. Also the avalanche: that was one scene that I was almost positive was CGI, wow.

Yes, I also thought it was excellent. The soundtrack was fantastic as well.

"why did this movie use the names of real people in a similar situation when all of the details are made up?"

it's a dramatization and that happens all the time in literature and film? what a dumb question.

I was surprised to learn any of this at all was based on a real person.

This was excellent

No he wouldn't have survived any of it, fuckin congrats.

there are no dumb questions, just dumb Hollywood

Think I'll go see this tonight instead of watching the Oscars.

you can watch the Oscar clips and save ya $15

If you see "The Revenant," you might still have time to catch the last two hours of the Oscars.

did i say this was pretty cool & exciting until leo finally got to the base but became totally dull & pointless after? he got fucked by a bear! and rode an unwise horse off a cliff! and hothed it, and totally froze multiple more times, and ate gross buffalo, and all kinds of crazy shit. after all that, who cares if he gets revenge on mumbles with wolves guy?

lol i knew leo screamed and cried enough to win that sweet sweet oscar

He ate raw liver! He's a vegetarian! If that isn't acting, what is?

he screamed and cried in another language too did you see??

Who was better, like significantly better in a likely role/movie this year tho

The bear.

Ha

I mean, significantly better in a likely role is kind of stacking the deck anyway, this was a likely winner because it's a very much the sort of huffing puffing performance of adversity that the academy tends to award - it's gotten a bit better from the 90s run of Silence of the Lambs / Scent of a Woman / Forrest Gump / Leaving Last Vegas / Shine (though there was definitely a bit of "Beat that!" in Eddie Redmayne's win as Stephen Hawking last year), but there's still a sense of "I want a Oscar - what should be wrong with me?"

Has a director ever won two years in a row before?

Mankiewicz and Ford.

Leo's acting was good when he was rolling around in agony, unable to talk.

Hardy was better in the same movie.

Leo at least had an excuse for his unintelligible mumbling.

it would be cool if there was a video game of this movie.

http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/issue/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/dysentery.jpeg

Seeing this was a much better way to spend 2.5 hrs than any awards show.

Struggling to think of a lower bar tbh

There are a lot of ILM threads that will meet you halfway (and a lot of ILE threads in fairness, and they're less likely to have decent music)

Slightly higher bar: I liked it.
Next rung up: it was worth the $9.50 I paid to see it.
Beyond that, I'm not qualified to say.

I thought it was a great movie.

Yeah, I had no problem with it, it was a great Movie. That is, big screen, spectacle, well-made, had a vision. It just didn't have anything to say, imo, which left it kind of shallow/hollow.

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

Yeah, that was there, but I didn't get anything deeper from it. That's not what the movie was "about" really, was it? it was about dogged revenge, or toughness or something vague and violent. Like I may have noted, like poor-man's Malick, with the craft and vision but minus the courage of ambiguity/mystery/natural magic or whatever.

Like a malick, u mean

http://i.imgur.com/xeCbQws.jpg

when is he playing Welles

lol gr80 that pic...

leo was good in this and i figured he'd get the oscar. anyway mostly i'm just glad eddie redmayne didn't win. also, Josh in Chicago otm

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.

Totally forgot I started this thread, but never actually saw the film until tonight. Luckily in 35mm in a theater. Love cold-weather movies in the middle of summer. Thought it was filmed in northern Canada, and actually thought that's where it was set as well--whoops. Totally into it.