The Revenant is a bleak tale that is Based on True Events*** about Hugh Glass (Leo), an 1820s frontiersman who is tasked with helping a fur trapping party navigate Native American controlled wilderness. They are attacked and forced to flee, leading to a sequence of events where Leo is mauled by a bear in an excessive 15 minute scene. He then is betrayed by one of his fellow pelt traders (Tom Hardy) and left for dead. The film has a couple of other meandering plot points, but in the end becomes just a simple revenge tale.
*** There once was a Guy name Hugh Glass and he wrote a letter about being attacked by a bear.
What I liked :
The visuals. Early after its release, I heard all about how the budget ballooned and production was delayed due to the director's and cinematographer's insistence to only shoot in natural light. This sounded like a gimmick to me at first. Just because a film was difficult and challenging to make does not elevate it to high art. After seeing the film, I can say that it has a unique visual style I've never seen before. It almost feels like you are watching some type of nature documentary, not a fictional Hollywood production. During the opening shots I almost felt I could reach out and stick my hand into the flowing water on the screen. Seeing actors silhouetted by a setting sun during and extended, one take action sequence is enough to make you marvel at film making again. Seeing it in HDR and 4K is also quite the treat.
The World Building. The Revenant is just as much a
Tom Hardy. Deserved the Oscar more than Leo did.
What I'm Not Sure I Liked:
Hey, Film Academy, look at my long takes. Aren't they impressive? Giv Oscar Pls. I'm a sucker for long, unbroken takes. What makes me appreciate them even more is when they're hardly noticeable. They become annoying when the director seemingly draws attention to them in order to show off at how good of a director he is, which happens a few times. There is also some digital-editing trickery where the camera does a fast "woosh" movement to blatantly hide a cut. That kind of thing makes me roll my eyes a bit. It pulls me out of the movie more than just a standard cut would have done. If you're going to do long shots, doing them subtly is more impressive (this does happen a few times and the director deserves props for that.)
ATTACK OF THE BEAR. The CGI bear was pretty impressive. Not sure Leo needed to be mauled for 10 minutes straight for us to get the point though.
What I Didn't Like:
Leo. While he's a perfectly fine any competent actor, I just never bought his character. I get his desire for revenge. I just don't get him as a character or person. Many of the supporting cast feel more lively in comparison, while Leo is just Leo with a funny accent that sometimes is there and sometimes isn't. "But!" I hear you cry "He ate real raw fish and deer liver! And hes a vegetarian! He's so committed!" Cool. I don't care. Like I said above, just because something is physically challenging does not automatically elevate it to high art.
The Son/Wife Flashbacks. They were kind of silly and really didn't flesh out Leo's character at all. You could have saved 20-30 minutes in run time and made this a leaner, faster paced revenge story. I feel that these sequences throw off the pacing a bit and bloat the run time.
Bottom Line: 4/5 Its a competently told, beautifully shot revenge story that was over-hyped with Oscar buzz and conservative bloggers claiming that film contained a bear-rape scene.
