Monday 1 February 2016

Film: 'The Revenant'

Well, I'm glad that's out of the way!

I should imagine that most of those who had any interest in seeing this film will have done so by now, which gets me rather neatly off the hook, not wishing to go on at length about this deeply uncomfortable experience. I only felt I ought to go at all because so much has already been said about it and it's going to figure large in the forthcoming awards ceremonies. If Leo DiC does get the 'Best Actor' Oscar and BAFTA, for which he's currently favourite to win, I shan't be forward in complaining. Tom Hardy was good too but I did find his speech often incomprehensible - not inaudible, but I just couldn't understand what he was saying much of the time.
Many scenic panoramas, mostly snow-covered, which are quite breath-takingly spectacular.
As for director Alejandro Inarritu, I almost got the feeling that he was relishing the showing of so much gore and violence, some of it even meted out on humans! Felt my nose was being rubbed in it so that I didn't fall asleep, which I don't think I'd have done anyway, despite the film's almost three hours' length.

In terms of my own 'enjoyment', I award it a fairly reasonable....................6.

16 comments:

  1. I'm glad you took the time to mention this film, because there's so much hype about it. And I haven't seen it.
    It would have to be exceptionally good for me to want to spend three hours in a wilderness wonderland. But I suppose I could risk it....

    As for DiCaprio - I've always had mixed feelings about him. Most of the time he has come across as an arrogant, obnoxious, pain-in-the-ass little punk (as in "Titanic").....but other times his acting is reasonably good - almost very good.

    Okay, I'll admit I had the "hots" for him when he was very young.....but my former passion has cooled greatly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just watched the "official" two-minute trailer - which seemed more like ten minutes. I'm not sure if I could tolerate three hours.

      Delete
    2. One for those who are up for a gruelling experience, Jon. I came out thinking "Why should I have actually PAID to have gone through that?" I'd rather have been back home reading a good book. Not sure if I can take any more of the masochism involved in this sort of thing.

      I've never found Leo particularly attractive but I do think he's a good actor - and justice will be served if he finally does get recognition for this part.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Didn't need to, J.G., as everyone else has. Though I did think that it was heartless of Leo to have left its poor baby-cub alone, bereft of its parent.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There isn't a current movie that interests me less than this. Innaritu aside, there seems nothing appealing here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you need a real reason to see it, Blobby - mine being out of a 'sense of duty', seeing that it was going to be one of this year's most significant films. But it's seriously made me question whether that's now a sufficient reason to make me suffer so.

      Delete
  5. I'm with Blobby. This one just doesn't do it for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no reason then, Bob, to give you my advice to keep clear of it. If you had seen it I like to think you'd be wishing you'd followed what I said.

      Delete
  6. Ray,
    Glad you reviewed the film. I have to agree with you giving it a 6 out of 10. I liked the "reality", such as the "air-conditioned" fort (no wallboard in that fort). The cinema photography was outstanding and the CGI bear was certainly realistic but three hours of nastiness? Like my friend Pat said, it was a little like watching a Road Runner movie - "how much more can he take? What's next? An Acme anvil dropping on his head?"
    Thanks again for the review Ray. Always appreciated and valuable as you are.
    Ron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I class this as one of those "Why did I bother?" films, Ron, though I know the answer - because it would have been expected of me. I was gritting my teeth so much I'm surprised there's any left. No fun at all. Hardly what one can call entertainment! The next 'toughie' film that comes out I'll have to give serious thought to skipping, for the sake of my health at least!

      Delete
  7. Ray - this movie really didn't do it for me. I appreciate good scenery and good technology but its story and, somehow, my having a sense of involvement in a film is what's important. There was nothing really for me to think about apart from wondering what is the next dilemma our hero will encounter. Also I guess for the most part I'm not a big fan of long movies. I actually gave it the same score as did Ron. Thanks for your reviews. Much appreciated.

    Pat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Pat. I regret the likelihood that this film will linger in my mind longer than I'd like it too. I feel slightly soiled by the experience.
      Because of my nature I felt more for the suffering of animals than for humans, even though aware that probably no actual animal suffered real harm. (Was that horse on the boat being shot in the head a 'technical effect' or was it real? - perhaps using a horse that was going to be slaughtered anyway? It looked real - though mind you, so did the bear.
      When the story is reduced to its basic essentials it was quite old-fashioned, being one of a chase for just revenge on the perpetrator with, as you suggest, Leo having to undergo an obstacle course of trials to get to his destination. But I really was longing it to end for much of the time, probably after about 10 minutes!

      Delete
  8. I was intrigued to hear of this movie, for the title is a word I have liked for many years. It is the actual true translation for the Ibsen play "Ghosts". Really should be "Reverants".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting comment. I'd known what a 'revenant' was without looking it up and was confused at it being used as the title of this film, but didn't think more about it. But now I can see that it applies to the DiCaprio character having been left for dead, then 'returning'.
      I hadn't known it was the true and better title of that wonderful and shattering Ibsen play too, which now also makes more sense.
      Reverants? I think I'll stuck with 'Revenants'.

      Delete