Read Mixed User Reviews for The Revenant (2015)

6

mahdimeshkateeMar 23, 2020

dont get me wrong, this is definitely a movie to watch, and dicaprio plays extraordinary as always and the cinematography is revolutionary. but its the screenplay and the whole story that seems irrelevant to such brilliant acting and cinematography.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

Unladenswallow0Jan 19, 2016

Was okay, plenty of action, and the bear scene was terrifying, but the rest was just leonardo going prone through the woods, swimming, observing the local bison population, and performing Grand Theft Equine before reaching the final bossWas okay, plenty of action, and the bear scene was terrifying, but the rest was just leonardo going prone through the woods, swimming, observing the local bison population, and performing Grand Theft Equine before reaching the final boss room. A lot happened in this movie, but parts of it were drawn out and laborious, a shame when you see how brilliant the first 10 minutes were.… Expand

8 of 9 users found this helpful81

All this user's reviews

6

musicforallJan 17, 2016

This movie was pretty cool but it was a little over-the-top. All the actors were compelling and the scenery, wardrobe and music were great, too. I loved the grizzly bear scene and the first fight scene.

But it got a little ridiculousThis movie was pretty cool but it was a little over-the-top. All the actors were compelling and the scenery, wardrobe and music were great, too. I loved the grizzly bear scene and the first fight scene.

But it got a little ridiculous with the constant grittiness. Reminded me of how the standard of gore keeps getting pushed from Braveheart to Gettysburg to Saving Private Ryan, etc. SPOILERS AHEAD. About the time he rode the horse off the cliff and then proceeded to live in it like a tan-tan, I started to get tired. It stopped being interesting and started being more formulaic revenge fantasy with stuff like a convenient side-kick who conveniently dies.

Basically, they could have done better with what they had. Great actors, beautiful imagery, creative chapters but it seemed like it ran off course in the last 1/3 of the movie.… Expand

9 of 11 users found this helpful92

All this user's reviews

6

foxgroveJan 20, 2016

Leonardo DiCaprio suffers with grim determination in this long and brutal story of betrayal, survival and revenge. However, this very physically demanding performance does not wow as it should. The almost total lack of dialogue for theLeonardo DiCaprio suffers with grim determination in this long and brutal story of betrayal, survival and revenge. However, this very physically demanding performance does not wow as it should. The almost total lack of dialogue for the character results in viewer alienation and a lack of empathy. One watches the horrific events unfold, but with a dispassionate detachment and some distaste. Director Alejandro G Inarritu creates a wonderful atmosphere environmentally. The locations, beautiful but forbidding, are awesomely captured by cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki whose work here is just stunning. The film is worth seeing for his achievement alone. Also many scenes have a visceral quality to them, none more so than the Indian and bear attacks which both happen within the first half an hour and are excitingly and shockingly staged. Visual effects for the bear are incredibly good. After this events meander from one bloody scene to the next leaving one somewhat anaesthetised to the grisliness of it all. Suspension of disbelief is also a requirement in accepting just how quickly DiCaprio is back on his feet after his mauling by the bear, let alone scaling mountains (one sequence shows him at the top of a mountain unable to walk; the next scene shows him drinking from the lake below!). In support, Tom Hardy also disappoints, but this is once again mainly due to a vocalisation of his character that is often unintelligible. As we all know DiCaprio will win his long overdue Oscar here, and there is no denying that he is a deserving recipient. It’s just a shame that he will be rewarded, as happens all too often by the conventional and short sighted Academy, for this performance over one of his previous more deserving roles.… Expand

7 of 9 users found this helpful72

All this user's reviews

5

City8grlJan 22, 2016

Entertaining and visually interesting.However, when making a movie about survival in nature it would be prudent to consult with a survivalist and/or a naturalist.I was quite distracted by the unrealistic portrayal of the events and theEntertaining and visually interesting.However, when making a movie about survival in nature it would be prudent to consult with a survivalist and/or a naturalist.I was quite distracted by the unrealistic portrayal of the events and the scenery. You have people walking in valleys,forests,on rocky mountaintops in winter,in no particular meaningful order, let alone with no realistic timeline for anyone to have covered that much ground or altitude.Foothills,plains and high rocky mountain terrain all look really nice but it makes no sense. At one point you even have people walking in a rainforest type biome that in no way corresponds to the others(environments both on east and west side of the Rocky Mountains).Most of the scenes,supposedly in the remote wilderness, have disturbed/trampled snow all around. There are many scenes of people tramping around in the water and then presumably surviving outside,with no shelter in wet clothes? Ten minutes in cold water and muscle function is lost so the scene where the protagonist floats down the river in winter and then sleeps on the bank when he crawls out is just ridiculous.The seeming ignorance around portraying the events in a somewhat realistic manner detracts from this movie greatly for me.… Expand

9 of 12 users found this helpful93

All this user's reviews

5

Jgieske347May 15, 2016

Beautiful scenery, Leo is wonderful, but 2 1/2 hours was 2 hours too long for me. Artsy film but not entertaining to me. On the bright side I leveled up on angry birds and caught a nap during the film.

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

6

FredinTorontoFeb 15, 2016

This is the most over-rated film of the year.The cinematography is gorgeous and unrivalled by the other films released in 2015. Other than that, I can't think of anything else complimentary to say. The plot is basic and the movie plods along.This is the most over-rated film of the year.The cinematography is gorgeous and unrivalled by the other films released in 2015. Other than that, I can't think of anything else complimentary to say. The plot is basic and the movie plods along. DiCaprio moans and grunts his way through most of it.… Expand

5 of 7 users found this helpful52

All this user's reviews

6

MarxonJan 16, 2016

It started out great with a decently paced introduction to the setting but as time went on you start to notice one or two moments of stupidity and worst of all repetitive and pointless scenes of walking and sleeping. The ending was OK andIt started out great with a decently paced introduction to the setting but as time went on you start to notice one or two moments of stupidity and worst of all repetitive and pointless scenes of walking and sleeping. The ending was OK and helped make up for the tediously boring middle sections.

To clarify on my earlier comment about 'stupid' scenes;

#1 - For whatever reason our hero decides it is a good idea to eat raw liver when their isn't just one but three perfectly good fires around him.

#2 - About half way through the film the cause of all the problems faced by our hero is revealed, I won't say what but really when you consider they meet these guys before and had men walk about the camp they failed to notice the one person the natives we're looking for?… Expand

7 of 10 users found this helpful73

All this user's reviews

5

EdeltraudJan 12, 2016

If Christian Bale had made this movie he would've dropped 50 pounds to play the role that Leo DiCaprio took on. That's just one of the suspension of belief issues that cropped up in The Revenant. I did enjoy the movie, I love outdoorIf Christian Bale had made this movie he would've dropped 50 pounds to play the role that Leo DiCaprio took on. That's just one of the suspension of belief issues that cropped up in The Revenant. I did enjoy the movie, I love outdoor adventures, but so many technical issues cropped up, it became laughable after a while.
Not to mention, the director added a good 30-45 minutes of "preciousness" with a lingering camera on a bloody patch of snow. (Nevermind the gory, gory, and gorier porno stuff. Really,close ups of nasty consumption of raw whatevers? Not necessary!)
Without spoilers, but with cues that those who've seen the movie will get, here are the fact-based, technical issues:
A bear mauling might not kill you but the encounters with cold definitely would do you in -- especially some of the dunkings, right?
A starving indigenous person waiting around in a camp for a white guy to deliver a sandwich? HUH? This person knows how to track, hunt, survive etc.without a Subway delivery.
When you rip the entrails out of a freshly killed animal when the weather is cold, there's a lot steam. (This was a big miss on the part of the director.)
No one builds a 700 pound litter to haul a guy out of the woods. Ridiculous.
How many men do you send out on a posse to catch a bad guy? One guy & an invalid? I never saw a posse that wasn't 5, 6, or 7 guys.
You get the idea ... interesting concept, nice to have drama without a lot of technology, but so many cliches, poor outdoorsmanship and waaaay too long.… Expand

6 of 9 users found this helpful63

All this user's reviews

5

ahnehnoisJan 28, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The technical achievements are impressive. The gorgeous cinematography and a hardcore central performance cannot be denied. But the film is dragged down by two problems.

The first, somewhat unavoidable, is that there aren't enough surprises. You pretty much go in knowing that the guy is getting mauled by a bear and going through a harrowing journey of survivalism. The movie would have played much better if one went in for a story about early America without knowing this, but of course, most people who even passingly read news had already heard the story, and the promotional material gave away a lot.

The second, worse, and far more avoidable problem is that the writing is far more lost than Hugh Glass ever was. The story has been embellished, Hollywood-ized, and the entire point of it has been changed. Where the true story is morally ambiguous, the movie invents a son that his teammate pointlessly murders, all of which is completely unnecessary. Silly dream sequences detract from the main character's perspective. Entire Native American storylines have been added to pad the runtime, where it would be better to make another movie separately about them. A silly and gratuitous rape was added, and a rescue invented where none really happened. And perhaps most importantly, where the real man let the people who left him behind live, this movie degenerates into a Quentin Tarantino revenge flick.

All of this serves to take a nuanced story about real people in tough circumstances and impose modern moral values and politics over it in an effort to create a more palatable narrative. This movie did not need good guys and bad guys, but yet they were manufactured anyway. Take the same skill in production and stick to the real story and you've potentially got a great movie. As it is, you've got one that looks nice, but frustratingly insults the audience's intelligence.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

4

DatamariJan 22, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie in my honest opinion isn't very impressive.
The Revenant does a lot of good things. It has great scenery and some intense action scenes; I especially like the grizzly bear scene. However, that's all I can really say good about this movie. The characters didn't really seem interesting, and the main character just seemed stupid. I can understand trying to take out a grizzly bear, but after getting back to commendable help, he proceeds to throw himself off of a cliff. I know the common argument is that he was being chased, but it still seemed like a dumb idea to make your main character injure himself over and over and OVER again. Plus the story really didn't seem engaging. The classic "get revenge for my dead son/wife" shtick didn't move me into the film. Also, this movie is SLOW. It's a few plot points, then heavy breathing while trying to survive, rinse and repeat. I didn't think it was a bad film, it just seemed boring to me. If you like this film, that's great; good for you, i'm sure many others will agree with you. I just didn't enjoy it as much as I wanted to.

The Revenant gets MY score of a 4/10.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

6

TheWaffleJan 14, 2016

This is a great movie for masochists. Fairly early on you'll come to the realization that this is going be be a long, brutal slog. Beautifully shot and acted, The Revenant is certainly a good movie. Unfortunately, it just doesn't know when toThis is a great movie for masochists. Fairly early on you'll come to the realization that this is going be be a long, brutal slog. Beautifully shot and acted, The Revenant is certainly a good movie. Unfortunately, it just doesn't know when to move on. Our hero is pushed through one brutal encounter after another to the point that it begins to feel an awful lot like a torture fetish. There is an on-going side-plot that is of little relevance to the overall storyline, except for introducing just a little more brutality into what is already a violent world.

Tom Hardy is the real star of the film, and we see him play at different levels, whereas Di Caprio is constantly turned up to 11. There isn't a scene where he's not suffering, brooding, or murdering. He endures difficulties that make Watership Down look tame, and the whole film plays like a marathon of pain with never a moment of respite. The very sparse moments of relief feel more like a sigh of exhaustion rather than moments of triumph.

I would have liked to see the filmmakers go a little less conventional with their approach to Hardy's character Fitzgerald. In some ways he's the obligatory racist villain cast against Di Caprio's earnest, heroic, damsel-saving protagonist. But with slightly different choices the film could have been less one-dimensional, and Hardy and Di Caprio could have been pitted against each other by fate and not because Hardy is just evil. Hardy's justifications for his actions make sense, and it's not clear why he needed to be lying for them.… Expand

7 of 11 users found this helpful74

All this user's reviews

5

gfnyJan 18, 2016

The film was shot in Alberta Canada and the scenery is beautiful. It is well acted and well directed. That being said, it is 2 ½ hours of imaginable brutality and suffering to the point of boredom. The storyline is weak and there shouldThe film was shot in Alberta Canada and the scenery is beautiful. It is well acted and well directed. That being said, it is 2 ½ hours of imaginable brutality and suffering to the point of boredom. The storyline is weak and there should have been more information upfront about who, what, when, where, and why to set up what the film was about. That would have given it a point of focus and make it easier to understand and endure. It was a disappointing experience . . .… Expand

5 of 8 users found this helpful53

All this user's reviews

4

hdbflyJan 15, 2016

The most overrated film of the year. Slow, overlong, lifeless--except when Tom Hardy is on the screen, and then it's electric. About halfway through, I wondered why I was supposed to care about this guy, beside the lightly-handled (andThe most overrated film of the year. Slow, overlong, lifeless--except when Tom Hardy is on the screen, and then it's electric. About halfway through, I wondered why I was supposed to care about this guy, beside the lightly-handled (and beautifully shot) annihilation of the native village he lived (?) in with his very pretty (in white man's terms) wife at some point, and his, frankly, weird relationship with his son--I felt no love between them at all, didn't believe they were even related. I guess because his family was murdered we're supposed to immediately feel for him. Except that familial relationship was never established, simply hinted at in dreams and visions, and when he barked at his son to shut up.

I actually felt for Fitzgerald, Tom Hardy's character, because we knew something about him, we knew what he wanted, we knew what his job was, what his contract was for, we know he was getting screwed no matter what. And Tom Hardy imbued his character with amazing depth in just how his expression changed when people would talk to him; he was a desperate man in desparate times. Which I suppose the Glass character was too, but his journey just started becoming totally improbable--I thought of the old silent film serial, remade in the 30s, called The Perils of Pauline, and thought this could be called The Perils of Paul . . . and yes, I know that's not his name. It became a series of coincidences that started to feel writerly and not organic. He flew off a cliff after everything else and was like, let me gut this horse!

And how did the French guys not see the sweat lodge as they were killing Glass's Pawnee bison tartare eating friend? And why didn't anybody wear hats? And how could he not have been hypothermic after being in that cold cold river for so long? And how come he couldn't place the bear right away? He could smell smoke in the air for a fire that had been put out hours ago but he couldn't hear that there was a bear behind him, as he looked all over the place?

A half an hour could have easily been cut. Easily, but none of Tom Hardy. Overrated pseudo-art.… Expand

7 of 12 users found this helpful75

All this user's reviews

4

brewsterJan 24, 2016

Expectations have a lot to do with perceptions, and movies are no exception. My expectations were high, based on Metacritic reviews and all the Golden Globe awards. First the kudos: yes, a stunningly realistic performance by De Caprio. HeExpectations have a lot to do with perceptions, and movies are no exception. My expectations were high, based on Metacritic reviews and all the Golden Globe awards. First the kudos: yes, a stunningly realistic performance by De Caprio. He will probably win the Oscar. But while physically challenging, his character wasn't deep nor difficult to portray. And the bear attack: incredibly realistic. If you watched the infamous bear attack in the German zoo, they learned well. But this 2.5 hour movie was 1 hour too long. The ending so very predictable from the outset, even though the real ending between Glass and Fitzpatrick was absolutely the opposite of what we saw: see Hugh Glass on Wikipedia. Finally, lovely scenery. But, trust me, this movie was boring with a capital B.… Expand

4 of 7 users found this helpful43

All this user's reviews

6

StevieGJDJan 22, 2016

The acting is very good in this film. I will be surprised if DiCaprio does not win the Oscar this time. The supporting performances are all very good. The cinematography is beautiful and, at times, breathtaking. But this movie is far tooThe acting is very good in this film. I will be surprised if DiCaprio does not win the Oscar this time. The supporting performances are all very good. The cinematography is beautiful and, at times, breathtaking. But this movie is far too long and self-indulgent and the end is terrible. This movie is based on a true story that ended differently. There was also an earlier version of this story that, while not as pretty as this film, was more consistent with the real story. Iñárritu can apparently do wrong in the eyes of Hollywood. But while I liked Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel, I thought Birdman had a dumb ending and the annoying artifact of the faux continuous shot was pretentious. The Revenant, while beautiful and well acted (much like Birdman was well acted), is also pretentious and far too long.I know nobody in Hollywood is going to say it, but the emperor is wearing no clothes.… Expand

4 of 7 users found this helpful43

All this user's reviews

4

papadrew7Jan 11, 2016

This is one of those movies where you watch it and at the end you're like 'why does everyone like this movie?' The movie was too long and I mean the movie really didn't even need to be made. There are far better survival movies out there likeThis is one of those movies where you watch it and at the end you're like 'why does everyone like this movie?' The movie was too long and I mean the movie really didn't even need to be made. There are far better survival movies out there like the edge ect or better revenge movies like the count of monte cristo etc. The dialogue was hard to hear/understand for me from the loud background nature or just the mumbling hard accent of the soldiers. I mean over half of the movie is mute with just dicaprio trying to survive and it just was not interesting or entertaining. I gave the movie the benefit of the doubt becauese dicaprio is an amazing actor but this movie fell flat for me. If you really want to see it just wait for it to arrive on redbox because it is not worth wasting a night out on.… Expand

4 of 7 users found this helpful43

All this user's reviews

5

Doktor_Vehicl3Jan 11, 2016

A mixed bag. Though The Revenant is an exceptionally well presented visual showpiece, it is also entirely nonsensical, ham-fistedly delivering its narrative, which like its protagonist's quest, is entirely devoid of any deep significance whenA mixed bag. Though The Revenant is an exceptionally well presented visual showpiece, it is also entirely nonsensical, ham-fistedly delivering its narrative, which like its protagonist's quest, is entirely devoid of any deep significance when it's through. This is mostly due to a disconnect in logical proceedings, which wouldn't be too big a deal if the film wasn't attempting a realistic portrayal of the world. From the moment of the bear attack all suspension of disbelief is totally gone, leaving you only to shake your head as Glass survives countless fatal situations, and crosses roads with so many people important to plots surrounding him purely by coincidence. Oh, it's because he's the best tracker that side of the country, now it all makes sense -- except for the part where he's been shredded to ribbons by a bear with only wet clothes on his back and in the forty below nights of the frontier. While the visuals and soundtrack accompanying the dream sequences were some of the highlights of the movie, I felt they became a bit heavy handed, adding different visual themes without any real substance. Some leaps in logic cast doubt over the final events of the movie, which really sticks out over whatever symbolism the filmmakers were trying to achieve with those scenes. Without spoiling anything, I will say that the climax of the film is well executed, which is good since it was the only really big payoff to look forward to. As good as it looks, it's never as immersive or as symbolic as it wants to be with its cliched and nonsensical plot, as well as few noteworthy performances. Special commendations go to Tom Hardy, who excellently portrays the only well established character in the entire film. His character is the only one I found to have inspired any curiosity, and that's a shame since he's the villain. Some great visuals aside, it's a miserable experience that strains your senses (particularly your ability to hear what characters are saying - my experience seemed to have a very poor sound mix with muffled, mumbling voices).… Expand

4 of 7 users found this helpful43

All this user's reviews

6

YorkManDec 25, 2015

Beautifully shot film, showing the harshness of the freezing environment and the struggle for man to survive and attempt to make a living.
Leonardo DiCaprio should be at least Oscar nominated for his performance as the man left for deadBeautifully shot film, showing the harshness of the freezing environment and the struggle for man to survive and attempt to make a living.
Leonardo DiCaprio should be at least Oscar nominated for his performance as the man left for dead seeking revenge against Tom Hardy's character, but I don't think he should win.
Best Director Oscar, most definitely, but the actors in the film are secondary to the gorgeous cinematography and breathtaking scenery.
As for the film, as a piece of 'work'... It's far too long, and ultimately unsatisfying as a movie. It's all visual, with no character depth at all.… Expand

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

5

OsamamahJan 2, 2016

The movie filmed well! The cinematography was breathtaking, And the story message is good ( that revenge makes you stronger and whatsoever) but the plot was so bad, it was really boring and some sense there was nothing to watch! the movieThe movie filmed well! The cinematography was breathtaking, And the story message is good ( that revenge makes you stronger and whatsoever) but the plot was so bad, it was really boring and some sense there was nothing to watch! the movie it's just too long with no reason.. Feel like it was only to show off Leonardo di caprio for trying to win the Oscar! Loved Tom hardy though he was dope! Overall they just needed a good screenplay!… Expand

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

6

BHBarryJan 9, 2016

"The Revenant" stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy in this "based in part on a true story" of mountaineer Hugh Glass and his fight for survival in the South Dakota wilderness after an almost fatal encounter with a bear. The film was"The Revenant" stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy in this "based in part on a true story" of mountaineer Hugh Glass and his fight for survival in the South Dakota wilderness after an almost fatal encounter with a bear. The film was directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Innarritu ("Birdman") who, with Mark L. Smith, co-wrote the screenplay based on the novel by Michael Punke. Although shot in Canada and Argentina, the film attempts to depict the challenges of a South Dakota winter n 1823. The word "revenant" is derived from the French word "revenir" (i.e. to return) and literally means the return of the spirit from the dead. This is the plight of Mr. DiCaprio’s character as he struggles across the barren icy wasteland for over 2 and ½ hours of viewing time. The audience also feels his pain and anguish since it too has to suffer through this ordeal as it is forced to endure a tedious and overlong excursion through the cold and unforgiving wilderness. The difference of course is that Mr. DiCaprio was paid for his suffering while the audience was not. Mr. DiCaprio’s character is enmeshed in a thin story line and basically has a non-verbal role as the script requires him to do a great amount of crawling and some groaning but, unfortunately, these do not necessarily rise to the level of great entertainment.
One must acknowledge the haunting and vitally important original musical score created by Ryuichi Sakamoto and Alva Noto and the spectacular photography of Emmanuel Lubizki. That being said, I found myself looking at my watch at least 3 times during the film in hopes that it was nearing its conclusion and wondering why I saw what the editor didn’t. I give the film a 6.0 rating for it proves once again that advertising and hype will not always make a film great but a quality screenplay and strong acting performances will. In my opinion, this film is lacking in both.… Expand

6 of 11 users found this helpful65

All this user's reviews

4

TomHugJan 9, 2016

Tedious, well-acted, interminable, beautifully filmed, failure as a story. I came in with high expectations. Problem is, there's no real story here and no character development. No character changes from their initial depiction in the story.Tedious, well-acted, interminable, beautifully filmed, failure as a story. I came in with high expectations. Problem is, there's no real story here and no character development. No character changes from their initial depiction in the story. It is beautifully filmed, and both DiCaprio and Hardy are excellent. But I was bored by this story. I can see why this movie is getting the art-house Oscar buzz, but I think you can have artistic elements and still have a well-paced story with actual development in the story line.… Expand

6 of 11 users found this helpful65

All this user's reviews

6

WiscoJoeJan 11, 2016

Mad Max: Oregon Trail

An impressive technical exercise that is often beautiful to look at and easy to admire, this is a surprisingly superficial and simplistic look at survival and revenge in the wilderness. Leonardo DiCaprio tortures andMad Max: Oregon Trail

An impressive technical exercise that is often beautiful to look at and easy to admire, this is a surprisingly superficial and simplistic look at survival and revenge in the wilderness. Leonardo DiCaprio tortures and degrades himself for your amusement for two-and-a-half hours, which is an impressive act of commitment, but doesn't do much to develop a character or tell a story. This is the 'Blair Witch' school of acting, where the exhaustion and annoyance of a real life actor is used as lazy short hand for some sort of transcendent terror that the film is too slavish to it's capital C 'Craft' to ever achieve. Again, Emmanuel Lubezki proves why he's one of the greats, but even his impressive use of natural lighting here can seem like a stiffing gimmick as one over-cast grey landscape bleeds into another. You'll keep hoping for some sunlight to eventually break through the monotony and add some dimension to both the scenery and the story.… Expand

6 of 11 users found this helpful65

All this user's reviews

5

ProsmoothJan 5, 2016

While I certainly admired it (greatly, oh so greatly) on a technical level--I just can't quite recommend it unless you're a film geek who wants to admire a director and cinematographer shooting a film using only natural light sources. ThatWhile I certainly admired it (greatly, oh so greatly) on a technical level--I just can't quite recommend it unless you're a film geek who wants to admire a director and cinematographer shooting a film using only natural light sources. That must have been a nightmare to pull off. On a screenplay level, this film just doesn't work. Sitting through this slog made me long for the fun filled times of Schindler's List. Oy vey. Leo will probably get an Oscar nod for being miserable for 2 hours. He should share it with everyone who sits through the entire exhausting thing. 5/10… Expand

7 of 14 users found this helpful77

All this user's reviews

4

katezoeJan 18, 2016

Long, boring, went to see it on the big screen because of the cinematography (not worht it). Acting is the same from beginning to end. How long can someone trudge through this bleak setting? Very disappointed. The worst movie Innarritu hasLong, boring, went to see it on the big screen because of the cinematography (not worht it). Acting is the same from beginning to end. How long can someone trudge through this bleak setting? Very disappointed. The worst movie Innarritu has done. See it when it comes out streaming and you can fast forward.… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

6

GgodardJan 13, 2016

Beautiful- gripping at times, and then-nothing albeit predictable. There was so much expert craft in the first half of the film, did the crew get tired? The mystery and symbolism that was at first intriguing, became so repetitive, that itBeautiful- gripping at times, and then-nothing albeit predictable. There was so much expert craft in the first half of the film, did the crew get tired? The mystery and symbolism that was at first intriguing, became so repetitive, that it became almost annoying. I really wished they would have followed through.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

6

gerardoguerraJan 27, 2016

Predictable and too many leaks in the Script!.
Why two men only chase one guy when they have tens of people ready to fight?
Last fight scene should be dramatic or hilarious?
Wonderful Acting, Sound and Cinematography.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

ScraperJan 30, 2016

It's just not very clever. It's a linear story that comes to believable conclusions. DiCaprio is good in the movie. He plays a battered and soul-dead survivor who rarely speaks. It's a lot of grunts and scowls. Doesn't really have theIt's just not very clever. It's a linear story that comes to believable conclusions. DiCaprio is good in the movie. He plays a battered and soul-dead survivor who rarely speaks. It's a lot of grunts and scowls. Doesn't really have the dimension. It's not his fault. He does his best with the material, but outside of the shocking violence, what is really moving you about this film? Not much.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

that_bearFeb 29, 2016

Note: reasonable spoiler, not much you won't know if you've seen the trailer.

What a disappointment! First I'm a big fan of that kind of period piece, I'm a fan of the historical, I quite like Inarratu, I don't think Leo is the bestNote: reasonable spoiler, not much you won't know if you've seen the trailer.

What a disappointment!

First I'm a big fan of that kind of period piece, I'm a fan of the historical, I quite like Inarratu, I don't think Leo is the best thing since sliced bread but I generally like him ok.
So here comes "the Revenant", great photography, all filmed in location, in natural light, with attention to details and historicity (they consulted some figure), talented director, lead actor that can act. All the stars seem aligned and that's probably what most critic though considering the overwhelmingly positive reception.

And yet, somehow, this didn't quite click for me.

First the good: photography is manificient, movie is filmed in location, in natural light, and it shows. The environnment is manificient. Picture has grain. There's grit, it's almost palpable. In this era of CGI BS it is really a benediction to see that kind of filming. It really, really is the best part of the movie, and if only for that you should see this movie, and see it again. I repeat, go see it twice.
Now, what doesn't quite work: anything else. When you put so much effort in filming "real" picture why spoil it with such an artificial script. I'm not sure if I don't like the movie because it is not the movie I wanted to see or because it really is not great.

The script really is not all that bad. Problem is such formidable filming needed a extraordinary script while what we are being given is quite pedestrian. When you got gritty visual, you'd expect true to life long, slow-paced and intense nature journey. Unfortunately this is all expedited pretty quickly. It seems the woods are full of people, trappers, indians, apparently you can't hike (or crawl) a mile without running into someone. There are guns everywhere, people shoot in every direction. The movie would qualify better as a western than as the introspective journey it is sold as.

While the movie prides itself (with reasons) for its filming it is also riddled with unnecessary CGI, and I am not even talking about the titular bear everyone has heard of. There are many dream of action sequences you could really do without. Just simplicity, no need to overload every aspect of the movie.

Which leads us to final part: the script. Maybe it's weird but I somehow found myself rooting for the bad guy (Tom Hardy's character). The first scenes of the movie quickly establish that the characters are living in an era where human life is clearly expandable, where people live miserably and then die brutally for no good reason. So people get casually killed, and then Leo get mauled and all the sudden it becomes like everyone is suddenly living by the motto "leave no one behind" and Leo is treated like he is some royalty. And then when Hardy's character decides he'll just get rid of dying Leo, which seems like a fairly reasonable decision for people who are themselves in pretty dire situation, it is treated like the most evil decision ever. This is where the movie started falling apart for me, while the movie seemed focused on being authentic it suddenly tried to artificially tack on modern morals to a gritty period piece. The movie has a choice between a fantasy character that lives by anachronical moral code and a realistic one that will do what humans do to survive... and it chooses the wrong one.

(Note: and before you tell me this is based on a true story, the only thing true is that the real Glass got abandoned and buried and somehow got back to civilisation by himself, but all the details available are pretty sketchy and romanticized).

And boy does the movie want you to feel this way, in case you might think Fitz (Hardy's character) is acting reasonably, the movie makes sure you think he is evil: he is racist, greedy, vulgar, he even is from Texas. And he kills Leo's son for odd reasons, so he definitely is unredeemable. Ok script, why not, but really isn't that a little cheap, couldn't things be a little more blurry. In the end ***Minor spoiler*** while Leo finally gets the upper hand on Hardy, he just utters "You came all this way just for your revenge, huh? Did you enjoy it?" and it really rung right to me, but than catching this thread Leo, and the movie, just treat it as some last moustache twirling taunt and just backhand dismiss it. ***/ spoiler end***

Long story short, the movie promote authenticity through cinematography and authentic locations everything else is heavy-handed and fake as sh*t.

Bonus round: also, in real life:
* Glass did get attacked by a bear
* His hunting party left two guy to bury him after he died
* They left him for dead in a shallow grave
* He didn't have a son so they couldn't kill it
* Glass forgave those that abandoned him
* It all happened in summer

-work in progress- might complete/tidy up later… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

royphishoohDec 28, 2015

Just watched The Revenant; good performance by Leonardo di Caprio but who the hell cast Amersmiff boy Tom Hardy as a Texan Fur Trapper? Absolutely terrible ham acting with a ludicrous incomprehensible accent, a real disappointment afterJust watched The Revenant; good performance by Leonardo di Caprio but who the hell cast Amersmiff boy Tom Hardy as a Texan Fur Trapper? Absolutely terrible ham acting with a ludicrous incomprehensible accent, a real disappointment after "Legend". It's directed by the Mexican fellow who did "Birdman" last year, obviously the latest flavour in Hollywood but like Birdman it's not very good.… Expand

8 of 17 users found this helpful89

All this user's reviews

6

ZlatanDec 26, 2015

Like watching a rehash of bear grylls survival guides on discovery. Sad and boring movie for me, and this is dragging on through the whole movie. Nature shots are amazing.

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

4

shravbharaJan 17, 2016

The Revenant - Review (no spoilers)
By the time the movie ended, I developed a few wrinkles myself along with Leonardo. What starts off as a gripping and grueling arrow versus gun powerball set in the 17th century amidst the beautifulThe Revenant - Review (no spoilers)
By the time the movie ended, I developed a few wrinkles myself along with Leonardo. What starts off as a gripping and grueling arrow versus gun powerball set in the 17th century amidst the beautiful Rockies, quickly turns into a quiet boring documentary about the flora, fauna and the lifestyle of ancient winter survivors. Interspersed somewhere there is a rather juvenile story-line of father avenging the son's death. Usually it is the other way around, but DiCaprio is too old to play someone's son now. Anyway, it's day, then night, then day, then night. Then flesh. Then blood. Then day. Then night. Terrific nat-geo level cinematography though. In the end, the director takes on a challenge of how to gross out the already irritated and tired audience. Well, guess how? More flesh. More blood. Finally the ordeal ends. DiCaprio deserves an Oscar, but not for this movie. Just like Rahman deserved an Oscar for Roja rather than Jai-Ho.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

4

moothemagiccowJan 18, 2016

This movie was super boring. Dude needs an editor like mad. Good fight scene at the end though. Maybe don't show so much snow and trees. We get it, it's cold.
Tom Hardy was great in it! Too bad everything else will put you to sleep.

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

6

misadventurerJan 1, 2016

The Revenant reviewed

by jd ep In short, The Revenant could just be called "Leo goes roughing it." Widely to be considered a front runner for many awards in early 2016, Alejandro Iñárritu's film about a mountain man savaged by a bear,The Revenant reviewed

by jd ep

In short, The Revenant could just be called "Leo goes roughing it." Widely to be considered a front runner for many awards in early 2016, Alejandro Iñárritu's film about a mountain man savaged by a bear, who then hunts down the man who killed his son, starring Leonardo DiCaprio & Tom Hardy, also has a lot going against it when the accolades come, more a story of Production vs Nature, the Canadian wilderness where the film was shot, in order (most films are shot out of order to make the most of the locations as needed) didn't have the amount of snow needed, so the filming had to move to Patagonia in South America to finish, a rough shoot for everyone involved, going over budget and taking more time than anyone anticipated. Though it can be said Iñárritu did not compromise for his vision, and what we get as an audience is a feast for the eyes, and heartthrob DiCaprio gets dragged through the mud for most of the film and so much worse happens to him. As for story, it's fairly barebones, DiCaprio's character of Hugh Glass (which i'm almost certain Bart Simpson called Moe's and used that name for a crank call) is hired by a fur trapping company to get them through an Indian hunting ground, the company gets attacked and they must make their way back to port, Glass goes off on his own and ends up on the wrong side of a Mama Bear who beats the crap out of him, Glass who is supposed to be a little more attuned to nature than the average Anglo, who has a half Native son, and can speak Algonquin, doesn't know how to play dead and shoots at the bear after it started walking away, for a second round of savagery where he gets brutalized even more than the initial attack, and all this happens within the first twenty minutes of the film. A couple survivors of the Fur Trapping team find him and stitch him up, the leader of the company played by Domhnall Gleeson, does the honorable thing of attempting to bring him home for a proper burial for his services rendered, though they get lost, Gleeson asks for a team of men to watch over the dying Glass and to give him a proper burial when he finally passes, while the rest go home, and offers a handsome bonus for anyone who does this service. Tom Hardy & Will Poulter (the boy from "We're the Millers") 's characters stay back with Glass's son Hawk. Hardy gets impatient that Glass won't die, so he decided to just bury him and tells Poulter to put a bullet in Glass, Hawk protests, Hardy kills DiCaprio's son, Poulter doesn't have what it takes to kill Glass and the two make their way back only to be denied their bonuses, due to the accounting of their provisions and everyone came home empty handed. Hugh Glass manages to drag himself back to the camp after finding his son dead and then pursues Hardy. Nothing else really goes on. It's a thin tale of avarice and revenge, where two handsome actors made themselves look ugly and beat each other up. The Revenant gives up the ghost. I thought maybe Hugh had died and he really was just a spirit of revenge, but how the movie ends is so anticlimactic it takes away what satisfaction could be had in a revenge tale. Though it was a very pretty film, for being so ugly.

Film Grade: C.… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

6

AntoGrayoJan 15, 2016

I honestly didn't think it was that good! The pace switched from slow to fast too much and then there was those weird dream sequences all of the time. I get it, he killed an American officer to protect his son, but if he is fighting for hisI honestly didn't think it was that good! The pace switched from slow to fast too much and then there was those weird dream sequences all of the time. I get it, he killed an American officer to protect his son, but if he is fighting for his life every day and his son has been killed by Hardy, why the **** would he keep dreaming about that one incident? It's just one of the many points that makes this film unrealistic, when that is exactly what it tries so hard to be(realistic).

Worth a watch if your a DiCaprio fan, but it's not his best piece. Wolf of Wall Street and The Departed are way better. I'll even add Gangs of New York and Titanic to that list. Also I actually felt Tom Hardy was the better actor, but that's probably down to fault of the director and I had just watched Legend. Seeing the two wildly different roles one man played made me appreciate his acting so much more.

But yeah, Revenant, mehh..… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

5

Robbor1Dec 28, 2015

The first hour IS good,they still haven't mastered slower movement with animals with cgi though(Bear Attack),Caprio shouldn't be nominated for acting here because there is very little oppurtunities,he moan's & groan's,pull's faces and get'sThe first hour IS good,they still haven't mastered slower movement with animals with cgi though(Bear Attack),Caprio shouldn't be nominated for acting here because there is very little oppurtunities,he moan's & groan's,pull's faces and get's turned over every now and then and crawl's, but should get an award for putting his body through it,great cinema-photography though but wy too long....zzz… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

4

mjmcggolfJan 15, 2016

Do not understand the hype. Too long. Cinematography was award winning. DiCaprio is ok but Hardy is a much better actor and it shows through out this movie. Big Hollywood movie with big Hollywood actors and big Hollywood hype. Don't wasteDo not understand the hype. Too long. Cinematography was award winning. DiCaprio is ok but Hardy is a much better actor and it shows through out this movie. Big Hollywood movie with big Hollywood actors and big Hollywood hype. Don't waste your money… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

5

NedRyerson1Jan 25, 2016

The Revenant is the second movie of Inarritu’s new groove, nothing like his previous films. As in Birdman, here he experiments with shooting and cinematography; which are one of the few things that goes well in this picture. The camera isThe Revenant is the second movie of Inarritu’s new groove, nothing like his previous films. As in Birdman, here he experiments with shooting and cinematography; which are one of the few things that goes well in this picture. The camera is placed precisely in the moment of both psychological and physical stress, the director chooses it at ground level and with close up to tired faces, suffering eyes, dirty hands and demolishing wounds; in order to reflect the Greek tragedy that faces the protagonist. The thing is that it does not go any further than that. There is no plot whatsoever, the script is poor, the soundtrack not outstanding and the outcome is simple and very predictable, making these 156 minutes a fight for survival, not only for the protagonist, but also for the viewer. It’s important to mention that DiCaprio’s performance is OK, nothing special, if he is awarded is just because the Academy has a debt with him. On the other hand, Hardy is really the one people should be cheering, amazing performance, no critiques. So in summary, lazy movie, probably the worst work of Inarritu.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

PattorpyFeb 17, 2016

There is no doubt that Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor and he knows how to play, but two things I remember most after I saw "The Revenant" are beautiful views and Leonardo's suffering face. Movie is pretty long and in my opinion the cameraThere is no doubt that Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor and he knows how to play, but two things I remember most after I saw "The Revenant" are beautiful views and Leonardo's suffering face. Movie is pretty long and in my opinion the camera is too many times getting close to DiCaprio to see how he hurts. There is not enough action, but when it is, it's really good.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

preciouskikiFeb 7, 2016

Too violent, too gory, and at over two-and-a-half hours, much too long. Twice, my friend leaned over and asked to see my watch, saying "How much longer?!" The performances and the production values are all excellent, but the constant goryToo violent, too gory, and at over two-and-a-half hours, much too long. Twice, my friend leaned over and asked to see my watch, saying "How much longer?!" The performances and the production values are all excellent, but the constant gory violence becomes too repetitive. The revenge aspect of the plotline was emotionally manipulative.… Expand

0 of 7 users found this helpful07

All this user's reviews

5

smasherwolfFeb 3, 2016

The scenery was great and beautiful. It makes you go "wow" a lot during the movie. The camera angles were good too, being a lot different than the angles we see in nowadays movies.
And that was the good part. The rest of the movie i did notThe scenery was great and beautiful. It makes you go "wow" a lot during the movie. The camera angles were good too, being a lot different than the angles we see in nowadays movies.
And that was the good part. The rest of the movie i did not like it AT ALL.

The movie is INSANELY long with a lot of pointless scenes that could have easily cut out. Since the story is simple and goes very slowly, along with DiCaprio's grunting for 2/3 of the movie, you lose interest quickly. A huge disappointment.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

menthysFeb 6, 2016

The only merit of this movie is its artistic side, the photography, the direction, but a movie needs A SCRIPT. It needs a freaking SOUL. We live in 2016. This is as simplistic a revenge story as it goes. Leonardo DiCaprio's character, in hisThe only merit of this movie is its artistic side, the photography, the direction, but a movie needs A SCRIPT. It needs a freaking SOUL. We live in 2016. This is as simplistic a revenge story as it goes. Leonardo DiCaprio's character, in his rightful rage, spends over 90% of his screen time grunting and moaning in pain. All those things that could have made this movie wonderful, like e.g. a TRUE focus on his family's past, are introduced just to be introduced and then thrown down the drain.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

muldjordFeb 13, 2016

I wouldn't say this movie is bad. About half the time it is actually quite good. Great acting all around and beautiful scenery. But there's a general lack of character to it. I never felt invested in the story or the main character. It justI wouldn't say this movie is bad. About half the time it is actually quite good. Great acting all around and beautiful scenery. But there's a general lack of character to it. I never felt invested in the story or the main character. It just seemed that what he was going through was so blown out of proportion that it made no sense. I didn't feel his pain, I mainly just observed and wondered.

I wasn't bored as such. But the disconnect because of the unrealistic rehabilitation was too much, so it became a nature documentary with some well-acted situations spread throughout.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

BringitbackJan 30, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Okay, you riddle me this...How does one man go through all of this "based on true events", and still live? Unless he was born on a planet far, far away? Spoiler Alert! Do not read this, unless you have actually seen the movie. First off, I felt bad about the cubs, the Pawnee girl, really bad about the son, really, bad about the Pawnee friend who helped Glass, and really, really bad about the horse )okay, really bad for the mama bear too). Now then, the real question is how? How can a human being attacked by a bear, suffer what appears to be a broken leg/ankle/foot/ uh, punctured lung, ripped off skin, nearly ripped out throat, and then live after going down rapids, wade ashore in this broken state, and then walk/limp away? Even after all of that water rapid ride (that would normally destroy a canoe, kill the average person, Glass still has the ability to have the stone and flint to make a fire AND no additional physical added problems. The flint and stone weren't lost while he was tossed around like clothes in a washing machine? And even though he was total submerged in water (hypothermia didn't play any part in this movie, it was ignored), the animal skins he was wearing, miraculously dried perfectly. The topper (one of far too many in this movie) is when he is riding a horse away from his attackers and they soar off a cliff. The horse goes off one way (lucky? for Glass) and drops to his bloody death nearby Glass. The horse is a total bloodied mess after the fall from the cliff. But "Super Glassman" drops anywhere from 150 to 300 feet, falls on his face in the snow pack, and walks away without any additional damage to his already damaged body (not one additional scratch or broken...anything). Amazing! Then, he strips down, makes a bed in the gutted out horse, when he wakes, he is amazingly "cleaned up", puts his clothes back on to go on his way. What planet was Glass from originally? Does he know Kal-el? Do they "do lunch"? It was almost too much to repeatedly see L.C. ala Glass with those baby blue eyes and the crystal clear whites of his eyes looking like he just got out of bed at a four star hotel. There's more, but it's not worth mentioning. This based on true facts script/story must have been about a number of men and put into one man's life. That's the only way it could possibly have happened. There was far too much ("you have to be kidding" under the audiences breath throughout the movie) to make this movie real. The last shot was the final slap in the face. Picture this, one more shot of L.C. looking into the lens with nice clear, rested blue eyes, and then fade to black. Always a good way to end a movie by having the main character starring into the lens. That makes us all feel so warm and fuzzy. If the movie gets any awards, it should only be for sound and photography. Set dressing looses here because of the well patterned snow pack, the trails that were far to tread on where nearly driven snow should have existed at that time, the non-existing branches in the tree and on the ground from that fall both the horse and "body" did in the one mentioned scene above. Do we see a sequel in the near future? The Revenant II, Return of The Revenant, The Revenge of the Revenant, The Revenant Prequel... (at least we have to hope it will not be picked up as a series) ugh!… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

walkabout_88Mar 6, 2016

There's an interesting contrast to see a film that strives for rawness, but such perfectly glossy, polished, digitally shot landscapes. The sense of despair, conversely, is mostly rendered by close-ups and lots of graphic details. It keepsThere's an interesting contrast to see a film that strives for rawness, but such perfectly glossy, polished, digitally shot landscapes. The sense of despair, conversely, is mostly rendered by close-ups and lots of graphic details. It keeps this level of schizophrenia very high, with beautifully choreographed action scenes that result in massive amounts of graphic detail, as well as postcards of the astonishing locations viciously, obsessively enriched with blood and various degrees of happily detailed internal organs. It's likely of one of those works who dare its viewers to watch. Hardy sounds like a clearer Bane, here.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

nj06Jan 24, 2016

Fine acting, fine landscapes, nice costumes and sets, but a very thin and an extremely slow moving story. The movie length could have easily been cut by half and it would still move at a slow pace. If you are not a connoisseur ofFine acting, fine landscapes, nice costumes and sets, but a very thin and an extremely slow moving story. The movie length could have easily been cut by half and it would still move at a slow pace. If you are not a connoisseur of cinematography and vistas or of triage of wounds, you will be bored, and that is a guarantee. The ending fight scene is full of cliches seen hundreds of times in other movies. Solid, but not spectacular, work by DiCaprio. He will get his Oscar this year, mainly because of amazing work in his previous movies.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

RatedRexJan 24, 2016

After a promising 1st act the "The Revenant slows to crawl. There are too many scenes of survival that have nothing to do with the story. The film could have easily been cut by 30 minutes. Actually, the most interesting part of the movie wasAfter a promising 1st act the "The Revenant slows to crawl. There are too many scenes of survival that have nothing to do with the story. The film could have easily been cut by 30 minutes. Actually, the most interesting part of the movie was the Pawnee chief's search for his kidnapped daughter. Leonardo DiCaprio does grunting and grimacing well. He will win the Oscar, but any decent actor would have done well with such a meaty role. Alejandro Inarritu's direction of the battle scenes is exceptional. There is a realism in the opening scene, especially, that is unique. If only the story could have justified the movie's length.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

Judge_ReddFeb 8, 2016

Color me unimpressed. The production value behind this film was its strong suit, with some beautiful cinematics, lighting, and a very apt soundtrack. That said, I frequently wondered how individual scenes, and subsequently the film as aColor me unimpressed. The production value behind this film was its strong suit, with some beautiful cinematics, lighting, and a very apt soundtrack. That said, I frequently wondered how individual scenes, and subsequently the film as a whole, would have benefitted from a different director. The acting between the leads, particularly DiCaprio, was distractingly bad at points, bordering on comical, and the plot was poorly executed.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

yosemiteJun 24, 2016

Leo is my favorite actor. See all of his films. Don't think he should have won the AA. Too little dialogue. Very realistic film. I'm sure the old pioneers were as violent as portrayed. Survival of the strongest in a wilderness that took noLeo is my favorite actor. See all of his films. Don't think he should have won the AA. Too little dialogue. Very realistic film. I'm sure the old pioneers were as violent as portrayed. Survival of the strongest in a wilderness that took no prisoners. I know about dramatic license but I don't think the human body could take the damage that Leo's character and survive in the brutal cold.At the end of the day, do you want to be entertained by a movie. If you do, don't see this one. Its a good film that is not enjoyable to watch.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

Ki-Rich51Jan 25, 2016

Смотрел нахаляву на одном сайте с нормальным графоном и озвучкой. Не очень понравился. Скучно было смотреть, но история привлекательная. Лео сыграл тоже хорошо. 5/10Смотрел нахаляву на одном сайте с нормальным графоном и озвучкой. Не очень понравился. Скучно было смотреть, но история привлекательная. Лео сыграл тоже хорошо. 5/10

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

misterpJan 31, 2016

Bearly entertaining. Good special effects in one scene. Good cinematography. Especially bad script especially in overall plot. Needed something to hold it all together. Movie proves that how a story is told makes a huge difference. Acting wasBearly entertaining. Good special effects in one scene. Good cinematography. Especially bad script especially in overall plot. Needed something to hold it all together. Movie proves that how a story is told makes a huge difference. Acting was not so good.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

TonyBurritoFeb 1, 2016

Saw the movie yesterday, I had mixed feelings about it, overall I find this movie empty.
Pros: Good actors, impressive scenery and camerawork, bear scene.
Cons: Little to no story, was too long, feels like 90% of the effort went intoSaw the movie yesterday, I had mixed feelings about it, overall I find this movie empty.
Pros: Good actors, impressive scenery and camerawork, bear scene.
Cons: Little to no story, was too long, feels like 90% of the effort went into visuals, characters are simple.
I expected much more, this movie deserves an oscar for the scenery but the actors didn't do much to earn it.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

AntonishereFeb 1, 2016

Í´m disappointed, with all the hype and nominations that this movie had I felt the need to go see it, even on release date and with terrible seats for not planning it very well. And even if the acting, direction, shots and production valueÍ´m disappointed, with all the hype and nominations that this movie had I felt the need to go see it, even on release date and with terrible seats for not planning it very well. And even if the acting, direction, shots and production value are there the characters are not interesting or fleshed out (except for Tom´s Hardy character), its not the actors fault that the script was boring and the pacing average at best.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

4

FinixFeb 9, 2016

Excuse...but I don`t understand why everybody kills everybody...yes the landscape an the film technique is great and the physically action of Leo...but...I surly don`t take a look at this film a second time!

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

will2econdFeb 12, 2016

First Act. Awesome, Last Act. Good. Directing and Cinematography is simply gorgeous and beautiful. Where this movie falls apart for me is the lack of interest continuing to increase during the second act of the movie. This particular actFirst Act. Awesome, Last Act. Good. Directing and Cinematography is simply gorgeous and beautiful. Where this movie falls apart for me is the lack of interest continuing to increase during the second act of the movie. This particular act becomes unbearably boring and motionless. This movie would've been much better if the length was shorter. This movie lingers on way too long knowing that the story is simple and straight to the point.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

brometheusFeb 21, 2016

In this anti-bear propaganda film, Leonardo DiCaprio brings acting of a caliber that would make zipping a fly look excruciatingly difficult. The role of native american ventriloquist was expertly edited. Tom Hardy brings to the screen anIn this anti-bear propaganda film, Leonardo DiCaprio brings acting of a caliber that would make zipping a fly look excruciatingly difficult. The role of native american ventriloquist was expertly edited. Tom Hardy brings to the screen an accent like has never been heard before. The plot is very deep and requires effort to understand, with character development layered in so thinly you might think it isn't there.

10/10 for delivering everything I could not capture on my trip to Yellowstone.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

NickTheCritickApr 1, 2022

This film gives me a lot of perplexity. The shots are rather anonymous and do not leave me much. The shot in the scene of Hugh Glass being attacked by the bear, for example, doesn't give me that sense of fear and anguish it should convey. TheThis film gives me a lot of perplexity. The shots are rather anonymous and do not leave me much. The shot in the scene of Hugh Glass being attacked by the bear, for example, doesn't give me that sense of fear and anguish it should convey. The whole film revolves around the beautiful Alberta's landscape and Dicaprio massacred by the forces of nature. It remains a decent movie.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

TyranianAug 13, 2019

A fairly thrilling visual feast though the characters are not very interesting or complex.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

TowelzzJan 16, 2016

A solid film but a bit overrated. This film has a decent script, strong acting, and beautiful cinematography.... But it just doesn't feel like an overall satisfying film. I think the biggest problem with this movie is that it doesn't knowA solid film but a bit overrated. This film has a decent script, strong acting, and beautiful cinematography.... But it just doesn't feel like an overall satisfying film. I think the biggest problem with this movie is that it doesn't know whether it wants to be a survival film or a revenge film. It introduces itself as a revenge film but 90% of time, it seems that its just a survival film. Only at the very end does it suddenly switch back to a revenge film. And the plot doesn't really go anywhere in terms of character development and story. Its more or less just telling us "DiCaprio has to go through a lot, look at how much he has to go through" so much to the point where it's like: Yeah we get it, is the plot/story going to advance anywhere?

***SPOILER ALERT***

One of the BIGGEST issues I have with this film is the ending. And by that I mean DiCaprio's character not finishing off Hardy and instead letting his fate be put "in God's hands." Ummm wtf??? Where the hell did this "death is in the hands of God" theme come from and why??? Not a single moment throughout the entire film did DiCaprio's character reference God/religion so why have this unnecessary and random revelation??? It would have been a MUCH more satisfying and sensible ending if DiCaprio had killed Hardy himself. A very poor "twist" and definitely one of the weakest points in the script.

Despite its flaws, this is still a decent film, though I would certainly say that it does NOT deserve to be nominated for Best Picture.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

apannilssonAug 11, 2020

Good actors, nice cinematography but otherwise very predicable and pointless story.
Felt like a patchwork of different mayor movies from the past 20 years.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

GoTV32May 6, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well done production-wise, and good acting I guess (even though there's rarely someone for Leo to interact with). But there was too much just watching horrible **** happen to the main guy. Also some unbelievable plot points. Riding a horse off a cliff, but saved by a pine tree? Come on, the guy shoulda been dead halfway through. Lost points for halfhearted mystical bull**** as well.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

moviedoc24Oct 14, 2016

The most interesting (and probably only significant female) character) in this leaden macho melodrama is the mama bear. The rest is Werner Herzog rip offs (trying to recreate the grueling filming of Fitzcarraldo and showing us the thing thatThe most interesting (and probably only significant female) character) in this leaden macho melodrama is the mama bear. The rest is Werner Herzog rip offs (trying to recreate the grueling filming of Fitzcarraldo and showing us the thing that Herzog doesn't show you in Grizzly Man), overindulgent camera work and a plodding, flat script. Oscar-bait written all over it, there is little story or character development. deCaprio fails to make you forget that he is deCaprio ACTING his most Oscar worthy and doing this film to pretend like he is in a situation that in reality he would not have the first idea what to do in, with a crew waiting with a blanket and a hot drink nearby. Voyeuristic, grim and pointless.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

JudgeofjudgesFeb 19, 2018

How did he get an Oscar for this one ? Should be more like for all the other performances they overlooked. The move itself is boring AF.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Aloxb3Jul 3, 2017

De um ponto de vista técnico, "O Regresso" é muito bom. A maioria das cenas foram filmadas apenas com a luz natural, a angustia de ver o personagem do DiCaprio rastejando por duas horas acaba gerando, ao telespectador uma certa revolta contraDe um ponto de vista técnico, "O Regresso" é muito bom. A maioria das cenas foram filmadas apenas com a luz natural, a angustia de ver o personagem do DiCaprio rastejando por duas horas acaba gerando, ao telespectador uma certa revolta contra o "vilão", há uma boa interpretação de todos do elenco e as cenas são feitas de uma perspectiva bem interessantes mas...Do que se trata esse filme? Vingança? Morte? Traição? Sinceramente:Não sei! Não é um filme que tenha um significado, não passa nem perto de ser profundo ou passar uma mensagem, enfim, quem gosta de aspectos técnicos de Direção e Fotografia de Cinema provavelmente irá adorar esse filme, no entanto, há uma grande probabilidade de depois de duas horas de filme, os créditos começarem a subir e você perguntar pra alguém do seu lado: Acabou? e a pessoa te responder:Acho que sim.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

IsjanHamelJun 7, 2019

To me, this is a good way to show how you can make the whole movie boring by not showing any real backstory to make us feel more connected to the Sorry Leo, love you bra.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

AdamNasserJan 19, 2020

That **** put me to sleep as fast as Transformers 2 did. I dropped it immediately after the bear scene everyone thinks is brutal and is the movie's highlight but screw em

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews