• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

New Movie The Revenant?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A little disappointed in The Revenant. Guns and gear looked good enough. Great photography. Action packed! And I could live with changing up the real story to make it about revenge on the men that left him for dead. But the underlying theme was that the Indians were good. The trappers and other white men,with the exception of Glass and a few others, were bad. :hmm:

GW
 
Wouldn't be too hard to track a man down in the snow, when he only had a short lead on you, and him figuring he might as well face you now, as looking over his shoulder for the next few weeks.

No experience with blood and powder but...way back when I first started with flintlocks, and didn't know much more than how to load it, I left it sit for 6 months loaded, with the powder charge saturated with WD-40. A friend pulled the charge, which came out in one piece, ball, patch, and powder, like a plug. He touched a match to the still wet powder and it went off right now!
 
Well as a movie I enjoyed it very much , the filming was just ..... :thumbsup: :hatsoff: :applause: :applause: the acting was :applause: :applause: :hatsoff: as for the whites :idunno: some good some bad as for the natives some good some bad , can only do great wonders for our sport and hobbies .
 
I finally saw it yesterday and I guess I give it a C. If it wasn't a movie about flintlocks, mountain men and guns/horns, I wouldn't even be remotely interested in seeing it again, it just left me feeling rather, "mehhhh" about it. My wife liked it though and I was concerned that she wouldn't. The language didn't bother me, nor did the length of the film, I guess it was mostly the historical accuracy and mistakes with the guns that put me off, though there was something else too and I can't put my finger on it.

I thought the acting was very good and the scenery was nice. Seeing flintlocks and mountain man themes (beaver trapping for instance) was nice. When it comes out on HBO and shows up in my living room, I'll probably watch it again, but I won't buy the DVD or make it part of my regular rotation.
 
Zonie said:
Not to pick on you but, the frizzen on every flintlock I've ever fired was open when the gun went off.

I'm guessing you meant that the frizzens were open before the cock began to fall and the gun fired anyway?

After the bear mauls him pretty bad the bear goes over to the cubs. Glass crawls and gets ahold of his rifle. The frizzen is open and he mounts it against his leg while he is laying back in pain. The gun miraculously is primed with the frizzen back at the moment of firing but I don't believe you can see it. All I remember is Glass getting ready to shoot the griz with his frizzen in the forward position.

Near the end he is going after his antagonist and dismounts his horse and grabs his rifle and takes off after the bad guy with an open frizzen again.

The only other blooper is the 30 inch barreled Pedersoli Bess's you see a lot of.

At the beginning he puts balls in his mouth and spits them down the barrel after loading straight from the horn.

Bob
 
Rifleman1776 said:
BTW, was the 'f' bomb common in the day? I went alone, this is not a wimmens movie.

I expect the "F" bomb was at least as widely used then as it is now. The word goes back at least 8 or 9 centuries. These were hard men.

Oh, and my Wife loved the movie...wants to see it again! When I told how about this thread, she responded: "Nitpickers" :grin: "They have too much time on their hands. It's a movie."

On the other hand, my two daughters were turned off by the historical and geographical inaccuracies. They lamented:"Why couldn't they have just stuck with the original story...dumped the whole bit about the son and wife...developed more on the help of the Indian...and that Glass' motive for seeking out the men who abandoned him was to recover his rifle as much as any revenge."

They thought the opening scene of the Arikara attack was great. And they caught that Glass had picked up a second pistol.
 
Rifleman1776 said:
Saw it last night. Good movie. Best film of the year, best actor? Not so sure about that. But, I have to admit Dicaprio did a good job. I'm no fan of the pretty boy stars but Leonardo pulled it off. Yes, I noted some historical innaccuracies. Only one that bothered me was the rapid fire flint pistol. Story was probably as close to reality as some of the written versions I have read. I will say the cinematography was incredible, that might be Oscar worthy. Very good movie overall. Great? Not quite. BTW, was the 'f' bomb common in the day? I went alone, this is not a wimmens movie.
I often wondered about strong language in the old days. Through much of the 17th century sailors could be punished for swearing. Often we read 'g*d d**n' or 'h**l'written in old works. The f word shows up in court documents. Some songs have racy theams, but still don't use strong language, only metaphors. Songs like Barnacle Bill, or Irish jig, are full of sex, but not bad words
They didn't write much bad words in books, and you might be killed in a dual if you swore in front of another mans girl, so how common was it?
On the other hand look at nose art from WW2, compared to movies and books from that time. All male communities, even today , will be a bit more colorful then in polite company.
 
Easy mistake. I believe there was also a Fitzpatrick in the "100".

BTW, I had never heard of "Ashley's Hundred" until tenngun made reference to them a year or two ago, which caused me to look them up.

Just one of countless bits of information I have learned because of this Forum.
 
He thumbs the hammer closed with the thumb on his right hand ( I saw it in vmax )it is as plain as day to see.
 
IN these shots the hammer spring appears to be quite weak :idunno:
 
I haven't seen anyone else mention it, so I will. One of the most dangerous mistakes in the movie, in my opinion, is when Glass builds a fire to get warm and also to cauterize the wound on his neck. He uses gunpowder for both. The gunpowder burns very slowly, almost like kerosene, rather than explosively. He even pours powder directly from his horn on the slow burning fire to help it get started. Can you imagine pouring powder from your horn on an existing fire, especially from only a couple inches away? He would have lost all the hair on his face, and probably been killed when the powder horn blew up. This bugged me, because some fool might try the same thing sometime.
 
GangGreen said:
I finally saw it yesterday and I guess I give it a C. If it wasn't a movie about flintlocks, mountain men and guns/horns, I wouldn't even be remotely interested in seeing it again, it just left me feeling rather, "mehhhh" about it. My wife liked it though and I was concerned that she wouldn't. The language didn't bother me, nor did the length of the film, I guess it was mostly the historical accuracy and mistakes with the guns that put me off, though there was something else too and I can't put my finger on it.

I thought the acting was very good and the scenery was nice. Seeing flintlocks and mountain man themes (beaver trapping for instance) was nice. When it comes out on HBO and shows up in my living room, I'll probably watch it again, but I won't buy the DVD or make it part of my regular rotation.

I think the thing I noticed was the lack of humor, optimism, or enthusiasm by everyone in the film. Practically every person has some kind of endless stare, like they were enduring some kind of awful existence. The sound track had a similar dreary weary, color to it as well. It was kind of like they were saying life was so awful at that time. The movies we have liked in the past about the period tended to emphasize the hope for a better future and always had a some comic relief to take the edge off the drama. I always thought the Rocky Mountain fur trade years were good times, with some fighting from time to time, but basically the beaver was the creature that was really getting the raw end of the stick, while both the trappers and NDNs were doing pretty well. Lots of new toys and partying going on.
 
GangGreen said:
...I guess it was mostly the historical accuracy and mistakes with the guns that put me off,

In the latest issue of Muzzleloader there's an article about the movie, the making of the movie and the rifles used in the movie.

Glass apprenticed as a gunsmith in Pennsylvania before heading west.
 
Native Arizonan said:
The movies we have liked in the past about the period tended to emphasize the hope for a better future and always had a some comic relief to take the edge off the drama. I always thought the Rocky Mountain fur trade years were good times, ...
Maybe this movie will balance out the Heston, Fess Parker, romanticized versions of life back then?

Don't forget to give the film maker the right to use poetic license, to tell his story. It may not be for everyone.
 
Claude said:
Native Arizonan said:
The movies we have liked in the past about the period tended to emphasize the hope for a better future and always had a some comic relief to take the edge off the drama. I always thought the Rocky Mountain fur trade years were good times, ...
Maybe this movie will balance out the Heston, Fess Parker, romanticized versions of life back then?

Don't forget to give the film maker the right to use poetic license, to tell his story. It may not be for everyone.
Thank you. It was his take on the story, be it right or wrong...
 
Native Arizonan said:
Practically every person has some kind of endless stare, like they were enduring some kind of awful existence.... I always thought the Rocky Mountain fur trade years were good times, with some fighting from time to time, but basically the beaver was the creature that was really getting the raw end of the stick, while both the trappers and NDNs were doing pretty well. Lots of new toys and partying going on.

The classic "thousand yard stare" of the battle weary, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. These men had just been in a battle where most of their party were killed by the Arikara.

"Back then" may seem like "good times...new toys...partying" to us, but they were hard times to the men who lived them. There were no toys, but weapons on which your life depended. Most of your time and efforts even while hunting and trapping, were spent making sure no one was getting close enough to kill you.

The occasional rendezvous allowed for partying and letting off steam, because there were enough armed men and friendly Indians there to forestall any attack by unfriendly Indians.

Ten year after this event, Hugh Glass was killed by Arikaras. Not too bright a future. The Indians fared a lot worse.
 
I'm with Arizonan. It is not like everyone in the 19th Century was bemoaning the fact that their life sucked compared to the living conditions of the 21 century.

People back then were probably more concerned about how they lived rather than how they died. Risk was relative and if you consider living conditions anywhere else at that time - the life of a Mountain Man was not so rediculously miserable.

Consider all the other possibilities:
life on a whaling ship - or any other ship.
life in a mine.
life in a city where cholera outbreaks were common.
life on a farm where work was backbreaking.
life on a rural road where highwaymen hid in the bushes.

Compared to life anywhere else in the early 1800s the mountain men probably thought they had it made.

John Colter spent 3 years on the Lewis and Clark expedition and within spitting distance of St. Louis when he begged Capt. Lewis to let him sign on with a group of fur traders/trappers that were headed back into the wilderness. Lewis and Clark agreed on the one condition that no one else from the group would request to quit before reaching civilization.

If life in the mountains was so miserable, why was Colter so eager to get back? Why were Lewis and Clark concerned that others might follow suit?
 
Yep------ L&C and their men had a picnic every day. Read their journals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top