-
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?
- Thread starter Nifeman
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2015
- Messages
- 5,004
- Reaction score
- 3,578
Due to the expanse and location, I would say see it at the movies. On DVD it will be good on a large screen, but still not the same.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 20,091
- Reaction score
- 1,023
See it on the big screen...
I was going to wait until the DVD came out....Glad I didn't the big screen brings it to life.
I was going to wait until the DVD came out....Glad I didn't the big screen brings it to life.
steve free
40 Cal.
:rotf:
Yes, unwatchable. And, to be as serious and even more honest, I confess I was never swept away with the overly romanticized myth of the Mountain Men (this includes that specific entitled movie as well -- so, so, bad). It's all as much glorified, sanitized, nonsense as anything else. I know this isn't appreciated here, especially by some who were influenced in their childhood by a film to buy a custom Hawken rifle as soon as they could barely afford it, but the historical characters were a handful of mouth-breathers with few if any other options in life except to exploit what they could from others and nature itself, destroying their hosts like viruses and having to push ever farther into the void to earn their bloody and menial living.
And please don't anyone start telling me about this or that exception like some third son ivy league college grad, etc., who chose to go on an adventure. I know they have some interesting stories but these men were the dregs of civilized society and the films about them couldn't be much worse IMO. And then there's Leonardo.
I think if he were as great a talent as some would have us believe he should have died for his art. Lord, hear our prayer.
And please don't anyone start telling me about this or that exception like some third son ivy league college grad, etc., who chose to go on an adventure. I know they have some interesting stories but these men were the dregs of civilized society and the films about them couldn't be much worse IMO. And then there's Leonardo.
I think if he were as great a talent as some would have us believe he should have died for his art. Lord, hear our prayer.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 20,091
- Reaction score
- 1,023
Alden said:
If that's not a ringing endorsement to go see the movie, I don't know what is..... :haha:
I can understand you not liking decarpio, although he did a real good job here. However when you say nasty thing about MM you need to smile when you say that 'pardner' :rotf:
fischereco2
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 1
I watched this again with my wife last night. I have to say that seeing it the second time around I wasn't as impressed. I let a lot of things slide in the theater because I was excited to see it, but now they kind of stick out to me. But, I still thought it was a decent film and overall I was glad to see it.
On an interesting note, the version my wife and I watched was not the finished film. I don't know the terminology, but it appeared to be a rip of some kind of proof screening. The CGI bear was not fully rendered, some of the other animals looked a little weird, and there were some parts that had clearly been dubbed over or changed in the theatrical release. The funny thing is though, it seems like in the version I just saw all of the gun problems everyone has been griping about were fixed. Before shooting the bear he clearly closed the frizzen and cocked the hammer, and there was a shot of him reloading his acquired pistol before firing it a second time as well. I guess those must have been left on the editing room floor for the final cut.
On an interesting note, the version my wife and I watched was not the finished film. I don't know the terminology, but it appeared to be a rip of some kind of proof screening. The CGI bear was not fully rendered, some of the other animals looked a little weird, and there were some parts that had clearly been dubbed over or changed in the theatrical release. The funny thing is though, it seems like in the version I just saw all of the gun problems everyone has been griping about were fixed. Before shooting the bear he clearly closed the frizzen and cocked the hammer, and there was a shot of him reloading his acquired pistol before firing it a second time as well. I guess those must have been left on the editing room floor for the final cut.
My wife and I finally saw the movie.
Most of the time, I sat back and looked at the remarkable scenery. The cinematography was outstanding, so much so that I often lost track of the human interactions.
One aspect did bother me. DiCaprio, as Glass, took an outlandish level of beating. The Grizzly - fine. Being chased by the Indians and the bad fall - OK. But when he recovers overnight, heads out in the deep snow for vengeance as if he never was hurt, and takes another pounding - that was over the top. I don't think the movie needed the last, brutal fight. I considered it excessive and unnecessary for the story.
Other than that, the other several hours of movie was interesting.
Ron
Most of the time, I sat back and looked at the remarkable scenery. The cinematography was outstanding, so much so that I often lost track of the human interactions.
One aspect did bother me. DiCaprio, as Glass, took an outlandish level of beating. The Grizzly - fine. Being chased by the Indians and the bad fall - OK. But when he recovers overnight, heads out in the deep snow for vengeance as if he never was hurt, and takes another pounding - that was over the top. I don't think the movie needed the last, brutal fight. I considered it excessive and unnecessary for the story.
Other than that, the other several hours of movie was interesting.
Ron
fischereco2
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 1
I think the last brutal fight is the one thing that IS necessary to the movie. In the end he dies.
They would have been better off trimming some of the other brutalities he endured, like falling off a 100 foot cliff or being submerged in freezing rapids. I find it hard to believe that anyone would survive those things and be able to show up for the final battle...
They would have been better off trimming some of the other brutalities he endured, like falling off a 100 foot cliff or being submerged in freezing rapids. I find it hard to believe that anyone would survive those things and be able to show up for the final battle...
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 20,091
- Reaction score
- 1,023
It is far from a perfect film.....
But,
Filmed in the winter mostly with him in and out of the water, crawling, laying in the snow etc.....It had to be a grueling movie to make, scene after scene take after take.....If for no other reason than that, I applaud Leonardo's performance...
Script writing and editing are a whole other matter.....
Surprisingly, the scene I found most gratuitous was the aerial scene of the river after he went for his "Missouri" boat ride escaping the Indians. It seem very out of place and incorrect.
But,
Filmed in the winter mostly with him in and out of the water, crawling, laying in the snow etc.....It had to be a grueling movie to make, scene after scene take after take.....If for no other reason than that, I applaud Leonardo's performance...
Script writing and editing are a whole other matter.....
Surprisingly, the scene I found most gratuitous was the aerial scene of the river after he went for his "Missouri" boat ride escaping the Indians. It seem very out of place and incorrect.
- Status
Similar threads
