Haven’t seen it yet, though I plan to. Just came back from “The Hateful Eight” - not my favorite.
I really want to see this, although I don’t have much time to go to the cinema these days 
.
They had an advanced screening near me around Christmas, but it was in the middle of the night and I missed it. I have to wait until next week now I think.
Not really a movie for the silent night, holy night, I’d say.
Got myself a copy of Man in the Wildeness, so I’ll watch that one first
God, this sounds amazing. I am going to watch it on Wednesday when it pre-premieres in Germany - sadly in german. Looking much more forward to watching it now 
An outstanding movie, the best I’ve seen in the last year, maybe. Can’t recommend it highly enough.
It is a good film in the tradition of the ugly 70s westerns about the land grabbing and the destroying of it, all packed in a survival plot. Not as entertaining as Innarritu’s masterpiece Birdman, but still a film with some great scenes, but also with less interesting characters and conflicts. With a little bit respect a 8/10 film, with a little less respect 7/10
More similar to Gravity than Birdman (all 3 movies have same director of photography Emmanuel Lubezki and are directed by a Mexican director). Birdman was more substantial on story level, while, like in Gravity, in Revenant story is just an excuse for technical virtuosity. But boy, virtuous it is. I don’t mind “style over substance” when that style is really outstanding and unique, so you can watch it for 2 and a half hours. Direction and cinematography make this movie special.
I saw this and I did not care for it. Cold, empty and without a human touch. Felt kind of like of robots had been programmed to make a movie because it’s a technical marvel. Tom Hardy was brilliant, DiCaprio grunts a lot and apparently that’s how you win Oscars now.
Saw it last week. Visually it’s great alright. But there’s almost nothing else to it. For 2 hours DiCaprio gasps and cries and spits and grunts and says about 10 lines of dialogue. The bear attack doesn’t look phony, but the recovery from it does not convince. In the distant backround there’s a motive for revenge for the deeds of the rotten character of Tom Hardy. And that’s about it. Hardly what you’d call a good movie.
I missed my chance to see The Hateful Eight but I’m going to the cinema tonight to check this one out.
I was reading this thinking you could use almost the same words for Once Upon a Time in the West. So here goes:
Visually it’s great alright. But there’s almost nothing else to it. For 3 hours, Bronson plays his harmonica and says about 10 lines of dialogue… In the distant background there’s a motive for revenge for the deeds of the rotten character of Henry Fonda. And that’s about it.
Now, The Revenant does not even come close to Once Upon a Time in the West (very few things, if any, do), but I still feel it makes for a great movie as something visually enthralling.
Very good point. People expect too much from a movie sometimes. Sometimes it is “just” visually great, brilliantly directed movie and nothing else. What can you do 
2nd favorite western of 2015 for me. Number 1… the Keeping Room. Has anyone posted about this little big(the sound is so amazing) gem?
I thought it was a very good film. Very similar to Man in the Wilderness. Not sure which one I like the most.
1 Like
Finally saw it in cinema last night.
Almost a full house for a western movie, I had not experienced this since the Seventies and the re-release of Once Upon a Time in the West (I haven’t seen Dances with Wolves in cinema)
I noticed that Leone’s meta-western was mentioned in relation to this one and yes, there are similarities (in framework and design), but I didn’t notice any meta level (in other words: I don’t think this western is a comment on westerns). Other directors who came to mind were Malick and Jarmusch (Dead Man, the dream sequences), while the opening scene reminded me of Scott’s Gladiator (rather than Peckinpah).
I having mixed feelings about the movie itself: Great look, murky content. As more often, the director seems to overstretch the ‘meaning’ of his movie: it clearly is supposed to say something, but ideas are only hinted at, never properly developed. Visually it’s of course stunning, the bear attack is a horrifying highlight, but some things were better done in the Richard Harris’ movie Man in the Wilderness (the recovery from the wounds for example).
I’ll probably write more about the movie in the next few days;
I went to see it again. It was definitely better the second time.
Just saw this. I pretty much agree with what many members here (Rutledal, Britton, Scherp…) have already said, visually great but the story is too sluggish, especially towards the end. All those dream sequences started to annoy me at some point. I also kept thinking of Malick but also a bunch other directors, heck there was even a Jodorowsky reference. But in spite of the criticism, I really enjoyed it anyhow.
7/10
I was curious about this movie, haven’t seen all of Iñarritu movies but apart from Amores Perros didn’t really appreciate his films. Even with usually some great acting performances, it seems there’s always something missing in his cinema at least to me. Birdman was perhaps the best example of a film made not for the public a specific one or a general one, but made purely for the awards in mind.
I think Iñarruti makes films for those people who don’t have the patience to watch those slow burners with undefined meaning but great in pure artistic terms(Malick for instance), so they turn to films like this one as the perfect excuse to show their intellectuality.
I’ve read the reviews from the critics I’m used to read, and I wasn’t surprised how none of them liked The Ravenant, I don’t always agree with them, but one thing in common they have is that all like films with substance regardless of its the type and form.
The good things in the film are the photography work and the acting, the use of the landscape is very beautiful indeed.
What’s missing then? Well something more than a long succession of events, for a moment I thought I was watching one of those spags with horses riding from one point of tabernas to another, and it wasn’t a case of style over substance, sometimes style can be everything. The mystical part of the film doesn’t work it even spoils the nice terrain story that it going on. Men’s like DiCaprio character find the hard way that they will cease to exist they are a dying breed, well some call progress or even evolution, sometimes it’s bad but it’s inevitable.
Not a case of a real turkey it deserves to be watch yes, the director was faithful to his ideas but really don’t understand the hype of this so called “new cinema”, and let’s face it, a film like Aguirre the wrath of God from Herzog or Jeremiah Johnson are so much better, The Revenant somehow tries to be both but fails.
5/10
Frankly I am amazed at the lukewarm, almost negative, reception of the movie among all of you, ahaha… I found the movie to be an amazing theatrical experience, a wild ride, a breathtaking 2 hours, beautifully shot, great score, a towering directorial achievement. so what if the script isnt friggin Shakespeare
1 Like
I’ts not the script
It’s the lack of meaning, some of my favourite films almost don’t have a plot, but there’s a purpose, and i clearly couldn’t avoid that feeling of a bad spag with our hero going from difficult situation to another, or like a friend said to me The Revenant seemed (to him) like a big episode of Mr Bean, but not so funny situations.
To be honest i really don’t like Inarruti films