Review of The Revenant (2015) by Axet — 20 Jan 2016

Gripping, visceral, brutally violent, unforgiving realism. As expected DiCaprio is superb as is Tom Hardy. Leo's performance is as great and Oscar worthy as his last in the other end of the spectrum urbane "The Wolf of Wall Street" (I rate 10 and best of 2013), and the best scene in that movie had him crawling along the ground which I thought was good practice for all his crawling on the ground in this. As for Hardy, I've seen him in half a dozen major movies now and I still do not know what he really looks like, what he really sounds like or who the hell he really is! Talk about a chameleon.

This film is much more experiential than conventional movie. I also couldn't help but think of the films of Terrence Malick in the way he visually and sonically puts the audience into the setting in a way unlike any other and creates the experience via purely cinematic means with little if any dialogue. Malick's work however poetic is short on plot (often to its great detriment), and so is this to an extent. There is no question the filmmakers here are influenced by his work, which is not to say they aren't original in their own right. This movie is stunningly photographed and expertly edited. The score is subtlety, hauntingly effective without being over-bearing. The surround sound is more pronounced than in most movies, even the biggest. The visual effects are of perhaps the best variety, you don't even realize the extent to which you are seeing them. There is a marked punctual intensity to the action that is disturbingly effective and a wonder to how they orchestrated it all.

If sentimentality is the enemy of great art, and this film is low on sentiment but not devoid of it, then does a higher amount of sentimentality ruin a movie? It is a very fine line. "Dances with Wolves" (rating 10) came to mind while watching this as it's the same kind of story, same broad period, and also features great awesome spanning western landscapes. To me that was the very best a big Hollywood movie can be because it got me completely swept up in the emotion of it. It's ultimately always emotion that wins at the end of the day. Emotion is art's greatest aspiration and achievement. While there is some here certainly brought forth by the fine actors, it's not the kind of emotional experience that stayed with me long after leaving the theatre which is ultimately the only true test of a great movie whether it's funny and you're telling jokes about it later or haunted in your sleep thereafter. I'm not saying it hasn't stayed with me, just that it's scaled comparatively to what I know is possible.

Another movie this made me think of was "First Blood" (10) in that it features a similar kind of relentless chase for the duration and a will to survive against the harshest environment and maybe even harsher people.

Note to filmmakers: Look at this film style wise in how it uses a moving camera. The camera is almost constantly moving in rugged exterior environments yet is always smooth. It isn't shaky even amidst rough, intense action. It's called steadicam and there is never, ever any excuse if you have any kind of budget to have that stupid shaky handheld camera style! It is only acceptable used as POV and for short durations, not as style for an entire feature! As I continually rant, our eyes do not see that way contrary to the mentality of those who choose that method, so it is not more real but less so! You can cut fast but don't ever go both handheld shaky and cut it to ribbons for extra intensity when really all you are doing is losing the viewer in something that can't be followed and is subliminally known to be cheated (like the second two Bourne movies which someday will appear very dated I believe). It's not more effective, it's ineffective. Let this 'action' movie even if not the most frenetic possible be the example.