The Revenant

       Where do I start with ‘The Revenant’?  I have so many biases for and against the movie, I’m mixed up on how to review it.  My pro bias is that I am a great admirer of Director Alejandro González Iñárritu (fresh off his Oscar win last year).  His movie ‘Birdman’ was a fantastic and innovative film among all the cookie cutter Hollywood blockbusters.  My con bias is that I am not a fan of what I consider “Made-for-Oscar” films.  This film has that written all over it, relying on shock values and intensity over anything else.  I also have another bias in which I will go out on a limb.  I don’t like when filmmakers try to mirror other Director’s artistic style. This film had the feel of a Terrence Malik film, without the preponderance of poetic themes.  Malik’s films (The New World, Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line) have garnered immense respect for their artistic value amongst Hollywood Directors even if they rarely reflect in box office receipts. ‘The Revenant’ had the same feel of Malik’s visual aesthetics and minimalist dialogue.  What it did lack was Malik’s permeating ethereal qualities (which ‘The Revenant’ did attempt in a few scenes, but lacked his poetic effectiveness). I did admire Iñárritu’s ability to capture vast wilderness landscapes, but all I could think of after seeing similar scenery in Tarantino’s ‘The Hateful Eight’ is that I wish he would have shot this film in 70 mm in order to better capture the majesty.

While I acknowledge that this film will be this year’s Oscar darling, I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon and proclaim this a great film.  I admire Leonardo DiCaprio’s dedication to his art, but I found the film to be more an exercise in human survival and suffering than anything else.  The plot was a simple revenge plot and the scenery was breathtaking, but other than that, I didn’t find much to sink my teeth into.  Leonardo Di Caprio brings an intense and respectable performance to the story of Hugh Glass, a trapper guide who is left for dead after a vicious bear attack, only to survive and face great hardships as he works his way back to civilization to exact revenge on the man he holds responsible. The bear scene which everyone talked about was brutal to be sure, but hardly worth the buzz it has been generating. This felt more like an endurance marathon of seeing how much trail and tribulation one man can endure and still survive.  After one finishes wincing at all the gore and trials of pain, I’m not sure what else this film has to offer.  

Despite my lackluster appraisal, I will say that Tom Hardy is the true stand out of this film.  He plays the antagonist John Fitzgerald and has received a well deserved Oscar nomination for the performance.  I’m always impressed when an Englishman can do an undetectable American accent, but Hardy nails a turn-of-two-centuries ago Texas woodsman accent so well that I didn’t even realize it was Tom Hardy playing this character until the credits.  I think he, along with Michael Fassbender, are the two greatest actors out there today.  I have mixed feelings because i want Stallone to win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, but Hardy clearly displays a superior performance.  Fitzgerald makes questionable and arguably immoral choices, but in the context of what is happening, the viewer understands why Fitzgerald is making these choices.  I think this makes a better villain as the viewer wonders what choices they would make in a similar situation.  Now that I can sink my teeth into.

Back to the story, I find it hard to know what else to say.  As I have stated, with such minimal dialogue and plot, I don’t know where else to go with the film.  It’s beautifully shot and Leo is intense, but that about sums it up.  Shock value is not something that impresses me.  I also think Iñárritu is an incredible artist and his attempt to mirror another Director’s style does himself a disservice (my opinion of course).  I often judge a film, fairly or unfairly, if I am waiting for it to end or if I’m disappointed that it’s ending.  I found myself looking at my watch throughout, so if that tells you something… I have no desire to see this film again or recommend it to someone else.  I’m going to give this film a star greater than I think it deserves, because I won’t take away from the artistic aesthetics that Iñárritu has given us, but that’s the best i can do.  I’ll probably be shown to have an opinion in the minority when this film sweeps at the Oscars, but I need to be honest in my opinion.

I give this film *** stars

The Revenant trailer

The Hateful Eight

       Say what you want about Quentin Tarantino, but he is probably one of the most unique and daring Directors out there.  By now we know what to expect from his films; gratuitous violence and over the top vulgarity combined with a love of retro pop culture and actors.  We feel we shouldn’t like his films, but he presents such a visceral film experience that we can’t help but get over our political correctness and hold on for the ride of his cinematic visions.  In addition, his love of cinema, especially the movie going experience from the 60’s and 70’s is infectious and he tries to recreate that magic in all his films.  ‘The Hateful Eight’ is Tarantino’s eighth film and I won’t say its ground breaking, but it is an ode to the Westerns of the 60’s and 70’s.  Tarantino used 70mm film, which hasn’t been used since back in that time period and I’m glad he did.  I forgot how wonderfully it captures the expanses and landscapes so much more than film today.  Again, he tries to recreate that movie going experience from our childhood and he succeeds.

Another thing that Tarantino is not afraid to do is take his time in rolling out a story.  “The Hateful Eight’ is a simple old fashion whodunnit story that takes place in a remote way station in Wisconsin, but the film is 3 hours long.  I can already hear the groans, but the story moves such that it doesn’t feel that long and the film is divided into two overlapping stories that is divided by an actual 15 minute Intermission.  When was the last time you went to a movie that had an actual Intermission? Tarantino has a love of overlapping stories that reveals and enhances the perspective of the overall story.  ‘The Hateful Eight’ is a more straightforward, where he only has two intertwined stories that happen sequentially.  Still, it is visually enthralling to watch and Tarantino’s usual band of actors are back.

I would have to say there are co-leads in the film.  New-comer to Tarantino films, yet a veteran actor, Kurt Russel plays John ‘The Hangman’ Ruth.  He is a bounty hunter who is collecting the prize on a mysterious prisoner named Daisy Domergue (another veteran actor, Jennifer Jason Leigh).  Trying to beat an incoming blizzard on his way to collect the bounty, he runs across another bounty hunter, former Yankee Major Maquis Warren (Samuel L Jackson) and later a man who claims to be the Sheriff of the town they are going to, former Confederate soldier Chris Mannix (Walter Goggins).  Knowing that they will not be able to outrun the blizzard, the men stop at the nearest way station they find with the plan to hunker down until the storm passes.  The inn is not empty and contains another group of men with the same plan to wait out the storm.  Major Warren is familiar with the proprietor of the station, who is missing, and both he and Ruth realize at least one of the people there has done something nefarious to the owner and has plans to rescue Daisy Domergue.  The race is on to find out which one it is and to save themselves from someone who is almost assuredly going to kill them to rescue Daisy.

Tarantino is a master a spreading out tension as well as explosive and graphic fight scenes. We know that everyone staying at the station is unsavory and Tarantino reveals just enough of their backstories to be excruciating as we try to figure out which one is the culprit…or is it more than one?  Russell has a swagger that befits his acting style and is the immediate presence and center of the story.  While wary of Major Marquis, he finds that he is the only one in which he has the smallest amount of trust.  Systematically, both Ruth and Marquis try to pry out each person’s backstory to determine if the coincidence that brought them all together is just that… a coincidence.

I won’t say that this is one of Tarantino’s greatest films.  I am also disappointed that most of the film takes place indoors as one of the reasons to use 70 mm film is to show vast landscapes.  That being said, the movie is a beautiful visual feast and Tarantino has an eye for frames like no other.  As always, his use of vulgarity is over the top, even for someone like me who is not offended by that.  When the action starts, the violence is brutal and even the most hardened film goer will wince at the gratuitousness.  For fans of Quentin, he doesn’t disappoint.  It’s not your typical Western, but Tarantino doesn’t make typical movies.  Despite everything I listed, it is a nostalgic return to the films of the 60’s and 70’s which I believe is Tarantino’s ultimate goal.  I won’t say go see it, but I think if you do go you will enjoy it for what it is.  I’ll qualify that with, if you are a film enthusiast, definitely go see it as it is a beautifully made film.

  I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3460252/?ref_=nv_sr_1