The Revenant

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Address each other's points, not their person. No point resorting to ad hominem when there's a perfectly good movie to tear apart. You don't have to agree, but you do have to respect each other. That means everyone. Keep it civil.

I feel like they could have easily cut 45 minutes of pretty scenery and "arty" dream sequences and had, if not a deeper movie, at least a much tighter one.

Also, did anyone find the reveal of why Glass killed an American officer to be completely underwhelming? We already know the lengths he'll go for his son! The whole movie is about that! So telling us he's willing to kill to keep his son safe gives us absolutely zero new information. What an anticlimactic scene to lead into the finale.

[Nikkor]

I'm about to take my friends to see it with me.

You don't get take them to see the movie together, but to see it with you  The good thing is that neither you or them will have to pay for their tickets.

[Zach Ashcraft]

I feel like they could have easily cut 45 minutes of pretty scenery and "arty" dream sequences and had, if not a deeper movie, at least a much tighter one.

Also, did anyone find the reveal of why Glass killed an American officer to be completely underwhelming? We already know the lengths he'll go for his son! The whole movie is about that! So telling us he's willing to kill to keep his son safe gives us absolutely zero new information. What an anticlimactic scene to lead into the finale.

I'm certainly biased as a lifelong outdoorsmen and hunter, but I enjoyed every second of the landscape shots. I completely understand how many may find those sections to be slow paced. I agree there may have been one or two dream sequences too many.

The reveal of Glass killing the officer was the one underwhelming point of the film for me as well. Even with the cultural implications of killing an officer to save the life of a native american, the moment just seemed to come and go without much weight to it, and seemingly without consequence to him. 

[homestar_kevin]

I agree with the officer reveal, I feel like it was already established in one of the prior dream sequences and Tom Hardy's speculations earlier in the film. I already felt that was known prior to him verbalizing it.

I liked the dream sequences when they did some stuff like the bird coming out of the wife. Stuff I've seen before, but at least they were playing with it. 

I didn't mind the length really. I wish some things had been differently, and at times the plot felt a bit like Gladiator and Last of the Mohicans with much more grunting, but visually it was absolutely stunning and as a whole it managed to be completely majestic and horrific at the same time.

[Policar]

Hate to say this Policar and this is probably something you don't want to read, but you can't get yourself through to the executives with just beautiful Alexa 65 footage. Composition and framing is the main key in all of this. You can have a beautiful camera with great footage, but if the story's a dud and the cinematography is a dud, ya end up with the next Sharknado. I'm about to take my friends to see it with me.

Confused by what you mean by getting yourself to executives? No one I know who pitches on studio features even mentions camera... But obviously the crew is far more important than the equipment they were using and the cinematography is excellent here. Story is pretty bad, but there's a lot of excellent craft so if you see it check it out in theaters for sure. Then again I have never pitched on a studio feature. I have friends who have an have met with a number of a A list execs, but never witnessed the actual process.

Just curious since I've been working with a lot of open gate Alexa footage lately and it has a very different look from this movie. Someone here said that only a small minority of the feature was shot on the 65 and if that's the case I want to know what parts because it fooled me. The low light stuff and some of the tighter coverage could have been open gate Alexa, but the steadicam moves and wides have a different feel and better tonality than the regular Alexa with flares and lens characteristics that do not appear similar to what I've seen from the Summilux lenses used on the standard Alexa body. The Alexa is also quite noisy in the shadows and the tonality they got from it here is better than expected. 

I know a lot of people who work at the company that produces Sharknado. Their goals are very different from what you'd think. The fact that their movies are even in the discussion is a victory. The company is very profitable and doesn't aim to be much else. Not a great point of comparison and also unfair to the crews they work with, some of which are quite good but limited by poor resources, restrictive network and studio notes, etc. It's not incompetent, it's just cynical.

[Gregormannschaft]

I won't say too much other than I absolutely loved it and was in awe of the cinematography. One of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.

[Policar]

I'm not sure what your opinion is, but fair enough.

[jagnje]

I loved it.

[kaylee]

the "ignore user" feature on this board is really great

[Zak Forsman]

the "ignore user" feature on this board is really great

thank you for pointing this out. didn't know the site had this. cleaning house.

[richg101]

Bad movie, looked great.

Is it true most of it was not Alexa 65 and that was only used for a few establishing shots? The lens flares don't look like Summilux lens flares and I think that was their S35 set... to me most of the wide angle coverage and almost everything but some of the tighter shots and night time work looked like older rehoused hasselblads.

Very impressive. If it is merely open gate 3.2k Alexa they really exposed and graded well, it looked better to me than that.

I expect they were using the older System65 hasselblad lenses - and I expect most future productions using the alexa65 will also since the modern hasselblads that the new Arri65mm lenses are based on suck.  Most of the newer hasselblad lenses don't cope with full frame medium format digital backs and will also be pushed beyond their capabilities on the alexa 65 when using the full sensor width.  From the trailers I;ve seen it looks like they used the 50/2.8 and 40mm/4 a great deal.  I know that dof rolloff of these like the back of my hand.

 

 

 

[Sekhar]

the "ignore user" feature on this board is really great

Except, not listening to someone just because we don't like them is why the world (at least the US) is becoming so polarized, hanging out in cliques only leads to an echo chamber. Obviously Polycar has been abrasive, but he did share some useful insights as well that you'd have missed if you blocked him. There are so many knowledgeable folks here, let's learn from each other...please.

[M Carter]

Saw it yesterday and enjoyed it. I felt Inniratu did a great job with subtext, stuff that doesn't show up in a script. Nature itself as a character, and the "reach" of nature, from the settings and power (rivers, storms, wind, animals) to the native "savages", to the barely-more-advanced trappers, up to the fort where one guy is trying to hold on to more evolved concepts of honor and compassion that are (ideally) the heart of a technologically based civilization. I was able to completely enjoy the movie as a visual commentary on humanity's rise from nature, with the sheer power of nature still having sway over technological advancements . Like some of you guys, my wife compared to to "gladiator", but to me Gladiator was a slick hollywood product; and I found this flick to be much more. I found the plot to be secondary to the experience, but… I kinda like Kubrick too.

He also has a great way with action scenes, and a verisimilitude that action usually lacks - a more honest sense of the horror that, say, an indian battle would have been. I thought it was a great balance of a much, much larger story told with visuals that could weave back into dialogue or plot. 

Ain't never been to no college, but the film did work on me in a more between-the-lines way, and I found it one of the most effective things I've seen in ages at that level. (I'm always curious what the people who diss a movie like this consider a "good" film - I sat through like three Super-Hero-Marvel trailers and just thought "Who watches this lame-ass childish shit?? Six year olds??" But the world would be a dull place if we were all the same… and I thought "Batman Begins" was crap and "The Dark Knight" didn't deserve Heath Ledger, so what do I know anyway?)