My review of The Revenant, shot on the Alexa 65mm in only natural light

[eleison]

Revenan is not exactly pop culture.,..

It's a film that stars leonardo dicaprio fighting a bear directed by a trendy director... That to me is the epitome of "pop culture"...  Add to this the fact that it strays away from what really happened, is not realistic and the movie is being discussed a lot on TMZ.  It may not be at the level of "star wars" pop culture, but it is definitely pop culture.

[Nikkor]

 

It's a film that stars leonardo dicaprio fighting a bear directed by a trendy director... That to me is the epitome of "pop culture"...  Add to this the fact that it strays away from what really happened, is not realistic and the movie is being discussed a lot on TMZ.  It may not be at the level of "star wars" pop culture, but it is definitely pop culture.

Pop Culture for 50 years old people maybe, but in the way fuzzynormal ment it, popculture is on youtube now.

[fuzzynormal]

popculture is on youtube now.

I'd say it's pervasive.  It has to be by definition, doesn't it?

Pop Culture for 50 years old people

Ugh, getting to (or closer) to 5 decades happens faster than you care to imagine.

[Axel]

I had heard mixed reviews on The Revenant. So I went to see it with great expectations. Because if it's controversial, it might me interesting. If everybody likes it, it's probably dull, collective unconsciousness.

I bought row 5, close to the screen (which I always do, regardless of the resolution), and I was immersed. When that special lucky horse fell and died, I felt sorry. When Glass used the corpse as a shelter, I physically felt the warmth and consolidation and hope and love and respect as I had felt the cold and despair before.

 

Subjectivity in the context of life, wisdom, etc.  As you get older you just look at thing different.  Pop culture aims at younger people, so most gray hair folks develop a disconnect.  You might no be there yet, but it does happen gradually.

The longer you live, the more you get the chance to develop taste. Taste needs comparison, background, context, open-mindedness, patience. I am 52 now, and when I saw the first Star Wars, I was overwhelmed. It was the biggest revelation in my (already with age 14) long history of love for cinema. There were more revelations to come, such as A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Blue Velvet (just the biggest three), but those needed the innocence of the former experiences to work.

If you are 14 now, it seems you have no chance to understand my excitement. There was nothing comparable in the world, it was absolutely unexpected and fresh and new. But that's wrong. One can easily set aside all knowledge of what came later and see old films from the position of the contemporary audience. For that, of course, you need the knowledge of the historical background, the cultural atmosphere. And just the willingness to try. It's really rewarding. You can see The Gold Rush, a silent movie, as if it was new. Then you will also see the The H8ful 8 in a different light, it's qualities as well as it's (perhaps, it didn't start yet in my area) mediocrity.

The need to tell each other stories is inherent. To me it seems, subjectively, that younger people don't have the patience to endure two hours of traditional 3-act-narrations. But neither do I. Particularly if the narrations keep repeating. Abrams' Star Wars was okay, it could have been worse, but it was old stuff nonetheless (since we discuss age here). The narrations young people prefer are their facebook profiles, which let them exchange mutual illusions (term from True Detective), uphold the fictions of their lifes. I don't subscribe to the theory that their attention span gets shorter. But undoubtedly they don't fall for tasteless remakes much longer.

[AaronChicago]

A bit off topic here but this is such a bizarre story involving Leonardo DiCaprio. Apparently he did this short film back in 1996 with Tobey Maguire. He sued the director and had the movie banned from the US/Canada. The director finally decides to release it on Vimeo as private.

http://freedonsplum.com/

[Ed_David]

Gravity was terrible.  The first 15 minutes were mind-blowing, the rest was a train-wreck.  George Clooney comes back as a Ghost to help keep Sandra Bullock alive?  Is that a plotline out of a soap opera?

I think the film was supposed to have a different cast, but took so long to make, it was compromised.

Another film recently that was a complete mess was Joy.  

I think directors who pump out films too fast make stinkers.  Innaurtu had Birdman, which is amazing, and David O has been pumping out beautiful films really frequently.

I haven't seen Reverent, but the trailer puts me off.  I don't know why - I'm not a fan of the look.  Feels digital.  Wish it was shot on film.  

[agolex]

Finally got to seeing it. Some great shots'n'shit, but this was far less realistic than Mad Max Fury Road which obviously doesn't try to be. I mean c'mon with what that guy's been through, there's no way he would have fought the way he did later on let alone survive the whole shebang. And all the survival clichés, eeew. But finally Leo is getting the Oscar he deserves (for any role but this :p).

[HelsinkiZim]

I am a bit of an Ed David fan, so I feel humbled that he engaged with my comment. I hate throwing opinions into the interweb wasteland, but I will speak up more often then.

I remember the first independent movies I saw as a young adult - Flirting with Disaster, Pixote, City of Lost Children, everything by Jim Jarmusch (thanks to the Earwax Cafe video rental store in Wicker Park, CH - is it still around, anyone?), and so on...

What struck me about these films is that it was hard to settle into the rhythm, but the rewards were amazing. Sometimes you actually feel smarter about a subject or subculture. Sometimes you just laughed your ass off or got pissed off, or both (The Big Short).  To me that is when I consider a film very good.

With other current 'masterpieces' like, lets say, Carol, I think we are expected to feel challenged and eventually rewarded, but I vehemently deny having any emotional journey. Visual perfection is not the same as visual joyride.

On the other hand, I had an emotional journey with Blue is the Warmest Colour. I was challenged by the pacing, voyeurish icky-feelings: but I committed to it and was rewarded immensely. Same subject matter as Carol, but different time period, style, story etc... but what a film.

[Vesku]

I watched The Revenant 4k in big 4k theater. It had very beautiful landscapes and images between action scenes. The 4k sharpness in big screen was impressive. The image was still too dim and black level "gray" so there was lack of strong and contrasty image I have used to with my 4k TV.

There was an issue with motion. The camera moves nicely almost all the time. It caused blurring to image. In fact most of the 4k movie was blurred under fullhd level. The 4k projector obviously had not any motion enhancements, end scores was stuttering very badly and there was stuttering trees and backgrounds many times. (There was rolling shutter too).

My GH4 4k videos from Norway mountains are more impressive and clear with my TV when there is little motion.

I think 4k needs HFR and faster shutter speeds or/and motion enhancement. 24P spoils the image because the camera moves so much in modern movies.

[Axel]

36 minutes ago, Vesku said:

There was an issue with motion. The camera moves nicely almost all the time. It caused blurring to image. In fact most of the 4k movie was blurred under fullhd level.

Only ~14% were shot with the 65mm Alexa, the rest was "blown up".

36 minutes ago, Vesku said:

I think 4k needs HFR and faster shutter speeds or/and motion enhancement. 24P spoils the image because the camera moves so much in modern movies.

At first I thought, were is the dislike-button. Then I reconsidered. 4k is best for UHD-TV. And for docs. What people rightfully hated the The Hobbit for was not the cleanness of the images. Every action looked speeded up and lame at the same time, because motion blur at 24fps accentuates momentum.

[Vesku]

9 hours ago, Axel said:

Only ~14% were shot with the 65mm Alexa, the rest was "blown up".

4k is best for UHD-TV. And for docs. What people rightfully hated the The Hobbit for was not the cleanness of the images. Every action looked speeded up and lame at the same time, because motion blur at 24fps accentuates momentum.

Everything was still shooted with 4k, Alexa or other.  Is it so that the movie looses its power if the image is sharp, contrasty and clear? Why people are prefering foggy stuttering movies? Is 4k pointless for movies?

[Axel]

22 minutes ago, Vesku said:

 Is it so that the movie looses its power if the image is sharp, contrasty and clear? Why people are prefering foggy stuttering movies? Is 4k pointless for movies?

Complex thing. Has to do with viewing habits, film language, a balance between static (landscape, portrait) and dynamic (action) images. Will eventually change, but not over night.