I’ve
now officially seen all eight nominees for best picture – go, me! Unfortunately, my main takeaway from this
film was, “How is this up for best picture when Creed and Beasts of No Nation
aren’t?” I’ve heard pretty divided
opinions on the movie, but mine definitely falls on the side of overly long and
unengaging (a few spoilers by necessity.)
Hugh
Glass serves as a guide for a group of fur trappers in the American frontier of
the 1820s. However, when Glass is
savagely injured in a vicious bear attack, one of the men who stay behind to
look after him until he succumbs to his wounds is too impatient for nature. He betrays Glass in a devastating way and
leaves him for dead. The
bloody-but-unbowed Glass moves heaven and earth to stay alive, make it back to
the trading post, and take his revenge.
I think
I’m coming to the conclusion that I’m not quite an Alejandro González Iñárritu
person. I’ve been lukewarm on other
Oscar films of his that have earned huge acclaim (Birdman and Babel,) and I
feel much the same here. With all three,
I can’t deny that they’re visually stunning – Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography
is on wonderful display here, making great use of his talents for gorgeously
filming nature and employing incredibly-long single-take shots – and the acting
is excellent, but the stories keep letting me down. Watching this film, I kept thinking of other
survival movies (127 Hours, Castaway, The Martian, Into the Wild,)
as well as frontier movies (3:10 to Yuma,)
revenge movies (The Count of Monte Cristo,)
and frontier revenge movies (True Grit,)
and The Revenant doesn’t match up to
any of them. It seems to confuse
drawn-out physical suffering with emotional storytelling, it feels like it goes
on forever, and I came out of the two-and-a-half-hour+ movie not knowing much
of anything about who Glass is, other than hardy, determined, and ready to call
down the wrath of God.
That
suffering ≠ gripping emotions confusion applies to the acting as well, I’m
afraid. I won’t pretend that Leonardo
DiCaprio isn’t up to his usual fabulous standards, because he is, but this role
gives him so little in the way of meaty scenes to work with. While he’s long-overdue for an Oscar and the
smart money says he’s probably winning this year, I’d be a little disappointed
to see him get it for this film (especially when Matt Damon is so compelling in
another survival movie, the aforementioned The
Martian.) Tom Hardy, up for
supporting actor, is a little more interesting; his Fitzgerald is an intriguing
lowlife with a remarkable knack for justifying his most depraved actions. The film also features former Weasley brother
Domhnall Gleeson. This is the fourth
film I’ve seen Gleeson in since Christmas (the others being Star Wars:
The Force Awakens, Ex Machina,
and Brooklyn,) and I think I like him
best here – he’s very good as the compassionate but pragmatic leader of the
expedition.
One
last remark: something I do love is Glass’s relationship with his
son, Hawk. They have a strong
us-against-the-world vibe, and since Hawk is half-Pawnee, I really like that he
and Glass speak to one another in his native language.
Warnings
No comments:
Post a Comment