Wednesday, February 17, 2016

The Revenant (2015, R)

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

Violence (including major goriness and a sexual assault,) language, and drinking.

No comments:

Post a Comment