Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

April 26, 2024, 07:45:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Revenant - Iñàrritu goes West

Started by Blinder Data, November 12, 2015, 11:10:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Steven

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on January 17, 2016, 11:09:29 AM
Aye, didn't mean to imply that this was the inferior work.

Never seen anything by Malick, just watched some bits and bobs and you're absolutely right, though The Revenant also uses similar cinematography to put you right in the middle of a lot of busy action sequences which I found very effective as action stuff usually bores me to fuck especially when it's edited like buggery with tons of other shots as it usually is in war sequences etc, the one long shot camera stuff in this really helped put you in there.

Wet Blanket

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on January 17, 2016, 09:25:07 AM
I tend to agree with the views I've read that while some of this movie is superficially reminiscent of Malick, the intent behind it is very much the inverse in terms of how he tends to view the natural world.

The director it most left me in mind of was Tarkovsky, especially in the dream sequences.

Wasn't entirely taken by it, though, to be honest, despite usually being the sort of cinemagoer who does leave humming the lights. I felt a bit fatigued towards the end; the Dead Man meets All Is Lost plot was a bit too thin to sustain the beautiful vistas for 2 and a half hours.

Puce Moment

Yes, there were some very Tarkovsky moments, I thought, particularly the church, some of the sweeping vistas, and the floating woman moment. It's interesting watching someone employ the iconic cinematography and visual palette of directors such as Tarkovsky and Malick (and perhaps even PT Anderson), but without any of the emotional, psychological or spiritual depth. Not that it has to, but after sleeping on the film, I have awoken feeling even more disappointed by some aspects of it. The rather Braveheart/Gladiator revenge story is set against a classic, almost Jack London survival story (albeit ridiculous, and lacking any of the subtlety of a story like 'To Build a Fire').

Hiring Chivo has turned the film from a survival story in the tradition of films like Essential Killing, into something more visually spectacular. But it's a bit like Tarantino hiring Morricone - you cannot acquire genius by just paying for it.

It makes me realise that Iñárritu really would be the wrong person to have a go at trying to adapt Blood Meridian.

Steven

Which titles would you recommend as introductory for Tarkovsky (been meaning to get around to some of his for ages) and Malick, for someone who's unbuffed on film?

Puce Moment

Quote from: Steven on January 17, 2016, 03:43:31 PMWhich titles would you recommend as introductory for Tarkovsky (been meaning to get around to some of his for ages) and Malick, for someone who's unbuffed on film?

I think going for chronology is the best approach.

Watch Ivan's Childhood and Andrei Rublev in quick succession to see the alarmingly rapid development of Tarkovsky's approach to cinema. Similarly, watch Badlands and Days of Heaven to track Malick's move into a style that started to define his haphazard career.

I would say that The Revenant draws most heavily on Tarkovsky's Mirror and Malick's The Tree of Life (or arguably the more visceral material corresponds better to The Thin Red Line), but if you are going to delve into the managable number of films by those directors, I would start at the beginning.[nb]Then when you get to the end go back and watch their very early stuff like The Steamroller and the Violin[/nb].


Sam

You gotta envy the man who ain't seen a Tarkovsky or Malick film yet.

Ivan and Badlands are both preposterously assured debut features. Talented fucks.


Puce Moment

Quote from: Sam on January 17, 2016, 08:02:15 PMIvan and Badlands are both preposterously assured debut features. Talented fucks.

Very true, but I consider their sophomore films to be the most remarkable aspects of both their filmographies. They had established themselves in the most basic terms, yet decided to tackle massively ambitious and career-defining films.

DukeDeMondo

Absolutely fucking ridiculous article on the Guardian web site. Infuriating, not least because plenty of the stuff skirts close to being proper True Says - the stuff about the extent to which the ISIS videos are influenced by Hollywood productions, for example, that's just blatantly obvious to anyone with eyes - but for the most part its a complete load of old piss. I mean for fuck sake.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/revenant-leonardo-dicaprio-violent-meaningless-glorification-pain

Sam

Astonishing. Like she doesn't know what a film, or history, is.

Wet Blanket

She's going to have a heart attack when she sees The Hateful Eight.

Bazooka

Quote from: Puce Moment on January 17, 2016, 03:59:54 PM
I think going for chronology is the best approach.

Watch Ivan's Childhood and Andrei Rublev in quick succession to see the alarmingly rapid development of Tarkovsky's approach to cinema. Similarly, watch Badlands and Days of Heaven to track Malick's move into a style that started to define his haphazard career.

I would say that The Revenant draws most heavily on Tarkovsky's Mirror and Malick's The Tree of Life (or arguably the more visceral material corresponds better to The Thin Red Line), but if you are going to delve into the managable number of films by those directors, I would start at the beginning.[nb]Then when you get to the end go back and watch their very early stuff like The Steamroller and the Violin[/nb].

What? No Stalker (1979)? Stalker is the directors Magnum Opus. Watch that first.

Bazooka

On the Revenant, this film was average in story and execution but bloody marvellous in production and cinematography. But maybe I am biased in snowy wastelands which kept my attention.

selectivememory

#73
Watched it this afternoon. I felt the story was okay. Nothing spectacular, but some of the criticisms (especially the ones in that absurd Guardian article) don't ring true for me at all. I don't think the film presented Glass's revenge as anything other than the empty, futile exercise it was (and as much as it was motivated by pure malice, there was truth in what Fitzgerald said to Glass as Glass was about to finish him off. Enjoy your revenge, mate).

But my god, the cinematography is worth the price of admission alone. Do go and see it in the cinema if you can and drink it in; it's utterly gorgeous.

Onken

Average story, amazing cinematography? This makes me think of Fury Road all over again.

I couldn't sit though another Mad Max if thats is all The Revenant is.

Puce Moment

Quote from: Onken on January 20, 2016, 10:35:48 AM
Average story, amazing cinematography? This makes me think of Fury Road all over again.

I couldn't sit though another Mad Max if thats is all The Revenant is.

They also have really shitty dialogue that should have been cut out at the root. Other than that there is little to compare the two films.

buntyman

I went to see it last night and enjoyed it much more than Mad Max. Was concerned that it was going to be dead boring from the opening half an hour or so but it definitely spaces out the exciting points well to keep you interested from then on. Would agree with others the Di Caprio's performance was good but not sure how amazing it was from a technical acting viewpoint - I think I'd be alright at crawling about the floor pretending to be in agony.
The
Spoiler alert
fight
[close]
at the end was a bit shit though wasn't it?
Spoiler alert
I thought they should have just ended it with Tom Hardy being offed after being tricked by the old dead guy on a horse with a stick up his back routine.
[close]
Anyway, nice looking film and passed the increasingly tough test of being a 3 hour film and keeping me awake throughout.

Steven

Quote from: buntyman on January 20, 2016, 10:57:47 AM
The
Spoiler alert
fight
[close]
at the end was a bit shit though wasn't it?
Spoiler alert
I thought they should have just ended it with Tom Hardy being offed after being tricked by the old dead guy on a horse with a stick up his back routine.
[close]

Anything with
Spoiler alert
a magic trick in it I'll like prolly, bit like Houdini's Metamorphosis
[close]
, that. But I did like the viscerallness of the end fight,
Spoiler alert
fingers coming off and stabbings
[close]
and it hammered home how bleak it all is to be sure.. he's just going for revenge and it ain't gonna solve anything or bring his son back, just goading him really, though was a bit pointless
Spoiler alert
pushing him into the river just so the Indians can kill him instead and absolve himself from blame, though that move was up to the Indians I suppose. Compounded with the very end where presumably Glass passes out from the cold seeing apparitions of his son's Indian mother.
[close]

Glebe


Bad Ambassador

I thought it was empty, cynical Oscar bait. I dozed off for the best part of an hour and missed nothing.

Steven

Quote from: Bad Ambassador on January 24, 2016, 03:54:56 PM
I thought it was empty, cynical Oscar bait. I dozed off for the best part of an hour and missed nothing.

Ooh, you bitch!


popcorn

The final shot is very odd.
Spoiler alert
Leo staring into the camera like "Wow! I can't believe it!"
[close]

What's this terrible dialogue everyone's talking about? Seemed all right to me.

Puce Moment

Quote from: popcorn on January 25, 2016, 03:23:10 PMThe final shot is very odd.
Spoiler alert
Leo staring into the camera like "Wow! I can't believe it!"
[close]

A reference to 400 Blows? Fuck knows....

QuoteWhat's this terrible dialogue everyone's talking about? Seemed all right to me.

There's your answer.


Bad Ambassador

Quote from: popcorn on January 25, 2016, 03:23:10 PM
The final shot is very odd.
Spoiler alert
Leo staring into the camera like "Wow! I can't believe it!"
[close]
Spoiler alert
I was expecting him to plead with the audience to give him an award.
[close]

Glebe

Saw it again today and thoroughly enjoyed it again. Noticed a few things second time around...
Spoiler alert
Bridger is carving a twirling thing in the canteen cos of the snails in that scene... nice little moment where you see a comet trail reflected in the river...
[close]
oh, and the score stood out more this time.


Custard

#87
You post a lot of links, Glebe. MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL YOU ABRAHAM LINK-ON. LMOAAO ;-D

So, watched this last night. Really enjoyed it, and agree that it kinda flies by and doesn't feel like 2 hrs 40. Which my numb bum thanks it for

It reminded me a lot of Seraphim Falls, which I love. A western-style revenge story over harsh terrain,
Spoiler alert
that comes down to a 2 man fight by the end
[close]
. Wonder whether the writer has seen that film. If you enjoyed this, I'd highly recommend checking Falls out, if you haven't seen it. Excellent film

Revenant looked bloody gorgeous, and the score was very atmospheric. Thought Leo was great, and Tom Hardy, although unintelligible at times, was also superb.
Spoiler alert
Thought the end fight was really well done, though the last moments were a bit Gladiator. The look into the camera was a little strange, too. Thought he was gonna wink
[close]

Still not seen Birdman. Will need to get round to that

Glebe

Quote from: Shameless Custard on January 27, 2016, 08:21:19 AMThe look into the camera was a little strange, too. Thought he was gonna wink[/Spoiler]

Spoiler alert
Perhaps he's casting an accusatory eye over the audience... "Look what we done to the Indians."
[close]

I'd love to see it in IMAX, it'd be a bit excessive seeing it a third time in the cinema, but I'd prolly never get another chance and it's one of the most stunning-looking movies I've ever seen.


Sam

Saw this earlier.

Was all the better for having a simple plot and sparse dialogue (whilst it wasn't Shakespeare it wasn't terrible and served its purpose).

DiCaprio was good, but all the other main cast were better and more interesting.

Photography was predictably exceptional, more austere than I was expecting, but in a good way. Loved the music.

To further the Malick comparisons (upward shots of trees, downward of trickling water, dreamy female character sequences, historic American west setting, Native Indians, ruined buildings, levitating woman, 360 degree handheld/steadicam shots, wide angle lenses, deep focus, breathy spiritual voice over, magic hour,  washed down out skies, low angles, natural light...fuck that's a comprehensive list of steals) I noticed Jack Fisk in the credits, Production Designer on every Malick film. So he's appropriated the directorial style of Malick and his two key crew members. Oh well if it wins loads of awards it's a testament to how much Malick's style has become mainstream.