Having watched “The Revenant” I was left unimpressed and really cannot believe how many people think this is a good movie. I struggled to stay interested finding myself more than once on my laptop.
The first twenty minutes are good, but after the bear attack, it becomes both silly and tedious. The biggest problem by far was that the DiCaprio character continued to live. In sub-zero temperatures, any normal human being would have succumbed to the cold, but especially someone severely weakened, is plunged into freezing water more than once.
I found the horse chest cavity scene a bit of a joke it was simply not big enough to accommodate a fully-grown man, and he fires his barrel-loading pistol twice in quick succession, which is impossible. The only good thing the film did for me was to remind me of a much better from 1971, “Man in the Wilderness” starring Richard Harris in the Leo DiCaprio role. By the end of the film, I had search YouTube and found a copy.
This film actually has only three main characters: Zach Bass (Harris), the expedition leader (John Huston), and the Wilderness. The photography is stunning. And the Zach Bass theme is beautiful and haunting. The film is full of action and excitement, as revenge stories usually are. Bass survives by his courage, by his strength, and by resourcefulness.There are a number of differences between the two films particular
with the boat. In ‘The Revenant’ the boat is cast away while in the Man in the
Wilderness they man handled the boat across the wilderness
And on that basis alone, this film is an enjoyable movie experience.
But this movie exists on an additional plane that moves it from being just a great action movie to instead being a great film. Out of the two I would recommend the 1971 film as better of the two.
No comments:
Post a Comment