MovieChat Forums > The Revenant (2016) Discussion > I'm confused by the hate for this film.

I'm confused by the hate for this film.

posted 9 years ago by charleskwaters
133 replies | jump to latest

I thought it was beautiful and I've seen it 4 times. It keeps getting better. I've read that many complain that it's so bleak, but that's the point. And there are moments that aren't bleak, where desperate men are out only for themselves such as scene with the helpful Indian, the scene where the boy gives food to the Indian woman in the shattered village, etc.

I love this film.

There seems to be no middle ground on this one. You either love it, or hate it. Strange. Why is that I wonder?

Edit: Weeks after posting this question, I've come to the conclusion that IMDB forums are full of a few thoughtful people and a bunch of goofballs. There are a lot of really nasty and childish comments here. For those who actually thought about their answers - thank you. But I won't waste any more time here. I'll discuss movies with friends over a few beers.

[–] prototype1981 9 years ago

It was just so boring. The death of his son was way too early to feel any kind of connection to him.

I really didn't care if he survived or not. The story was dull.

[–] eliuson 9 years ago

If you didn´t connect with it, that is fine but that doesn´t make it dull.

[–] eliuson 9 years ago

I hope you don´t judge me by telling you this: "I find some of your movie ratings quite preposterous"

You gave BvS a 10, what? With all due respect, that was dull.
Spectre and STFA a 9, what? I found them incredibly disappointing.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of tastes but in retrospect you fall more into blockbuster territory than art house films.

I hope you don´t take my criticism as mockery, I appologize if this may come off as unjustified but I felt the need to point this out.

[–] prototype1981 9 years ago

I have already judged you - and if you look at my movie scoring, I generally score movies a point or two higher than they actually deserve or when I feel there has been unjustified backlash towards a movie.

I know IMDB has a complex weighting system for scoring, so at the end of the day my scores are meaningless anyway.

It shouldn't be cause for alarm for discussion regarding a movie.

Also, putting your own personal statement in " " was quite preposterous in itself - even more than the judgement of my ratings.

BvS was a very enjoyable movie and for the type of film it was, deserved an 8. I gave it a 10 on IMDB scoring based on what I said above. Again though, that really shouldn't affect you.

Even if I fit into blockbuster territory with my tastes, I don't see that as a point of judgement. I enjoy many styles of films and your implication that your leaning towards art house makes you superior is a joke.

The Revenant, in any case, was hardly an art house movie, and in my opinion, was a dull, emotionless, droning movie.

[–] prototype1981 9 years ago

The fact the movie was dull made it dull, not the lack of emotional connection between the audience and the son.

[–] RomeoKnight 9 years ago

Not enough explosions, car chases, aliens and superpowers. We get your point.

[–] prototype1981 9 years ago

No, it was just *beep*

[–] tb-sch 9 years ago

Why is that I wonder?

It is daring. Something mainstream cinema tends to avoid as finding the greatest common divisor means earning more money. Which is why superhero event movies are always shallow and utterly forgettable redundant crap, and at the same time, movies with a certain depth tend to be underfunded indie movies. The Revenant is one of the very few movies combining budget and content and part of a dying species.

[–] RomeoKnight 9 years ago

This ^

[–] TVippy 9 years ago

I'm confused by the love of this film. It's too shallow.
-------------------------------------
I own you.https://goo.gl/0avZjB

[–] Naphthous 9 years ago

I'm in the middle ground. I just thought it was basically uninteresting.

The plot offers nothing remotely new and is rife with Hollywood cliches that bog it down. The script is thin and uninspired.

The performances are totally average - neither distractingly bad nor captivatingly good.

Sure, the cinematography is beautiful. That just isn't enough, though, especially considering how unnecessarily drawn out the film is.

I don't hate this film at all, but I will forget it quickly.

[–] svalinanikola 9 years ago

The script is thin

Why is that a flaw? Complicated does not equal good automatically.

[–] Naphthous 9 years ago

I didn't mean uncomplicated (actually, I thought there were several unnecessary complications considering the simplicity of the central plot), which I agree with you is not a problem. I felt the script lacked gravity, was somewhat meandering (not tightly focused), and did not bear the length of the film. Just my opinion, obviously.

[–] Mr_Recchia 9 years ago

The hate comes from fear for where cinema is headed. When a film with one dimensional characters and story get outlandish amounts of praise simply because its cinematography is good, than it bodes of a bad future where good story-telling takes a back seat to visuals.

Officially Canadian for 27 years. Never heard "aboot."

[–] gljbradley 9 years ago

It's not everyone's cup of tea and that's fine. It's all in a matter of perspective and preference.

[–] MIJACology 9 years ago

I didn't hate this movie. I certainly don't hate anyone who loves or likes this movie. To me it was 50/50. I enjoyed parts of it. Other parts were almost boring. Here are some positives and negatives...

Positives
1. The photography was beautiful, capturing the wild almost exactly as it was. You felt like you were out in nature with Leo. If you are a city dweller, that can be refreshing escapism.

2. Watching Leo survive, starting fires with pieces of flint, pulling a Luke Skywalker and hiding inside the carcass of a Tauntaun, excuse me, a horse, struggling to find potable water, treating his own wounds, etc, all of these things brought a satisfaction that only a lover of nature can appreciate.

3. The bear attack scene was riveting. Very well done.

A Few Criticisms:

1. He and his son looked like they could be brothers.
2. Leo didn't work out for this film the way other actors train for muscular roles. That might have helped him here.
3. It was unnecessary and unrealistic to be eating the raw organ of a wild animal when a fire is lit right in front of you, and no, an Indian wouldn't do that either. Just fantasy and silliness.
4. Shaky cam.
5. Not enough dialog and musical score. Very silent film. Some cinematography was enhanced in beauty by the silence, but other parts of the movie were hurt by this.
6. He started regaining the power to walk too easily. In IMDb trivia, it is revealed that the real life person crawled all the way to their destination. They never walked there.

[–] dakotajmathews 9 years ago

All the hate that I've seen personally seems to be coming from lack of maturity or people who need something being shoved in their face throughout the whole movie and can no longer appreciate a good story.