Alejandro Inarritu's THE REVENANT (starring Leo Dicaprio, Hardy)

Bale was a completely different person, he truly embraced the character as he always does

Fassbender doesn't look like Steve at all but by the end of the movie it was Steve jobs on screen

Leo played himself, struggling to survive in the woods.


Leo should have won over waltz in Django and possibly catch me if you can (Oscar worthy but not sure who won that year). His performance in the revenant was nothing special

but to be fair steve jobs is a better oscar movie. Fassbender gets to play with very complex dialogue while needing to show a wide range of emotion, interacting with a lot of different people.

the revenant is such a basic role, any top tier actor can nail acting struggle while in the woods without needing to dive too deep into the character. Just show you are struggling and you really want to kill tom hardy, thats it. Hardly an impressive role, but cant blame them for trying to hype it up by talking about how he actually experienced all these things in the wild. 

best actor is about skill as an actor not dealing with hardship and steve jobs was both the better performance and better role to showcase great acting. 

Loved the movie - a little long but you felt like you were outside with the cast freezing with them.

Leo obviously killed it, but you could argue Tom Hardy took over that movie too. His acting and role was just as powerful if not more so IMO.

tom hardy > leo in this movie

Chill. Tom Hardy had about half the screen time and less than half the room for character growth. Tom Hardy was kind of one note all movie, IMO. Not in a bad way, the character was just there for a specific reason.

they were both one note characters

hardy has half the screen time and is the most interesting part of the movie

Leo aint winning for this. Solid movie but you cant body THIS kind of role and win anything.

Picasso Swerve said:

Leo aint winning for this. Solid movie but you cant body THIS kind of role and win anything.

Click to expand...

CUZ WHAT DO THESE WORDS MEAN

sea manup said:

Bale was a completely different person, he truly embraced the character as he always does

Click to expand...

It was good but nothing special imo from Bale given what I know he's capable of. He became a different person but that person wasn't that interesting or engaging and did not get the screen time to even qualify for a best lead actor nomination.

I would not rank that as a top performance of the year. Especially when Carrell outshines him in the movie.

Fassbender doesn't look like Steve at all but by the end of the movie it was Steve jobs on screen

Click to expand...

If you say so.

Fass had other stuff he couldn't control working against him with that movie.

Leo played himself, struggling to survive in the woods.

Leo should have won over waltz in Django and possibly catch me if you can (Oscar worthy but not sure who won that year). His performance in the revenant was nothing special

Click to expand...

First off the struggle was beyond real and secondly, no I'm pretty sure Leo would be beyond scared ******** if he was out in the woods in the winter being shot at by natives and attacked by a bear.

We would not see such a defiant, near soul crushing physical and emotional journey if the actual Leonardo DiCaprio was just being himself.

sea manup said:

but to be fair steve jobs is a better oscar movie. Fassbender gets to play with very complex dialogue while needing to show a wide range of emotion, interacting with a lot of different people.

the revenant is such a basic role, any top tier actor can nail acting struggle while in the woods without needing to dive too deep into the character. Just show you are struggling and you really want to kill tom hardy, thats it. Hardly an impressive role, but cant blame them for trying to hype it up by talking about how he actually experienced all these things in the wild. 

best actor is about skill as an actor not dealing with hardship and steve jobs was both the better performance and better role to showcase great acting. 

Click to expand...

Yet all I've seen is mixed reviews for Jobs and across the board praise for TR.

If you're just talking your stance on who was better, okay but if you're arguing for who the Academy is gonna end up picking it's not leaning in Fassbender's direction.

I feel like giving it to Fass for that would probably be the biggest F U to Leo at this point looking at the competition.

We'll know more in a few days when the nominees are announced.

sea manup said:

Bale was a completely different person, he truly embraced the character as he always does

Fassbender doesn't look like Steve at all but by the end of the movie it was Steve jobs on screen

Leo played himself, struggling to survive in the woods.


Leo should have won over waltz in Django and possibly catch me if you can (Oscar worthy but not sure who won that year). His performance in the revenant was nothing special

Click to expand...

Leo was great in django

japejapejape said:

tom hardy > leo in this movie

Click to expand...

Apples/ oranges

I think the misconception is, is that TR is getting praise because they shot in difficult conditions thus making it a better movie because the entire crew went through/endured struggle. EVERY FILM deals with some sort of struggle, and to me that's not why they are getting praise.

They already had the elements against them and they chose to do that(something they didn't have to do, so to me that's not even a big deal)

what really blows my mind is that Alejandro Inarritu and the cinematographer decided to use ONLY natural light when shooting this film in the remote location. If you know anything about filming something, it's all about the lighting(watch literally any movie shot by roger deakins, most notably "no country for old men")
shooting with natural light limits the hours in the day you can actually shoot and get usable footage. So when a standard movie has a shooting day of 8-12 hours, this one only had 3-4 hours. They also shot in chronological order, something that rarely happens in film, but for this film i could understand why. Couple that with all those LONG takes and you know how much work the cast and crew are actually putting in.
EVERYONE has to hit those marks beautifully, especially in that opening scene or you start from square 1....again....with limited time, the sun is literally your clock.

Make no mistake this is not an easy task, I'd call it suicide, I actually did when I first heard about this. The film actually went over budget, several people left the production because they were still shooting in may or june I believe. SO the fact they got any usuable footage let alone a GREAT film, is incredible. I think it's crazy they got leo and hardy in this, most actors of atleast Leo's stature would not do such an undertaking. It's clear alot of the budget didn't go to luxury hotel rooms or trailers or catered food but to making sure this film was made. It's the epitome of what a great movie is supposed to be, showing great collaboration through the hardest times and prevailing. Alejandro actually let a very frustrated tom hardy choke him out, so they would be on good terms....thats as real as it gets.
Reminds me of Black Swan, theres a scene where portman's character is getting worked on by a chiropractor, what people don't know is that, that's a real actual session, that the director filmed. There was literally no money for portman to be insured and I believe she had cracked ribs and needed the medical attention....you're basically watching a physical on her being done, and she kept going and we all know her result, because she completely trusted her director under grueling circumstances, what if she didn't win??

Inarritu is part of a handful of directors who still see a movie as an art form(the coens being another for sure) his last film was birdman in which actors had to memorize up to 20 pages of script for one take lol WHO DOES THAT?? and he made it work with Michael Keaton(nominated, should've won), Zach Galifinakas and Edward Norton(playing a version of himself)

Saying that ANY top tier actor could do this, is a false statement I'm sure A LOT of top tier actors were at the top of the list to be in TR(Sean Penn was actually supposed to be Hardy's role) and Alejandro told them what it would entail and what he planned for the shoot, and I'm sure those same top tier actors slammed the door right in his face...
told him he was crazy and this is AFTER Birdman

These are the type of films that seperate Actual actors that are dedicated to the craft, those that push the boundaries and limits of what they are capable of doing. I'm not throwing shade at any other top tier actors either, because everyones gotta eat....but there's a small percentage of top tiers that would've even taken this risk, because that's what this was, a huge risk.
Leo Deserves the Oscar because he not only wholeheartedly trusted someone not named Scorsese, but for someone just coming off a break from acting and making THIS his first film....that's just crazy

It isn't a misconception, that's literally all they talked about for this film was how difficult it was to shoot it.

Look, I enjoyed the film. Watched it twice actually, but this was not the best picture of the year. Not even close..but as I've said all along, Leo does deserve the Oscar for best leading man by then that's only because it was a weak year for other leading man actors. I just don't like how people are praising the script/film in general. Other than the visuals and the somewhat homage to the natives, nothing was special about this film. But due to it being a weak year for films in terms of Oscar worthy content, it's being praised. Put this **** in any other year with strong contenders and it'll be forgotten. But at the end of the day it's all about opinions, so that's why it's fun to hear what other people have to say

Def agree on that! I LOVE this time of year, i pretty much double my yearly post quota on NT around this time every year

Not buying the only reason TR is getting praise and winning is because ppl talked about how difficult it was to shoot. That's just a fact not to mention the alleged insane budget (135 mil).

I watched The Revenant. It's a great movie. That's why it's getting praise. Now opinion wise you may have hated it or thought it wasn't all that good and that's fine but it just comes off as petty that you're finding other reasons and reaching so far to try and justify why other ppl are praising it and why it's winning awards. Comes off like you can't comprehend a world where everybody doesn't agree with your opinion.

No man, I'm not saying that

I'm trying to say that the people promoting the film (Leo, director, etc) are using the weather conditions and difficulties of filming as there main excuse as to why they should win these awards. I'm not blaming the moviegoers/critics, as everyone simply love's Leo, love Hardy and I can see why most movie goers would love this film in general as it is a great revenge film essentially.

I guess I'm personally tired of hearing about the horrible conditions while filming this movie because in most articles/reviews that seems to be talked about more than the actual content of the film. I don't hear anyone talking about Leo's character development or his desperation to be able to withstand not dying while trying to avenge his son's death. All I read/hear is the beat scene (which is one of the most amazing, edge of the seat scenes ever) and the weather while filming. That's it. And most people will agree.

It's annoying enough my dude cheated death like 9 times falling off a huge cliff, getting shot out WHILE in front of natives shooting at him, bear for whatever reason not smashing his skull to dust..but i enjoyed those scenes so I'm not even going to go down that route. My point is that Leo was handed a script that was practically destined to receive rave reviews for his character because of all the **** he went through that although the film screams "authenticity" is flat out just not believable.

I wasn't talking to you when I said that.

I was addressing anyone saying the only reason TR is getting praise or winning is because ppl keep talking about how hard it was to get done doesn't make sense. That's really just the soundbite they're running with. Has nothing to do with the quality of the movie.

I've seen a few ppl run with that among other excuses for why TR got some GGs last night.

RoOk said:

It isn't a misconception, that's literally all they talked about for this film was how difficult it was to shoot it.

Click to expand...

exactly. its this year's version of boyhood

"it took twelve years to make!!!11!"

it doesnt matter if you dont tell a compelling story

sea manup said:

RoOk said:

It isn't a misconception, that's literally all they talked about for this film was how difficult it was to shoot it.

Click to expand...

exactly. its this year's version of boyhood

"it took twelve years to make!!!11!"

it doesnt matter if you dont tell a compelling story

Click to expand...

You say that like ppl don't think it's a compelling story though.

This comes down to a whole lot of complaining about nothing not related to the movie.

Master Zik said:

sea manup said:

RoOk said:

It isn't a misconception, that's literally all they talked about for this film was how difficult it was to shoot it.

Click to expand...

exactly. its this year's version of boyhood

"it took twelve years to make!!!11!"

it doesnt matter if you dont tell a compelling story

Click to expand...

You say that like ppl don't think it's a compelling story though.

This comes down to a whole lot of complaining about nothing not related to the movie.

Click to expand...

Can't speak for others but I was bored 2 hours into the movie and only kept watching for the cinematography and Tom hardy.

Y'all actually liked Hardy's performance? He was good but if I'm bored of a movie best believe I'm not gonna continue watching for Hardy's acting

If we wanna talk about NT's overrated actors hardy and MBJ are at the top of the list

nah tom hardy is great

sea manup said:

Master Zik said:

sea manup said:

RoOk said:

It isn't a misconception, that's literally all they talked about for this film was how difficult it was to shoot it.

Click to expand...

exactly. its this year's version of boyhood

"it took twelve years to make!!!11!"

it doesnt matter if you dont tell a compelling story

Click to expand...

You say that like ppl don't think it's a compelling story though.

This comes down to a whole lot of complaining about nothing not related to the movie.

Click to expand...

Can't speak for others but I was bored 2 hours into the movie and only kept watching for the cinematography and Tom hardy.

Click to expand...

That's a shame.

Weird it took you 2 hrs to get bored

BOStoIAH said:

Y'all actually liked Hardy's performance? He was good but if I'm bored of a movie best believe I'm not gonna continue watching for Hardy's acting

If we wanna talk about NT's overrated actors hardy and MBJ are at the top of the list

Click to expand...

I think Hardy is a great actor but I did not think anything was special about his performance or anything was that interesting about his character. Dude just did his job and played the antagonist. Strangely the only hardass in that entire group.

I don't see how his character could've kept anybody watching.

It's a lot easier watching these films when you factor out "Oscar hype." We spend SO much time now over analyzing what could/should win that we don't take the time to just watch the movies and enjoy them individually. IMO The Oscars are overrated anyway and come way too fast they should be like the Olympics - every four years. Oscars are great, and have sentimental value - but at the end of the day you were simply judged the best of what dropped the last 12 months.

EAski3 said:

sea manup said:

Bale was a completely different person, he truly embraced the character as he always does

Fassbender doesn't look like Steve at all but by the end of the movie it was Steve jobs on screen

Leo played himself, struggling to survive in the woods.


Leo should have won over waltz in Django and possibly catch me if you can (Oscar worthy but not sure who won that year). His performance in the revenant was nothing special

Click to expand...

Leo was great in django

japejapejape said:

tom hardy > leo in this movie

Click to expand...

Apples/ oranges

Click to expand...

I've been waiting for someone to tell me why we can't compare apples and oranges. They're both fruit. I like oranges better but like apple juice over orange juice.

BOStoIAH said:

Y'all actually liked Hardy's performance? He was good but if I'm bored of a movie best believe I'm not gonna continue watching for Hardy's acting

If we wanna talk about NT's overrated actors hardy and MBJ are at the top of the list

Click to expand...

Don't you dare come at MBJ