Okay so I heard many people complain that this movie can't be considered up there with Tarkovsky's works...

Okay so I heard many people complain that this movie can't be considered up there with Tarkovsky's works. What makes it that way? I think the movie is done very well. It may drag a little, but so do Tarkovsky's. What do you guys think?

Other urls found in this thread:

vimeo.com/153979733
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

They say this flick is based on a true story but in the real story;
>Glass doesn't have an Indian wife and a bastard son
>There is no dying ginger army man
>Glass couldn't get his revenge from muh pelts

If this movie was about survival then it would be a kino.Gorgeous visuals and nice music but they fucked it up with dramatization.I guess they just wanted the normie audience.

The Revenant is simply the representation of the artistic bankruptcy plaguing the contemporary film industry.

Like Birdman, Iñárritu's last endeavor in hackery, this latest attempt is to convince the masses that what they are viewing is something deep or meaningful, when all it has done is push forward shallow technicality and exaggeration to make the frame pulsate with vulgar loudness. Characters are mere veneers, the cinematography is pretty but so conspicuous as to be rendered aggravating and the thesis is about as overdone as DiCaprio's acting. The camera feels like it has been waiting all day for a climactic shot and the film's deliberately difficult production history is laid bare in the indulgent cinematography.

Thematic complexity and philosophical subtext take a back seat to what amounts to as basically an action movie with action stars wrapped up in the veil of arthouse. And much like Salome, what lies beneath is ultimately puerile, obscene and holding fascination only for adolescents.

Iñárritu is guilty of something far greater than simply making a bad movie. He is guilty for the crime of gestating his pretense and self-importance, forcing many others to labor over it in a misguided attempt to create art and daring to call the afterbirth a film. Perhaps instead of taking his cast and crew to the ends of the Earth in search of a better shot, the Mexican counterfeit filmmaker should have taken his juvenile and crass sensibilities to the seedy San Fernando valley. There he could have at least made a profit of filming all the money shots he wanted.

Who the fuck is comparing that to Tarkovsky? You must not actually watch Tarkovsky.

Glass literally didn't kill anyone in real life. He went down the list of guys who left him for dead, confronted each of them and spared them all. That might have made the basis for an interesting storyline, his visitations on them like a ghost from the past, but instead we got
>KILLING ME WONT BRING BACK YER SON!!!

>being this blind
vimeo.com/153979733

Spot on tbdesu. Especially
>what amounts to basically an action movie with action stars wrapped up in the veil of arthouse

I cannot stress enough, after 2 hours of meticulous camerawork and brooding score tells us we're watching an "important" movie, it ends with DiCaprio and Bane fighting to the death in a river bank and Bane shouting "KILLING ME WONT BRING BACK YER SON!" then DiCaprio pulling the oldest action hero move in the book, leaving others wronged by Bane to take their revenge on him.

It's the definition of pretentious. A banal action flick disguised, quite convincingly for most audiences, as art. Say what you will about Mad Max, George Miller put in the same amount of effort into his craft making a fundamentally similar movie true to its nature. Inarritu put lipstick on a pig, Miller put out the fattest, most well bred pig in town.

Thoughts on older Inarritu films? While he's definitely verging on hack status now, I think he's done some good work. 21 Grams and Amores Perros are great.

Biutiful was his best film

>replying to pasta

the pasta is true though

That pasta was written by someone trying to be as Armond as possible
Me

It literally couldn't be farther away from what Tarkovsky was about. And you should watch more movies before comparing modern mediocrity with the classics.

The Revenant is just trying really hard to be a Terrence Malick film, only aimed at a larger audience, which of course is impossible. Everything feels phoned in, like the half-assed spiritual bullshit that you couldn't possibly care less about, and anything that could give the movie any substance is put aside in favor of gritty and technical action scenes obviously meant to make Di Caprio look like the best and badassest character/actor ever.

Lubezki's camerawork is all there is to the movie. He did a nice job considering, but everything feels much too shallow and unfocused, compared to when he works with Malick.

Empty visual references only emphasize how pretentious it all is. If I make a shitty pretentious student film about hotdogs and toilets and fill it with dozens of shots stolen from great well known films, it doesn't turn my film into a masterpiece.

>The Revenant is just trying really hard to be a Terrence Malick film
No. Lubezki is what makes it look like a Malick flick. The similarity is the cinematography, and only that.

Are you comparing with "Sacrifice" ? I really think that you should do this with "Dances With Wolves", user. I personally put Kevin Costner's work over Andrei's.

It was amazing in the theater. I knew it was going to look great, but I was really impressed the sound design and the music. The opening shot with the ambient sounds and the trickling creek. Over all pretty good movie, some stuff like the floating dead wife was damn cheesy.

kek
im gay

>themes about spirituality and transcendence
>man vs nature
>great focus on nature's beauty and greatness
>character being on a personal quest for spiritual and moral attainment
>extreme closeness and intimacy with the character
>surreal and metaphorical imagery
Not to mention that Lubezki was obviously heavily influenced by Malick, considering how he started to develop his unique style only after/while working with him. They literally did the same film together 10 years before The Revenant, only much better.

Malick isn't the only one that tackled said themes, and when you look at Glass' life, they seem essential. Of course Lubezki was influenced by Terry, that's why, as I said before, the cinematography looks like Malick.

>Empty visual references only emphasize how pretentious it all is
Its supposed to feel empty. This is nihlism-kino, way to miss the point pleb.

I never said only Malick did that, but everything is too similar to be just a coincidence. Not only does it have almost the exact same themes, but also the same cinematographer, filming in exactly the same style. How come in Children of Men and Burn After Reading he adapted to the director's style, only in The Revenant he did it exactly like with Malick?

>when you look at Glass' life, they seem essential
I would agree with you, but he's barely a character. Literally the only things you know about him are that he knows his ways in the wild and the revenge thing about his son. The wife flashbacks feel forced and separate from everything else, added in just to have something more than him crawling around, just like the stuff with the other characters that goes nowhere.

Of course, a flat character isn't necessarily a bad thing, it can even work to your advantage. Again, comparing it to Malick, who does it nicely in a very Bressonian way. But since in Revenant that single, unique character trait is "gotta survive cause of revenge", there's no further depth to explore, or any complexity in its minimalism. Not to mention that revenge is a pretty uninspired theme in the first place.

10/10

the movie was a laughable pile of fucking steaming crap.

the keyword here is 'based'. same way that GoT is based on ASoIaF but is nothing like it

Some of the best cinematography I have ever seen in a movie

>How come in Children of Men and Burn After Reading he adapted to the director's style
Did he? In my opinion, Children of Men has all the traditional Malick/Lubezki elements to it: long tracking shots, meandering handycam, lots of natural lighting. Never watched Burn After Reading, can't really comment on that.

Full disclosure: I didn't really like The Revenant, and I agree that Leo's character is flat as fuck and the sequences with him reminiscing feel really heavy-handed and out of place.

>revenge is a pretty uninspired theme
There are no unispired themes, only uninspired movies.

Thematically sophomoric compared to Tarkovsky.

>It literally couldn't be farther away from what Tarkovsky was about. And you should watch more movies before comparing modern mediocrity with the classics.
The influence is clearly there. Inarittu has said it himself. But for those comparing it's clear he's a hack who tries to copy Tarkovsky visually in his use of atmosphere and some "motifs" but he lacks the sincerity, spirituality and personal traits that Tarkovsky naturally had emanating from his films.

>he thought the visual references were empty

Kek, are you literally retarded?

They were pretty fucking obvious.

Birdman worked because it was blatantly self aware of its own pretensions, the entire point was to revel in them.
The Revenant though doesn't, because it's trying to pass the typical frontiersman action movie plot, the type of film you'd see in the late 80s to mid 90s starring names like Kevin Costner or Mel Gibson, as something genuine worthy of an art-house coating.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Inarritu lacks Tarkovsky's profundity and sincerity, despite trying to be like him. Making straight up visual references doesn't magically add depth out of nowhere, especially when you're dealing with different contexts.
Similarly, Robert Bresson was obviously a great influence on Malick, but they're not really alike.
Only unlike Inarritu, who blatantly and tastelessly lifted things from Tarkovsky and shoved them in his own film by force, Malick took from Bresson and developed his own unique way of directing.

>There are no unispired themes, only uninspired movies.
You know what I meant. Compared to some of Malick's themes like the love of life and god, depression and seeking of personal goals and meaning in life, the simple yet important days of childhood, parenthood, natural balance in life and the universe, corruption of innocence, the human cycle of birth and death in the grand scheme of the universe etc, Inarritu's "muh revenge" is just tripe.

And I guess you're right about Children of Men, although in that one he's a lot more basic and simplistic. Rather than getting all close and personal up in everyone's faces like he does in the newer films, I remember him focusing more on the background and lingering on it in a more indirect and observant way, which of course worked really well with the film from a thematic point.

What I was trying to say was that in Malick's films with him, there was substance, feeling, intimacy and empathy in those shots and that way of filming, while in Revenant they say nothing more than "gotta crawl away from the indians to live and also revenge too I guess".