Watched The Revenant after reading the book

Having read the book, my entire experience watching the film consisted of “huh?”, “what?”, “why?”, “and what did Fitzgerald mumble?”. For me, the entire plot was a weak/combined re-hash of Rambo: First Blood, Dances with Wolves, and Gladiator.

I know books need to be adapted, but why make Glass an Indian sympathizer with a half-breed son? Isn’t there enough motivation for revenge in being left for dead without this bloated nonsense? Where was the back-story on any of the characters (I can understand were this a 1h45m movie, but 2h40m?)? How could the actors be considered for Best Actor, and Supporting Actor when they either barely spoke (DiCaprio as Glass) or could barely be understood (Hardy as Fitzgerald). Best Picture? How? What am I missing?

Can those who saw the movie without reading the book chime in here (or those who also read the book)?

(never read the book)
I thought it was gorgeous to look at and had some amazing special f/x scenes but agree that the plot was rather thin. Even as a revenge picture it really didn’t stir much emotion and really ran out of gas at the end which should have been an emotional climax.
I’ve heard others complain that they couldn’t understand Fitzgerald but I understood every word he said. Could be since I saw it in a theatre with exactly two other people besides myself and they sat 8 rows behind me?
I thought Tom Hardy was excellent and disappeared into the role and thought he should have won an Oscar.
DiCaprio was, well, DiCaprio and if they want to give out Oscars for people playing themselves so be it. I prefer actors who can really transform into a character.
I did enjoy it as “spectacle” but agree it wasn’t anything Best Picture worthy.

More likely, Man in the Wilderness.

Well, the real-life Hugh Glass might have been an Indian sympathizer. He is not known to have had any children, though.

I did not understand how DiCaprio won the Oscar. I’m not saying he’s not talented actor, but this is just not an Oscar worthy performance. I can only assume they’re giving him frequent flyer miles for his performances but did not win.

I agree that the movie was visually spectacular, but otherwise it was pure Grizzly Adams torture porn. I can believe that somebody in the 19th century could survive a bear attack like his assuming they have lots of time and care and limited mobility afterwards, but even in 2016 it’s going to probably be weeks in ICU and gallons of antibiotics and blood transfusions and then intensive physical therapy before they’re able to jog down the road. This guy goes from bear attack to being buried alive to Being submerged in sub freezing water and exposure and galloping on hoseback and gunpowder cauterization wounds and jumping off of cliffs and running through frozen plains and sleeping in dead tauntauns to tracking down the man that kilt his boy in a matter of- what? Would you say days? No way in hell.

I know very little about the supposedly true story it is based on, but I’m guessing that it would’ve been years before he was able to make that kind of trek. (I did read about the maggot scene that was in the original text that was left out of the movie so Leo could have his naked carcass nap or whatever.)

^ Ditto. His role didn’t require acting and he got the award for his body of work and maybe sheer endurance. I like Tom Hardy’s performance OK. And yeah, the idea that he wouldn’t die of a massive infection is too much of a stretch. Of course Alejandro González Iñárritu would brush this off with some crap about it being some spiritual something or other. :rolleyes:

I was just relieved it didn’t get Best Picture.