I don't really like Leonardo DiCaprio.
I'm sorry, I had to say it. Look, at least he's not a genuinely bad person. He seems humble, kind, and has an interest in charity and trying to improve the world.
With the understandable bit of partying on yachts with dozens of models sprinkled in there.
But my problem with DiCaprio has just been that I only ever see DiCaprio when he acts.
Now, I know you might be thinking "Well yes, Ross. That is, in, fact, how eyes work".
What I mean is that with some actors, no matter how recognizable, get lost in their roles. Benedict Cumberbatch and Michael Fassbender are two of my favourite actors, but in movies like The Imitation Game or X-Men. I don't see the actors, I just see the characters. Even with Brad Pitt, one of the most recognizable actors out there. In his earlier roles, like Fight Club or 12 Monkeys, he just loses himself in the character.
But with Leo, I only ever see Leo. It's always Leo's face, it's always Leo's voice, it's just always Leo.
Is it necessarily bad? No, it's just kind of disappointing. I don't feel like I'm watching a character, it just seems like an actor doing an impression of a character. Which is, literally, what he's doing, but it takes me out of the movie I'm watching.
So now we have The Revenant, arguably the most hyped-up performance from Leo ever. I usually hate hype about a performance, but I really wanted to finally love Leo.
And I did here.
This is the best I've ever seen Leo be. He almost entirely loses himself into the performance, and the only time I was distracted was when he talked. For most of the movie though, he's grunting and screaming, or being silent, and that's when he really works. I could really feel the weight of everything he was going through, and I connected to and cared about him more than I ever have. It mostly comes out of respect for his complete commitment to the movie.
The guy ate raw bison liver and slept inside a horse. I wouldn't do that.
I don't hold all value of a performance in preparation and how "method" people get, but I can appreciate it. I haven't seen any of the other Best Actor Oscar nominations, so my judgement isn't perfect, but if Leo wins, I think he's earned the nomination, at least.
But Leo isn't the best element of the movie. The cinematography definitely takes the lead here, because Emmanuel Lubezki is a genius, and nothing less. When it came to filming, there were some really bold choices made, like only using natural lighting, which meant that there were only a couple of hours a day where they could film. Because of that, this movie looks and feels as real as is possible, and that really sets the atmosphere well. This movie does something that I love, and shows some unique views of nature, both close-up and far away. The landscape shots are breathtaking, and the camera spends a lot of time far away from the actors, which creates a real sense of scale in some of the environments. A lot of the time, it felt like I was looking at a series of paintings. On an artistic level, this movie is gorgeous.
Some of the action sequences in this movie are all the more impressive with the long takes that are used. The long takes usually show up in action scenes, and the choreography and attention to detail are nothing short of incredible. The bear attack and the opening Native attack scenes in particular got me sucked in, and because of the level of detail, as well as the brutal unpredictably, those scenes really stand out. I'm trying to explain why I like these scenes, but it really is a situation where you just have to see it for yourself. When these scenes happen, it's brilliant, and adds a real spike in quality.
What I think made those scenes work so well was the actors. This movie has a very talented cast, with both the big names and the unknowns. Leo's great, like I said, and Tom Hardy is easily the strongest actor. He really loses himself in the character, and I didn't even recognize him at times. Domhnall Gleeson was kind of bland, which was disappointing, because I love that guy. He did have some standout moments, but I found that he wasn't really putting any weight behind his lines, and some of those lines could have used some more weight, to make them really have an impact.
But for as gritty and real as this movie feels, I didn't really buy it. I mean, that bear messes Leo up bad. Baaaaaaaad. And we're expected to believe that he can do half the things he does, beginnng with walking. I'd be willing to suspend disbelief, but they make a point of hammering the quote "As long as you can still grab a breath, you fight" into your head. I'm not buying that. Hugh Glass would be dead, no matter how much concentrated power of will he's got. He certainly wouldn't survive with that many open cuts in his body back before there was any kind of medication. Including a large wound in his throat, which prevented him from drinking until he cauterized it much later.
Whatever, it's just a movie.
So, despite every factor seeming to line up perfectly for me to love this movie, I just didn't. There are a few things that drag this movie down, but I found the movie's length to be its biggest setback. This movie is 2 and a half hours, which doesn't seem like it would be too long, but it is. It felt much longer when it is, and when a movie drags for me, it really drags.
What makes this annoying is that this movie is "inspired by true events". So on one hand, they're embellishing history to make the movie more cinematic, but on the other, they're adding stuff to history that didn't happen, thereby making that stuff pointless. Did I expect 100% historical accuracy? No, because I don't even know the history that well, and I'm happy to accept changes if it makes for a better film. But the stuff that appears to have been added was the stuff that I thought was unnecessary. There's at least half an hour that could have easily been cut from this movie.
I also just didn't really connect to this movie. I cared about what happened to Leo somewhat, but the rest of the characters just didn't stick with me. If someone died, I didn't feel anything. Tom Hardy's Fitzgerald is essentially the villain, but his motivations made total sense to me. To the film's credit, it doesn't really portray him as an evil jerk, he's just a guy who made a call that didn't work out for others. I loved the action scenes, but they didn't get my heart racing, they didn't give me goosebumps.
When stuff happens, it's awesome. But there's a lot of time spent on nothing happening.
In the end, I respect The Revenant more than I like it. Once again, Alejandro González Iñárritu has shown that he really knows what he's doing when it comes to executing a film. Birdman is one of my all-time favourite films, and Iñárritu seems to just commit fully to an idea, and do whatever's necessary to accomplish that. I love that, but his vision and his idea just didn't really work for me here. When this movie is good, it's phenomenal. It's beautiful, it's memorable, it's unique, and it's just plain great. But when it drags, I as looking at my watch. A lot.
For their next projects, I think both Iñárritu and DiCaprio are going to continue their great, successful careers. Iñárritu could really do anything at this point, and maybe Leo can finally stop chasing that Oscar.
I'm sorry, I had to say it. Look, at least he's not a genuinely bad person. He seems humble, kind, and has an interest in charity and trying to improve the world.
With the understandable bit of partying on yachts with dozens of models sprinkled in there.
But my problem with DiCaprio has just been that I only ever see DiCaprio when he acts.
Now, I know you might be thinking "Well yes, Ross. That is, in, fact, how eyes work".
What I mean is that with some actors, no matter how recognizable, get lost in their roles. Benedict Cumberbatch and Michael Fassbender are two of my favourite actors, but in movies like The Imitation Game or X-Men. I don't see the actors, I just see the characters. Even with Brad Pitt, one of the most recognizable actors out there. In his earlier roles, like Fight Club or 12 Monkeys, he just loses himself in the character.
But with Leo, I only ever see Leo. It's always Leo's face, it's always Leo's voice, it's just always Leo.
Is it necessarily bad? No, it's just kind of disappointing. I don't feel like I'm watching a character, it just seems like an actor doing an impression of a character. Which is, literally, what he's doing, but it takes me out of the movie I'm watching.
And I did here.
This is the best I've ever seen Leo be. He almost entirely loses himself into the performance, and the only time I was distracted was when he talked. For most of the movie though, he's grunting and screaming, or being silent, and that's when he really works. I could really feel the weight of everything he was going through, and I connected to and cared about him more than I ever have. It mostly comes out of respect for his complete commitment to the movie.
The guy ate raw bison liver and slept inside a horse. I wouldn't do that.
I don't hold all value of a performance in preparation and how "method" people get, but I can appreciate it. I haven't seen any of the other Best Actor Oscar nominations, so my judgement isn't perfect, but if Leo wins, I think he's earned the nomination, at least.
But Leo isn't the best element of the movie. The cinematography definitely takes the lead here, because Emmanuel Lubezki is a genius, and nothing less. When it came to filming, there were some really bold choices made, like only using natural lighting, which meant that there were only a couple of hours a day where they could film. Because of that, this movie looks and feels as real as is possible, and that really sets the atmosphere well. This movie does something that I love, and shows some unique views of nature, both close-up and far away. The landscape shots are breathtaking, and the camera spends a lot of time far away from the actors, which creates a real sense of scale in some of the environments. A lot of the time, it felt like I was looking at a series of paintings. On an artistic level, this movie is gorgeous.
Some of the action sequences in this movie are all the more impressive with the long takes that are used. The long takes usually show up in action scenes, and the choreography and attention to detail are nothing short of incredible. The bear attack and the opening Native attack scenes in particular got me sucked in, and because of the level of detail, as well as the brutal unpredictably, those scenes really stand out. I'm trying to explain why I like these scenes, but it really is a situation where you just have to see it for yourself. When these scenes happen, it's brilliant, and adds a real spike in quality.
But for as gritty and real as this movie feels, I didn't really buy it. I mean, that bear messes Leo up bad. Baaaaaaaad. And we're expected to believe that he can do half the things he does, beginnng with walking. I'd be willing to suspend disbelief, but they make a point of hammering the quote "As long as you can still grab a breath, you fight" into your head. I'm not buying that. Hugh Glass would be dead, no matter how much concentrated power of will he's got. He certainly wouldn't survive with that many open cuts in his body back before there was any kind of medication. Including a large wound in his throat, which prevented him from drinking until he cauterized it much later.
Whatever, it's just a movie.
So, despite every factor seeming to line up perfectly for me to love this movie, I just didn't. There are a few things that drag this movie down, but I found the movie's length to be its biggest setback. This movie is 2 and a half hours, which doesn't seem like it would be too long, but it is. It felt much longer when it is, and when a movie drags for me, it really drags.
What makes this annoying is that this movie is "inspired by true events". So on one hand, they're embellishing history to make the movie more cinematic, but on the other, they're adding stuff to history that didn't happen, thereby making that stuff pointless. Did I expect 100% historical accuracy? No, because I don't even know the history that well, and I'm happy to accept changes if it makes for a better film. But the stuff that appears to have been added was the stuff that I thought was unnecessary. There's at least half an hour that could have easily been cut from this movie.
I also just didn't really connect to this movie. I cared about what happened to Leo somewhat, but the rest of the characters just didn't stick with me. If someone died, I didn't feel anything. Tom Hardy's Fitzgerald is essentially the villain, but his motivations made total sense to me. To the film's credit, it doesn't really portray him as an evil jerk, he's just a guy who made a call that didn't work out for others. I loved the action scenes, but they didn't get my heart racing, they didn't give me goosebumps.
When stuff happens, it's awesome. But there's a lot of time spent on nothing happening.
In the end, I respect The Revenant more than I like it. Once again, Alejandro González Iñárritu has shown that he really knows what he's doing when it comes to executing a film. Birdman is one of my all-time favourite films, and Iñárritu seems to just commit fully to an idea, and do whatever's necessary to accomplish that. I love that, but his vision and his idea just didn't really work for me here. When this movie is good, it's phenomenal. It's beautiful, it's memorable, it's unique, and it's just plain great. But when it drags, I as looking at my watch. A lot.
For their next projects, I think both Iñárritu and DiCaprio are going to continue their great, successful careers. Iñárritu could really do anything at this point, and maybe Leo can finally stop chasing that Oscar.
Comments
Post a Comment