The Revenant

[kaveman]

I'm glad I'm not alone,......I sat through it free on Xfinity and thought it was the worst modern movie I've seen in years. I say 'modern' because I forced myself to sit through Deer Hunter a few weeks ago to see if I just wasn't old enough to appreciate it when it came out. Nope,.....56yrs old now and that movie still sucks.

 

[indiucky]

Twice as good, but takes 30 hours instead of 2.

Hugh Glass and his story did not need ANYTHING extra to make it a more enjoyable movie.....The story, the real story, was and is exciting enough.......

 

[Libertarian01]

I am certain that Mr. Glass was a very brave and strong man, yet fail to see Hollywood's need to take away from the truth in search of...

Here are some interesting facts about the real event: https://truewestmagazine.com/13-major-facts-the-revenant-got-wrong/

Doug

 

[Colt]

I looked on Netflix ($8/mo plan) and didn't see it? Just "Explore titles related to" it.

My OP that the movie is on Netflix steaming may have been wrong. I watched it, but I am vacationing in Canada. Maybe it is not on Netflix streaming in the U.S.

Actually, I was disappointed in the movie, mainly because Glas' ML got no special mention.

 

[Thor]

Another thing the movie got wrong; Hugh Glass didn't do this with a family on his mind, he hunted down the men who left him to get his rifle back. They should have done what they did with Man in the Wilderness and changed the proponents name. The movies similarity to Hugh's actual story ends with: he got attacked by a bear and survived, he walked a long way and it's cold in the winter up north.

 

[seedubs1]

it was like 3 hours of Leonardo Decaprio just screaming. Obnoxious. Would not watch again.

 

[seedubs1]

Ugh.....no.....no it's not. And the statement "the book was better than the movie" is just the worst. Gross.

You know what a book lacks? Multiple sensory experiences including sight and sound. I don't care how good a book is, the movie is always better.

But glad you got to discretely brag that you're better than everyone else because you "read the book."

The book is twice as good as the movie

 

[rugertoter]

Funny how they got an "anti-gunner" to play the star role.

 

[Thor]

Ugh.....no.....no it's not. And the statement "the book was better than the movie" is just the worst. Gross.

You know what a book lacks? Multiple sensory experiences including sight and sound. I don't care how good a book is, the movie is always better.

But glad you got to discretely brag that you're better than everyone else because you "read the book."

Then again some readers lack imagination. Many books are better than the movies that purport to tell their story because many of the books are true stories and movies that try to portray them are vague references to true stories. Take any movie made with Injuns in it since they came up with color. The original stories are a much better representation...and more colorful. Me, I tend to like them both as long as the movie is palatable; though I do dislike it when hollywierd tries to pass something off as a true story when it's not even close.

 

[JettaKnight]

The reason the book "is better" is because you've invested more time into it. Of course it's going to be better, you've had much longer to enjoy it, think about, and build neural pathways connected to it.

Besides, they're two different mediums, i.e. apples and oranges.

 

[indiucky]

Ugh.....no.....no it's not. And the statement "the book was better than the movie" is just the worst. Gross.

You know what a book lacks? Multiple sensory experiences including sight and sound.

Do you know what the book had that the film didn't? Truth and accuracy....That's why I thought the book was better...I know enough about the weapons and the history of the era to fill in the "multi sensory experience"....

 

[JettaKnight]

Do you know what the book had that the film didn't? Truth and accuracy....That's why I thought the book was better...I know enough about the weapons and the history of the era to fill in the "multi sensory experience"....

You're living up to your tag line.

 

[Alamo]

Do you know what the book had that the film didn't? Truth and accuracy....That's why I thought the book was better...I know enough about the weapons and the history of the era to fill in the "multi sensory experience"....

I have read many books and seen many movies, and very few movies approach providing the richness of experience that the book did, especially for historical books. Most movies, if they follow the book they are supposedly based on at all, do so superficially, sacrificing character, plot, and especially context for... sensory experience.

Patton was a movie that comes to my aged mind that provided an experience not easily obtained from a book, but there are not many Patton-quality movies.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

As with the movie Jeremiah Johnson, the real story was good enough and didn't need a re-write, but as movies go this one is very good. The photography/cinematography are worth the trip to the big screen.

I own a Blu-ray version. Good movie. Tom Hardy's Fitzgerald stole the show in my humble opinion.