OT: Movie Review - The Revenant

[Tom McAndrew]

The Revenant was being shown at 4 theaters (2 in LA, 2 in NYC) for the past few weeks to make it eligible for Academy and other awards. It went into wide release this past Friday (1/8).

The movie is based on a 2003 novel by Michael Punke, titled The Revenant. It wasn’t as though Punke invented the story – he took a combination of stories and legends that had previously been published, and molded them into a new novel. It was based on the previous stories, though like any novel it also included a lot that was a figment of the author’s imagination.

Alejandro Inarritu directed the movie. It’s far more entertaining, to me, than his last movie, the Oscar-winning Birdman. (For those that don’t recall from my review last year, I did not care for Birdman – perhaps my least favorite Oscar winner in years.)

The movie centers on a few pivotal incidents in the life of Hugh Glass, a 19-century fur trapper, who is a real-life character. For that matter, several of the main characters in the movie were real-life characters. Of course, this being a Hollywood movie, which was based on a novel, a few of the main characters are fictional.

The movie is 2 hrs. and 36 min. During that time, the screen is filled with the stunning majesty of what the Upper Missouri river area looked like around 1823, as well as how difficult it was to survive in that region (especially during the winter), and how brutal some of the battles were between Native Americans and the trappers and US forces. The Big Sky country is breathtaking, and also very inhospitable. (It was actually shot in Canada and in Argentina.)

A number of movies have touched on this region, on trappers that hunted in that region, and on their interactions with Native Americans. What makes this movie different is that it focuses on how the trapper is treated by two other trappers, and the power of revenge (shades of The Count of Monte Cristo, taking place in upper South Dakota).

Hugh Glass is played exceptionally well by Leonardo DiCaprio. His chief nemesis is fellow trapper John Fitzgerald, played to perfection by Tom Hardy.

One of the things that I foundd interesting in the movie was the Native American tribes that were mentioned or depicted in the movie. Most of you have heard of the Pawnee or the Sioux, but you’ve got to be a student of US history, or into Native Americans, to know about the Arikara or the Mandan.

At times, the movie tries really hard to accurately depict how trappers, the US Army, or the Native Americans lived during this era. At other times, the movie is quite sloppy in its depiction of the life of these people. I compliment the movie for its efforts at accuracy, yet was quite frustrated by some of the inaccuracies I observed.

IMHO, the movie is much longer than it needed to be. In addition, while the fight scenes usually occur with little or no warning, most of the plot is pretty predictable.

I enjoyed the movie, and would recommend it (with the warning of a lot of violence). I didn’t feel it was on the level of some other movies that were released this year. In the end, I give it 3 out of 4 stars.

Since the plot is, to me, somewhat predictable, I wrote very little about it in this review. For those that are interested, you can read the real story about Hugh Glass at THIS LINK. For those that plan to see the movie, I’d recommend that you hold off on reading this until after seeing the film.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

The Revenant was being shown at 4 theaters (2 in LA, 2 in NYC) for the past few weeks to make it eligible for Academy and other awards. It went into wide release this past Friday (1/8).

The movie is based on a 2003 novel by Michael Punke, titled The Revenant. It wasn’t as though Punke invented the story – he took a combination of stories and legends that had previously been published, and molded them into a new novel. It was based on the previous stories, though like any novel it also included a lot that was a figment of the author’s imagination.

Alejandro Inarritu directed the movie. It’s far more entertaining, to me, than his last movie, the Oscar-winning Birdman. (For those that don’t recall from my review last year, I did not care for Birdman – perhaps my least favorite Oscar winner in years.)

The movie centers on a few pivotal incidents in the life of Hugh Glass, a 19-century fur trapper, who is a real-life character. For that matter, several of the main characters in the movie were real-life characters. Of course, this being a Hollywood movie, which was based on a novel, a few of the main characters are fictional.

The movie is 2 hrs. and 36 min. During that time, the screen is filled with the stunning majesty of what the Upper Missouri river area looked like around 1823, as well as how difficult it was to survive in that region (especially during the winter), and how brutal some of the battles were between Native Americans and the trappers and US forces. The Big Sky country is breathtaking, and also very inhospitable. (It was actually shot in Canada and in Argentina.)

A number of movies have touched on this region, on trappers that hunted in that region, and on their interactions with Native Americans. What makes this movie different is that it focuses on how the trapper is treated by two other trappers, and the power of revenge (shades of The Count of Monte Cristo, taking place in upper South Dakota).

Hugh Glass is played exceptionally well by Leonardo DiCaprio. His chief nemesis is fellow trapper John Fitzgerald, played to perfection by Tom Hardy.

One of the things that I foundd interesting in the movie was the Native American tribes that were mentioned or depicted in the movie. Most of you have heard of the Pawnee or the Sioux, but you’ve got to be a student of US history, or into Native Americans, to know about the Arikara or the Mandan.

At times, the movie tries really hard to accurately depict how trappers, the US Army, or the Native Americans lived during this era. At other times, the movie is quite sloppy in its depiction of the life of these people. I compliment the movie for its efforts at accuracy, yet was quite frustrated by some of the inaccuracies I observed.

IMHO, the movie is much longer than it needed to be. In addition, while the fight scenes usually occur with little or no warning, most of the plot is pretty predictable.

I enjoyed the movie, and would recommend it (with the warning of a lot of violence). I didn’t feel it was on the level of some other movies that were released this year. In the end, I give it 3 out of 4 stars.

Since the plot is, to me, somewhat predictable, I wrote very little about it in this review. For those that are interested, you can read the real story about Hugh Glass at THIS LINK. For those that plan to see the movie, I’d recommend that you hold off on reading this until after seeing the film.

This movie has all the ingredients to send me into a film nerd coma (amazing cinematography, method acting by Hardy and DiCaprio, directed by Innaritu, violent) and I can't wait to see it. Curiously enough, I found out about the Mandan tribe by watching Drunk History (during their re-telling of the Lewis and Clark expedition - linked below). I would recommend that show to you, but not sure you could survive some of the historical inaccuracies... .

 

[schoolie]

Would be interested to know what was historically inaccurate and sloppy. Your quote:
"At other times, the movie is quite sloppy in its depiction of the life of these people. I compliment the movie for its efforts at accuracy, yet was quite frustrated by some of the inaccuracies I observed."

 

[Michael.Felli]

The Revenant was being shown at 4 theaters (2 in LA, 2 in NYC) for the past few weeks to make it eligible for Academy and other awards. It went into wide release this past Friday (1/8).

The movie is based on a 2003 novel by Michael Punke, titled The Revenant. It wasn’t as though Punke invented the story – he took a combination of stories and legends that had previously been published, and molded them into a new novel. It was based on the previous stories, though like any novel it also included a lot that was a figment of the author’s imagination.

Alejandro Inarritu directed the movie. It’s far more entertaining, to me, than his last movie, the Oscar-winning Birdman. (For those that don’t recall from my review last year, I did not care for Birdman – perhaps my least favorite Oscar winner in years.)

The movie centers on a few pivotal incidents in the life of Hugh Glass, a 19-century fur trapper, who is a real-life character. For that matter, several of the main characters in the movie were real-life characters. Of course, this being a Hollywood movie, which was based on a novel, a few of the main characters are fictional.

The movie is 2 hrs. and 36 min. During that time, the screen is filled with the stunning majesty of what the Upper Missouri river area looked like around 1823, as well as how difficult it was to survive in that region (especially during the winter), and how brutal some of the battles were between Native Americans and the trappers and US forces. The Big Sky country is breathtaking, and also very inhospitable. (It was actually shot in Canada and in Argentina.)

A number of movies have touched on this region, on trappers that hunted in that region, and on their interactions with Native Americans. What makes this movie different is that it focuses on how the trapper is treated by two other trappers, and the power of revenge (shades of The Count of Monte Cristo, taking place in upper South Dakota).

Hugh Glass is played exceptionally well by Leonardo DiCaprio. His chief nemesis is fellow trapper John Fitzgerald, played to perfection by Tom Hardy.

One of the things that I foundd interesting in the movie was the Native American tribes that were mentioned or depicted in the movie. Most of you have heard of the Pawnee or the Sioux, but you’ve got to be a student of US history, or into Native Americans, to know about the Arikara or the Mandan.

At times, the movie tries really hard to accurately depict how trappers, the US Army, or the Native Americans lived during this era. At other times, the movie is quite sloppy in its depiction of the life of these people. I compliment the movie for its efforts at accuracy, yet was quite frustrated by some of the inaccuracies I observed.

IMHO, the movie is much longer than it needed to be. In addition, while the fight scenes usually occur with little or no warning, most of the plot is pretty predictable.

I enjoyed the movie, and would recommend it (with the warning of a lot of violence). I didn’t feel it was on the level of some other movies that were released this year. In the end, I give it 3 out of 4 stars.

Since the plot is, to me, somewhat predictable, I wrote very little about it in this review. For those that are interested, you can read the real story about Hugh Glass at THIS LINK. For those that plan to see the movie, I’d recommend that you hold off on reading this until after seeing the film.

I was gonna see it. Then, Demlion ruined it for me by explaining the blooper with the flintlock pistol. So, I'm gonna go see Star Wars again for the 9th time. Thanks, Demlion. Thanks for spoiling the picture for me.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Would be interested to know what was historically inaccurate and sloppy

In a rush, so let me give you a few. I'll try to provide more tomorrow.

1. in multiple scenes, the frizzen on the flintlock is open. you can't shoot a flintlock when the frizzen is open (it makes the spark, which lights the gunpowder), but surprise, surprise, the characters can shoot away with an open frizzen

2. scenes of Hugh Glass in the stream for extended periods during the winter, with no clothes to change into. he would have died of hypothermia

3. the scene where Fitzgerald tries to kill Glass by stuffing a cloth in his mouth makes no sense, as he had an open hole in his throat due to the bear mauling. in effect, Glass has a tracheotomy. unless that hole in his neck was covered (which it wasn't), it would be impossible to suffocate someone as Fitzgerald did, as the body would inhale air through the hole in the neck

4. the trappers, both US and French, were in the middle of a war zone, so to speak, with the Native Americans. both the trappers and the Native Americans would have been very careful with their use of fire, in that it would give away their location unless it was small, and in a shielded location. Pretty much every fire you saw in the movie was a large, blazing fire, out in the open. Both sides would have only light such fires if they were very confident that their opponents were nowhere near them, which never seemed to be the case in the movie

5. Glass shoots a single-shot pistol multiple times without loading it (as pointed out over the weekend by demlion)

that's a start. gotta run

 

[GregPSU]

The Revenant was being shown at 4 theaters (2 in LA, 2 in NYC) for the past few weeks to make it eligible for Academy and other awards. It went into wide release this past Friday (1/8).

The movie is based on a 2003 novel by Michael Punke, titled The Revenant. It wasn’t as though Punke invented the story – he took a combination of stories and legends that had previously been published, and molded them into a new novel. It was based on the previous stories, though like any novel it also included a lot that was a figment of the author’s imagination.

Alejandro Inarritu directed the movie. It’s far more entertaining, to me, than his last movie, the Oscar-winning Birdman. (For those that don’t recall from my review last year, I did not care for Birdman – perhaps my least favorite Oscar winner in years.)

The movie centers on a few pivotal incidents in the life of Hugh Glass, a 19-century fur trapper, who is a real-life character. For that matter, several of the main characters in the movie were real-life characters. Of course, this being a Hollywood movie, which was based on a novel, a few of the main characters are fictional.

The movie is 2 hrs. and 36 min. During that time, the screen is filled with the stunning majesty of what the Upper Missouri river area looked like around 1823, as well as how difficult it was to survive in that region (especially during the winter), and how brutal some of the battles were between Native Americans and the trappers and US forces. The Big Sky country is breathtaking, and also very inhospitable. (It was actually shot in Canada and in Argentina.)

A number of movies have touched on this region, on trappers that hunted in that region, and on their interactions with Native Americans. What makes this movie different is that it focuses on how the trapper is treated by two other trappers, and the power of revenge (shades of The Count of Monte Cristo, taking place in upper South Dakota).

Hugh Glass is played exceptionally well by Leonardo DiCaprio. His chief nemesis is fellow trapper John Fitzgerald, played to perfection by Tom Hardy.

One of the things that I foundd interesting in the movie was the Native American tribes that were mentioned or depicted in the movie. Most of you have heard of the Pawnee or the Sioux, but you’ve got to be a student of US history, or into Native Americans, to know about the Arikara or the Mandan.

At times, the movie tries really hard to accurately depict how trappers, the US Army, or the Native Americans lived during this era. At other times, the movie is quite sloppy in its depiction of the life of these people. I compliment the movie for its efforts at accuracy, yet was quite frustrated by some of the inaccuracies I observed.

IMHO, the movie is much longer than it needed to be. In addition, while the fight scenes usually occur with little or no warning, most of the plot is pretty predictable.

I enjoyed the movie, and would recommend it (with the warning of a lot of violence). I didn’t feel it was on the level of some other movies that were released this year. In the end, I give it 3 out of 4 stars.

Since the plot is, to me, somewhat predictable, I wrote very little about it in this review. For those that are interested, you can read the real story about Hugh Glass at THIS LINK. For those that plan to see the movie, I’d recommend that you hold off on reading this until after seeing the film.

Interesting note: DiCaprio's flintlock rifle was made by a retired State Trooper living in little ol' Emporium, Pa. He has a gunshop and specializes in repairing/restoring and building old style flintlocks.

 

[TN Lion]

Thanks Tom for the Hugh Glass link.

 

[HazletonLion]

Tom have you ever seen Man In The Wilderness with Richard Harris ? There are similarities,let me know what your opinion is if you get time.

 

[MarkinMadison]

In a rush, so let me give you a few. I'll try to provide more tomorrow.

1. in multiple scenes, the frizzen on the flintlock is open. you can't shoot a flintlock when the frizzen is open (it makes the spark, which lights the gunpowder), but surprise, surprise, the characters can shoot away with an open frizzen

2. scenes of Hugh Glass in the stream for extended periods during the winter, with no clothes to change into. he would have died of hypothermia

3. the scene where Fitzgerald tries to kill Glass by stuffing a cloth in his mouth makes no sense, as he had an open hole in his throat due to the bear mauling. in effect, Glass has a tracheotomy. unless that hole in his neck was covered (which it wasn't), it would be impossible to suffocate someone as Fitzgerald did, as the body would inhale air through the hole in the neck

4. the trappers, both US and French, were in the middle of a war zone, so to speak, with the Native Americans. both the trappers and the Native Americans would have been very careful with their use of fire, in that it would give away their location unless it was small, and in a shielded location. Pretty much every fire you saw in the movie was a large, blazing fire, out in the open. Both sides would have only light such fires if they were very confident that their opponents were nowhere near them, which never seemed to be the case in the movie

5. Glass shoots a single-shot pistol multiple times without loading it (as pointed out over the weekend by demlion)

that's a start. gotta run

I'll throw in a #6. Minor, but so ridiculous that you wonder who edits these things......so a rugged trapper of the 1820s wants to ridicule another another trapper with sort of a feminization insult....so he refers to him as a "girlie bitch"........come on, right out of urban American (probably even junior high school) 2015. Perhaps use "dirty squaw" or something related to their world (if these trappers even bothered trading these types of insults).....I guess it was written for the lowest level to understand that this was meant to be some sort of insult.

 

[ClarkstonMark]

In a rush, so let me give you a few. I'll try to provide more tomorrow.

1. in multiple scenes, the frizzen on the flintlock is open. you can't shoot a flintlock when the frizzen is open (it makes the spark, which lights the gunpowder), but surprise, surprise, the characters can shoot away with an open frizzen

2. scenes of Hugh Glass in the stream for extended periods during the winter, with no clothes to change into. he would have died of hypothermia

3. the scene where Fitzgerald tries to kill Glass by stuffing a cloth in his mouth makes no sense, as he had an open hole in his throat due to the bear mauling. in effect, Glass has a tracheotomy. unless that hole in his neck was covered (which it wasn't), it would be impossible to suffocate someone as Fitzgerald did, as the body would inhale air through the hole in the neck

4. the trappers, both US and French, were in the middle of a war zone, so to speak, with the Native Americans. both the trappers and the Native Americans would have been very careful with their use of fire, in that it would give away their location unless it was small, and in a shielded location. Pretty much every fire you saw in the movie was a large, blazing fire, out in the open. Both sides would have only light such fires if they were very confident that their opponents were nowhere near them, which never seemed to be the case in the movie

5. Glass shoots a single-shot pistol multiple times without loading it (as pointed out over the weekend by demlion)

that's a start. gotta run

Regarding #3, you really think an 1800's trapper would have known that? You're nitpicking here.

 

[schoolie]

In a rush, so let me give you a few. I'll try to provide more tomorrow.

1. in multiple scenes, the frizzen on the flintlock is open. you can't shoot a flintlock when the frizzen is open (it makes the spark, which lights the gunpowder), but surprise, surprise, the characters can shoot away with an open frizzen

2. scenes of Hugh Glass in the stream for extended periods during the winter, with no clothes to change into. he would have died of hypothermia

3. the scene where Fitzgerald tries to kill Glass by stuffing a cloth in his mouth makes no sense, as he had an open hole in his throat due to the bear mauling. in effect, Glass has a tracheotomy. unless that hole in his neck was covered (which it wasn't), it would be impossible to suffocate someone as Fitzgerald did, as the body would inhale air through the hole in the neck

4. the trappers, both US and French, were in the middle of a war zone, so to speak, with the Native Americans. both the trappers and the Native Americans would have been very careful with their use of fire, in that it would give away their location unless it was small, and in a shielded location. Pretty much every fire you saw in the movie was a large, blazing fire, out in the open. Both sides would have only light such fires if they were very confident that their opponents were nowhere near them, which never seemed to be the case in the movie

5. Glass shoots a single-shot pistol multiple times without loading it (as pointed out over the weekend by demlion)

that's a start. gotta run

Excellent points. Thanks. Don't know your background, Tom. Would you care to elaborate in regard to your knowledge of frontier history?

 

[baircub1!]

The Revenant was being shown at 4 theaters (2 in LA, 2 in NYC) for the past few weeks to make it eligible for Academy and other awards. It went into wide release this past Friday (1/8).

The movie is based on a 2003 novel by Michael Punke, titled The Revenant. It wasn’t as though Punke invented the story – he took a combination of stories and legends that had previously been published, and molded them into a new novel. It was based on the previous stories, though like any novel it also included a lot that was a figment of the author’s imagination.

Alejandro Inarritu directed the movie. It’s far more entertaining, to me, than his last movie, the Oscar-winning Birdman. (For those that don’t recall from my review last year, I did not care for Birdman – perhaps my least favorite Oscar winner in years.)

The movie centers on a few pivotal incidents in the life of Hugh Glass, a 19-century fur trapper, who is a real-life character. For that matter, several of the main characters in the movie were real-life characters. Of course, this being a Hollywood movie, which was based on a novel, a few of the main characters are fictional.

The movie is 2 hrs. and 36 min. During that time, the screen is filled with the stunning majesty of what the Upper Missouri river area looked like around 1823, as well as how difficult it was to survive in that region (especially during the winter), and how brutal some of the battles were between Native Americans and the trappers and US forces. The Big Sky country is breathtaking, and also very inhospitable. (It was actually shot in Canada and in Argentina.)

A number of movies have touched on this region, on trappers that hunted in that region, and on their interactions with Native Americans. What makes this movie different is that it focuses on how the trapper is treated by two other trappers, and the power of revenge (shades of The Count of Monte Cristo, taking place in upper South Dakota).

Hugh Glass is played exceptionally well by Leonardo DiCaprio. His chief nemesis is fellow trapper John Fitzgerald, played to perfection by Tom Hardy.

One of the things that I foundd interesting in the movie was the Native American tribes that were mentioned or depicted in the movie. Most of you have heard of the Pawnee or the Sioux, but you’ve got to be a student of US history, or into Native Americans, to know about the Arikara or the Mandan.

At times, the movie tries really hard to accurately depict how trappers, the US Army, or the Native Americans lived during this era. At other times, the movie is quite sloppy in its depiction of the life of these people. I compliment the movie for its efforts at accuracy, yet was quite frustrated by some of the inaccuracies I observed.

IMHO, the movie is much longer than it needed to be. In addition, while the fight scenes usually occur with little or no warning, most of the plot is pretty predictable.

I enjoyed the movie, and would recommend it (with the warning of a lot of violence). I didn’t feel it was on the level of some other movies that were released this year. In the end, I give it 3 out of 4 stars.

Since the plot is, to me, somewhat predictable, I wrote very little about it in this review. For those that are interested, you can read the real story about Hugh Glass at THIS LINK. For those that plan to see the movie, I’d recommend that you hold off on reading this until after seeing the film.

Great review ! I just saw it as well... Some of the footage and scenery just incredible.

Leo will get " Best Actor"....one of his best IMO.

Very graphic movie.. Don't bring your wife or girlfriend...totally a " guy" flick.....

 

[rudedude]

His throat was stitched by the captain. So it wasn't an open tracheostomy. IMO it is a classic ala John Ford westerns.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Tom have you ever seen Man In The Wilderness with Richard Harris ? There are similarities,let me know what your opinion is if you get time.

Good memory. It's been 30+ years since I last saw Man in the Wilderness, so I don't remember a lot of particulars. That movie was based on the story/legend of Hugh Glass. They renamed the Glass character in the movie as Zachary Bass.

The Hugh Glass story has appeared in a number of articles and stories over the past 2 centuries. I believe Man in the Wilderness, which was released in 1971, was based in large part on The Saga of Hugh Glass: Pirate, Pawnee, and Mountain Man, which John Myers Myers wrote in 1963.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Regarding #3, you really think an 1800's trapper would have known that? You're nitpicking here.

The point is not whether an 1800s trapper would have known that. It's whether what was portrayed on screen could have taken place.

rudedude seems to feel that the wound was stitched before the suffocation scene. My memory was that it was still an open wound, though I could be mistaken.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Sorry for being slow about returning to this for pointing out inaccuracies. Things got kind of crazy on this board on Tuesday.

Two more inaccuracies:

1. Native American females, when captured by other tribes or by settlers/trappers, were either killed or considered property of the captors. Pretty much all the Native American females knew this, as they'd grown up seeing evidence of such. In the movie, the daughter of one of the tribe chiefs (I think it was a Arikara chief, but it may have been a Mandan; can't remember) is captured by the French trappers. You don't see that in the movie, but long after it's established that she is missing you see a French trapper violating her. The 1st words from the Native American female after she is liberated by Hugh Glass have to do with what she'll do to the trapper. That's something that could only have been created by script writers, writing for today's audience. There's almost no chance the Native American female would have said what she did
2. Continuing on the same scene, Glass didn't set out to free the Native American female. He was seeking a horse, a gun, clothes, etc., and came upon the party of French trappers. As he was seeking to steal a horse, etc., he wanted to keep things as quiet as possible. Glass was also a skilled trapper, and he would have wanted quiet and surprise. As such, I seriously doubt that he would have challenged the trapper and the Native American female. However, let's assume that he did, for whatever reason. He still wants quiet while he steals a horse. So while he's attempting to steal the horse, the Native American female turns the French trapper into a soprano, and no noise is made by the trapper. I doubt that she could have accomplished what she did without assistance, and there's no way she would have done that without the trapper making a lot of noise.

 

[schoolie]

Sorry for being slow about returning to this for pointing out inaccuracies. Things got kind of crazy on this board on Tuesday.

Two more inaccuracies:

1. Native American females, when captured by other tribes or by settlers/trappers, were either killed or considered property of the captors. Pretty much all the Native American females knew this, as they'd grown up seeing evidence of such. In the movie, the daughter of one of the tribe chiefs (I think it was a Arikara chief, but it may have been a Mandan; can't remember) is captured by the French trappers. You don't see that in the movie, but long after it's established that she is missing you see a French trapper violating her. The 1st words from the Native American female after she is liberated by Hugh Glass have to do with what she'll do to the trapper. That's something that could only have been created by script writers, writing for today's audience. There's almost no chance the Native American female would have said what she did
2. Continuing on the same scene, Glass didn't set out to free the Native American female. He was seeking a horse, a gun, clothes, etc., and came upon the party of French trappers. As he was seeking to steal a horse, etc., he wanted to keep things as quiet as possible. Glass was also a skilled trapper, and he would have wanted quiet and surprise. As such, I seriously doubt that he would have challenged the trapper and the Native American female. However, let's assume that he did, for whatever reason. He still wants quiet while he steals a horse. So while he's attempting to steal the horse, the Native American female turns the French trapper into a soprano, and no noise is made by the trapper. I doubt that she could have accomplished what she did without assistance, and there's no way she would have done that without the trapper making a lot of noise.

It's Hollywood, but a damn good movie. How do you come upon so much knowledge. It can't simply be from reading books. Degree? Teacher?

 

[mtnlion]

I was going to take my son who is in jr high to this...seems like I'd better wait a few years...

 

[schoolie]

I was going to take my son who is in jr high to this...seems like I'd better wait a few years...

Flip a coin. The scene that may be most embarrassing to you as a father is where the Indian woman is being violated. Otherwise, I think it's fine, especially considering what he might already have seen on TV or doing video games.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I was going to take my son who is in jr high to this...seems like I'd better wait a few years...

Well, that's a tough decision.

There is a lot of violence. Though it's primarily in just a few scenes in a very long movie. However, the violence is pretty darn graphic, especially the fight scenes at the very beginning of the movie, and at the end of the movie. Life on the frontier could be pretty brutal, and this movie doesn't hide that.

As for sex, it's not porn by any stretch. There's the one scene I alluded to above, where the trapper is having his way with the Native American female. You see her up against a tree, the trapper behind her, and his movements and breathing make it quite obvious what he's doing. There's also a scene around an army post where there's no outright sex, but some of the drunken trappers are enjoying the company of some Native Americans that are fully clothed, but don't seem to be there for their own pleasure.

As for the other scene I alluded to (turning the trapper into a soprano), you don't actually see that. The Native American female indicates that's what she'd like to do, then the film shows Glass trying to steal a horse, then the other trappers wondering where their comrade is. The film then flashes back to the trapper and he's shown with his pants down (I can't recall if they were around his ankle, or it was the old style of pant with a front flap which is flipped down to around his knees), and there's a lot of blood on his thighs. Between what the female says in the earlier scene, and then that scene, you infer what happened to him, though you never actually see it.

The bear attack isn't pretty.

I'd certainly think hard about whether to take a junior high kid to the movie, but depending on what they've previously seen, it may or may not be fine.

 

[mtnlion]

Thanks. It's gonna be a tough call. He's seen violent stuff before I don't mind him getting a dose of reality to balance things against glorifying violence. The rape scene has me hesitant. Thanks for the review and heads up.

 

[Op2]

2. scenes of Hugh Glass in the stream for extended periods during the winter, with no clothes to change into. he would have died of hypothermia

According to this, a U of Notre Dame historian says the bear attack occurred in summer, not winter.

http://historybuff.com/the-revenant-the-incredible-true-story-behind-leonardo-dicaprios-new-movie/

 

[Chickenman Testa]

The bear attack was brutal! It reminded me of the scene in Casino where Joe Pesci's character and his brother are beaten to near death and buried alive in the cornfield. Unrelenting and incredibly violent

 

[Michael.Felli]

LISTEN...........GO WATCH THE REVENANT (great movie)

Just saw it last evening. Oscar worthy movie and Oscar worthy performances.

Definitely two thumbs up