Support NeoGAF

[Madness]

author of that article comes off as a grade A douchebag

No kidding. He even explains why everyone is talking about it, but he purposely chooses to remain obtuse. You have arguably the greatest male lead available today, go and do all this. Very few movies actually do this anymore, if ever. It's not so much digital, but the difference is a runner saying they just ran 60 minutes on a treadmill and a runner saying they just ran 10 miles around the city.

Everyone is impressed and talking about it because they didn't CGI most of the movie, they didn't use to of film sets etc. I mean are we not supposed to be appreciative of hard work? To not appreciate someone going the extra mile anymore?

 

[Regulus Tera]

Jackie Chan's quote about apologizing to audiences comes to mind.

 

[xJavonta]

heres the thing, the movie was great.

the acting felt genuine and knowing that they actually endured all of that (i didn't know that until reading this piece), explains why i felt that way.

i don't get why this assclown has to be so up in arms about the fact that they like to brag about the struggles they went through to make this film. it's important to some people. if it's not important to you, shut the hell up and ignore it

 

[DerZuhälter]

He's got a fair point if The Revenant is a bad movie.
Haven't seen it I can't argue with that sentiment, but I can see his point. since I raised similar points about Boyhood last year.
Personally I thought it was an utterly pointless movie that says nothing. You can argue: "That's the point, Boyhood is similarly to real boyhood just the pointless opening chapters to adulthood and thus developments don't really lead anywhere for the main character (not so much for the supporting cast)." To me that's the movies inherent problem. Sure give the editor an Oscar for working through 12 years of footage, but the movie or director? Fuck'em.

 

[atr0cious]

He's got a fair point if The Revenant is a bad movie.
Haven't seen it I can't argue with that sentiment, but I can see his point. since I raised similar points about Boyhood last year.
Personally I thought it was an utterly pointless movie that says nothing. You can argue: "That's the point, Boyhood is similarly to real boyhood just the pointless opening chapters to adulthood and thus developments don't really lead anywhere for the main character (not so much for the supporting cast)." To me that's the movies inherent problem. Sure give the editor an Oscar for working through 12 years of footage, but the movie or director? Fuck'em.

I think this is the big sticking point the author is getting stuck on. If the movie is great, who gives a shit what they did to get there? If some want to champion the work they did, let them. But if you did all this work, and all you have to show for it is something that looked like you trotted out the camera for a day or two every year, then yeah, you shouldn't be immune to criticism.

 

[Surface of Me]

No kidding. He even explains why everyone is talking about it, but he purposely chooses to remain obtuse. You have arguably the greatest male lead available today, go and do all this. Very few movies actually do this anymore, if ever. It's not so much digital, but the difference is a runner saying they just ran 60 minutes on a treadmill and a runner saying they just ran 10 miles around the city.

Everyone is impressed and talking about it because they didn't CGI most of the movie, they didn't use to of film sets etc. I mean are we not supposed to be appreciative of hard work? To not appreciate someone going the extra mile anymore?

As a consumer, no I dont give a shit if they went "the extra mile" or not. I give a shit about how good the movie is. I dont think "Well it was okay, but since he did all that shit, it was excellent!" The author of the article isn't saying it's a bad movie, he is just saying the shit they went through to make it should be irrelevant to the person who ends up watching it. Which is something I agree with.

 

[toastyToast]

I don't know why he didn't just cook that Bison. There was a fire right there.

 

[Dictator93]

I mean, I agree with the points that

good movie / good acting =/ physical hardship

But it does not mean the two cannot coincide. Then again this is leo we are talking about here, and I do not think he is a very good actor in general.

 

[patapuf]

As a consumer, no I dont give a shit if they went "the extra mile" or not. I give a shit about how good the movie is. I dont think "Well it was okay, but since he did all that shit, it was excellent!" The author of the article isn't saying it's a bad movie, he is just saying the shit they went through to make it should be irrelevant to the person who ends up watching it. Which is something I agree with.

Yes and no, plenty of things outside of the pure movie can impact movie experience, especially people more "into" movies (which are consumers as well) the way a movie was made can be of aditional interest.

I don't really get the salt over "they shouldn't say how hard it was to make this, the movie alone coutns!". What special effects and filming techniques were used to make a movie is discussed all the time pre and post release. As are all other kinds of things that you can't see or know while watching the movie.

What makes this one so different that this is suddenly a problem? This seems more like a marketing campaign rubs the author the wrong way.

 

[EGM1966]

There's an interesting point to be discussed in principle here but the writer fails to make the best of it by instead to be a bit of a douche tryhard himself with the writing style he adopts.

 

[Brakke]

Guys nobody cares about your hot takes on Devin's tone. His website used to be called "Bad Ass Digest". He's consistent and transparent in his performed style. Everybody "gets" him immediately.

 

[TheKaeptain]

I don't know why he didn't just cook that Bison. There was a fire right there.

Because Leo had to get to the truth of the character.

 

[Auctopus]

I wonder how well he could write a film critique knee-deep in an Alaskan river.

 

[Dommo]

I think this is the big sticking point the author is getting stuck on. If the movie is great, who gives a shit what they did to get there? If some want to champion the work they did, let them. But if you did all this work, and all you have to show for it is something that looked like you trotted out the camera for a day or two every year, then yeah, you shouldn't be immune to criticism.

That's pretty much what he's saying. All he's saying is "Regardless of the quality of your film, how difficult it was to shoot is not a contributing factor." Which is absolutely correct and I don't know why anyone would disagree with that here, regardless of whether you enjoyed The Revenant or not. He obviously didn't (or at least, wasn't blown away by Leo here) and he's expressing his disdain with an industry too focused on the difficulty of something, rather than the end result, which is really all that matters.

Like, this:

Leo was great in The Revenant, as he is in almost all his movies.

isn't actually super relevant to the article. Like it's related, but it's not the crux. Surely, regardless of whether you thought Leo was good here, and regardless of whether the shit he put himself through to output that performance, you still recognise that eating a bison liver, or living through horrible weather conditions is not in and of itself good acting and shouldn't be used to drum up credibility to a performance.

And this:

Just watched this today. I really enjoyed it. Some people can never just enjoy things.

Why is this guy trying to make me feel bad about enjoying the film?

Regardless of the relatively antagonistic attitude written in the article towards the movie, you or me or him enjoying it isn't super important to the discussion. Stop looking at these things as "I enjoyed x and it's 100% subjective so get off my back wouldya" when the crux of the argument isn't about the film's quality at all. He's talking about a larger issue he finds problematic when critiquing art. And he's totally right.

 

[Surface of Me]

Yes and no, plenty of things outside of the pure movie can impact movie experience, especially people more "into" movies (which are consumers as well) the way a movie was made can be of aditional interest.

I don't really get the salt over "they shouldn't say how hard it was to make this, the movie alone coutns!". What special effects and filming techniques were used to make a movie is discussed all the time pre and post release. As are all other kinds of things that you can't see or know while watching the movie.

What makes this one so different that this is suddenly a problem? This seems more like a marketing campaign rubs the author the wrong way.

Im way "into" movies, but the movie alone counts. Yeah people talk about special effects and filming techniques, but I dont consider that when thinking on whether a movie is good or not. The author takes the campaign the wrong way because they are arguing the that what they went through making the movie should be considered when judging how good the movie is.

 

[patapuf]

Im way "into" movies, but the movie alone counts. Yeah people talk about special effects and filming techniques, but I dont consider that when thinking on whether a movie is good or not. The author takes the campaign the wrong way because they are arguing the that what they went through making the movie should be considered when judging how good the movie is.

I agree in principle but to me the whole: "we did it for real!" seems a lot like "we took real people from the streets" for slumdog millionaire or when an actor says "i did all the stunts myself" or whatever.

I guess my point is more: stories and PR as to why your film is this super authenthic experience aren't exactly rare and it's never stopped anyone to judge a movie on it's own.

What else beyond how you made the movie and what you did to make it super great are you supposed to talk about when marketing/reporting about it? I get it can be annoying but this movie hasn't exactly been talked about for months like say, star wars.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I mean, I agree with the points that

good movie / good acting =/ physical hardship

But it does not mean the two cannot coincide. Then again this is leo we are talking about here, and I do not think he is a very good actor in general.

How??

 

[Ivan 3414]

Oh look, a well thought-out criticism is met on GAF with an avalanche of childish personal insults directed at the author. Holy shit, guys, how fragile do you have to be to go into fight or flight mode just because somebody analyzed a fucking movie or game you liked and came away with a different opinion of it?

Sorry dude this is GAF. If it's popular here and you don't like(or, God forbid, hate) something about it and aren't profusely apologetic about it, you're a shitstain regardless of how valid or well thought-out your points are.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I agree in principle but to me the whole: "we did it for real!" seems a lot like "we took real people from the streets" for slumdog millionaire or when an actor says "i did all the stunts myself" or whatever.

It reminds me of people complaining about boy bands in the late 90s because "they didn't even play their own instruments." It was such a bizarre nitpick, since it wasn't as if that would have made that particular music any more appealing.

 

[ogbg]

This is what happens when you pay too much attention to marketing.

 

[Ridley327]

This is what happens when you pay too much attention to marketing.

You know, the thing that's kinda interesting here is that this type of marketing used to be a lot more common back in the day, where studios would try to prop up troubled productions by spinning those issues into a notch on their belt. A clusterfuck suddenly becomes NOW, AFTER TWO OR THREE YEARS IN THE MAKING, THIS GRAND PRODUCTION COMES TO THE SCREEN IN ALL ITS GRANDEUR AND PASSION or something along those lines. Fox is rather intimately familiar with such productions, so they could probably work the advertising and the awards campaign standing on their head.

 

[Atrophis]

You know, the thing that's kinda interesting here is that this type of marketing used to be a lot more common back in the day, where studios would try to prop up troubled productions by spinning those issues into a notch on their belt. A clusterfuck suddenly becomes NOW, AFTER TWO OR THREE YEARS IN THE MAKING, THIS GRAND PRODUCTION COMES TO THE SCREEN IN ALL ITS GRANDEUR AND PASSION or something along those lines. Fox is rather intimately familiar with such productions, so they could probably work the advertising and the awards campaign standing on their head.

Curiously this guy gave a glowing review of Boyhood which banked entirely on how long it took to make. The marketing for Boyhood was far more annoying and in your face about the hardships of filming it than anything I've seen for The Revenant.

 

[MattKeil]

Someone who loved Boyhood writing that article is hilarious.

I don't disagree with him, but everything he said there applies just as much, if not more, to Boyhood.

and the sad thing about it is leo will prob get an oscar this year

I wouldn't bet on that just yet.

 

[Haloid1177]

Was there a backlash for Mad Max for being too practical?

No because it was actually a good movie.

Both films had weak plots, and both were fantastically filmed, but Revenant seemed just a bit too long, especially in the middle where nothing is really happening or adding to the story. Mad Max was tightly scripted with a singular goal of getting from point A to point B and it worked. Revenant tried to combine your average revenge flick with a Survivorman episode and I felt like it did not mesh well at all.

I mean I don't know why we're comparing the two films but there ya go.

 

[Ridley327]

Curiously this guy gave a glowing review of Boyhood which banked entirely on how long it took to make. The marketing for Boyhood was far more annoying and in your face about the hardships of filming it than anything I've seen for The Revenant.

The actual production for Boyhood is a lot less of an actual story than being shot over the course of 12 years would make you think. I think the actual production schedule wound up being less than two months total, Linklater had an outline of what he wanted to do and used the footage he shot each year in shaping what was to come the following year, and they did a good job of accommodating for the scheduling they had to do for the kids having to go to school and Patricia Arquette having a steady gig on Medium by largely shooting on the weekends. It was obviously still risky because of what would happen if Ellar Coltrane said no at any point after the first year, but Cleopatra, it ain't.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Besides the obvious fact that it was probably actually cold when they filmed it I didn't know any of the things listed in the OP when I went to see the movie. I just saw trailers, thought it looked good, and went to see it. I enjoyed it without knowing what kind of work went into making it. It's still a good movie even if you remove all of those factors.

 

[Bit-Bit]

The scene where Leo gets attacked by the Bear, I felt like that scene is enough to warrant him an Oscar. At the end of that scene, I was exhausted and pained for Leo.

 

[John Dunbar]

what backlash?

its rotten tomatoes score begins with an 8 instead of a 9.

 

[Abounder]

Only backlash I remember was that 'bear rape' article lol

There is certainly physical reality onscreen but I'm not sure there's emotional truth.Weirdly enough Tom Cruise's high profile M:I stunts feel like they have more truth to them if only because the character of Ethan Hunt is just Tom Cruise with a nom du spy, as far as we can tell. It's bizarre, but Cruise hanging off a plane in Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation has more honesty and meaning to it than every single discomfort suffered by DiCaprio in The Revenant.

Speaking of Tom Cruise - I liked his performance and The Last Samurai more than Leo's latest effort, but both movies were good. I agree that The Revenant felt empty but goddamn it's great to watch on the big screen

 

[supernormal]

As much as I hate to say it I kind of agree with the OP. I really wanted to like this movie, but the whole time I'm watching it it just feels like the whole purpose of it was to push the envelope on what they're willing to put an actor through, and with that actor being Leo it just feels like he's begging for the Oscar on every scene.

I love Leo, but his last two movies have both felt like this (Wolf of Wall Street and Revenant). In Wolf it was about how over the top he could go with being ridiculously high and uncoordinated, but at least the whole experience was fun and the characters where great. In the Revenant it was about how much he could endure but that got old really fast when you notice that this what the whole movie is gonna be about (at least the bear scene was cool). I think I would preferred Leo to be part of the cast of The Hateful 8 with a similar character to what he did in Django. At least that movie was a little bit fun.

 

[Cuburt]

Didn't know any of the production backstory going into it but some of that realism came through to me in watching it, even if it was only confirmed after the fact. It didn't feel as visceral as it probably should have for what it was attempting, and as visceral as movies from a time before digital may have.

There were lots of cool scenes but it was hard to get invested in any of it from the very first minute. It was long and trying in it's execution but that didn't make the journey any more compelling or even more satisfying in it's conclusion. In that way, I agree with the article because it could have conveyed things better for the audience without having to make it real for Leo or make his on survival screen time drag out so long.

Leo was great though and that bear scene was just as visceral as it needed to be.

 

[cubicle47b]

Something Faraci excels at.

The Revenant and the oscar campaign for Leonardo DiCaprio is worse than ISIS.

 

[gamz]

Wow! Didn't realize Devin is hated this much. I like him and he consistently delivers really good reviews. His Creed review was one of my Favs from last year. He's abrasive but we'll written. I also really like his podcasts with Amy.

 

[Johndoey]

Why is this so aggressive? His point is legitimate but still.

 

[Blader]

No because it was actually a good movie.

Both films had weak plots, and both were fantastically filmed, but Revenant seemed just a bit too long, especially in the middle where nothing is really happening or adding to the story. Mad Max was tightly scripted with a singular goal of getting from point A to point B and it worked. Revenant tried to combine your average revenge flick with a Survivorman episode and I felt like it did not mesh well at all.

I mean I don't know why we're comparing the two films but there ya go.

Because it's the exact same narrative: a lot of the hype around the film is in the challenge of doing it real, whether it's having Leo crawl through the snow or having guys swing back and forth on poles over trucks. You might like Mad Max more than The Revenant, but doesn't mean the emphasis on practical effects and the challenge of that stuntwork is any less a part of the conversation.

Why is this so aggressive? His point is legitimate but still.

Because he's an asshole? Whatever the deeper psychological reasons for that are.

This is the same guy who tried starting a Twitter war with some random writer, going off about how he wanted to destroy his life and publicly talking about his wife cheating on him or something, just because he got drunk one night.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Ok, and I don't care that you don't care dear journalist

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

I didn't mind the movie. Liked Martian more

My biggest annoyance was actually the cinematography. It tried too hard. Every shot was going out of its way to either be a postcard, or taken at a funny angle to accentuate the anguish/pain etc.

 

[Johndoey]

Because he's an asshole? Whatever the deeper psychological reasons for that are.

This is the same guy who tried starting a Twitter war with some random writer, going off about how he wanted to destroy his life and publicly talking about his wife cheating on him or something, just because he got drunk one night.

Christ didn't know all that. I'm not really familiar with him or his work.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Frankly I haven't seen much of a backlash. But I do agree with the premise that a movie being hard to make doesn't equal Oscars and quality. The film should speak for itself.

Yep. Defending a film by "oh this was so hard to do and we worked through all this tough stuff" comes off as the same maneuvers students were doing in school for why their videos weren't great. If you've done your job, I might not be able to tell that you did something effortlessly or through great trials, and that's the point. You don't get points from me for effort.

Curiously this guy gave a glowing review of Boyhood which banked entirely on how long it took to make. The marketing for Boyhood was far more annoying and in your face about the hardships of filming it than anything I've seen for The Revenant.

Those sort of arthouse movies sort of bank on enjoying the process as much as, or more than, the product. I mean Boyhood was good, but it's entirely possible the director could of wound up with Jake Lloyd-caliber acting and people would still have hailed it. Circling back to the above, that's a cruddy reason, but especially with modern art it's an unfortunate reality of expectations and hype.

 

[Blader]

Christ didn't know all that. I'm not really familiar with him or his work.

I misremembered the cheating bit -- and there was actually a thread here about it last year -- though re-reading the tweets, I have even less of an idea what he's going off about. :lol

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1098821

 

[gamz]

Why is this so aggressive? His point is legitimate but still.

I think it's because the director keeps harping on the point. I'm sure Fury Road was just as hard and Miller doesn't say a word.

 

[j-wood]

Does anyone else find it ironic that this person is heavily dissing CGI, and yet the films best sequence involved CGI? :jnc

 

[Mad Season]

There is no backlash

 

[zma1013]

Unless there's specifically an award that goes to the making of a film, It's not even relevant to the quality of the film if they had to shoot in a blizzard or whatever. The end result that is shown on screen is what should be judged for best picture or best actor or whatever. I really hope that sort of stuff isn't what's influencing decisions.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

As someone who watches IIñárritu films pretty much for their technical merits as the writing tends to be poor and the stories tend to be uninteresting, this actually makes me more interested in The Revenant than before. It's nice to have my expectations in check after being disappointed by IIñárritu films in the past

 

[Ridley327]

I think it's because the director keeps harping on the point. I'm sure Fury Road was just as hard and Miller doesn't say a word.

I think it's just a matter of different situations. WB has been behind Miller for a big chunk of his career, so there's a bit more security there. Iñárritu doesn't have a big studio like that in his corner on a consistent basis, so he's got a lot more to answer for when you have a runaway production like this, and he's going to have to come up with a good answer for when investors are asking him if something like that could happen again on whatever he wants to work on next. I think telling money guys about wanting to find God in the shots is not going to go over as well the next time.

 

[FafaFooey]

So the guy can't talk about how it was to actually shoot the movie? He's not begging for sympathy awards, he's just answering questions about the behind-the-scenes goings of the movie.

OMG DIS GUY. WON'T SHUT UP ABOUT THE INTERESTING FACTS PEOPLE VOLUNTARILY LOOK UP ABOUT MOVIES AND WHICH IS ALSO THE REASON WHY HE'S BEING INTERVIEWED. Fuck off.

 

[Haloid1177]

Because it's the exact same narrative: a lot of the hype around the film is in the challenge of doing it real, whether it's having Leo crawl through the snow or having guys swing back and forth on poles over trucks. You might like Mad Max more than The Revenant, but doesn't mean the emphasis on practical effects and the challenge of that stuntwork is any less a part of the conversation.

I don't really understand where you took that from in my post. I completely agree that part of the appeal of Mad Max and Revenant is the process, but when comparing those twoo movies, Mad Max has a simple plot without clutter, and Revenant is overly long, especially during the middle.

Seriously, Revenant is amazing in every facet except its script.

 

[Fletcher]

I feel iñárritu is at that point where they just kind of nominate him because his films seem as they should be good. They are always a slog to get through.

 

[Y2Kev]

No more attacks on the writer, please.