Comments on: Watch: Leonardo DiCaprio & Tom Hardy Star In The First Trailer For Alejandro Iñárritu’s Revenge Thriller ‘The Revenant’

By: billyboy

billyboy — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

Once again, Chivo\’s style is the standout. Not sure about the rest, though…

By: doris

doris — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

liked the Punke novel… was excited for the movie, but this trailer is pretty awful

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

Wow! You rarely if EVER see films shot like this! It looks as if you were actually on set of the movie. The natural lighting and location is amazing! Can\’t wait to see

By: jay

jay — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

i hate to say it but lubezki is one of the most overrated DoP\’s ever. his stuff looks like stock photography or something you\’d see framed in ikea. less hyped DP\’s like newton siegel, larry smith and laurie rose should be receiving the ass-kissing lubezki gets.

By: cirkusfolk

cirkusfolk — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

Man, this was my most anticipated film of the year, but after this trailer, I don\’t know. I agree that Lubezki\’s work is annoying. It\’s that fisheye type lensing that all the Malick films have lately. It does not service a film like this that should have more wide shots to show off the epicness. This is too in your face.

By: faulkner

faulkner — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

wow, that was amazing. immersive, beautiful, tense. don\’t know what you guys are complaining about. awesome trailer.

By: doris

doris — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

the novel is incredibly atmospheric, subtle and nuanced… selling it with this poorly-shot battle sequence seems obvious and dull. Someone like PT Anderson, John Hillcoat or Andrew Dominik could have done this right. And agreed: Chivo is totally insipid compared to Elswit, Pfister, McGarvey and Libatique.

By: faulkner

faulkner — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

how is this poorly shot, Doris? i won\’t play the \’this cinematographer is better than that one\’ game b/c it\’s insipid and subjective, but saying the battle sequences shown in the trailer are poorly shot is ludicrous.

By: Elcoolguy

Elcoolguy — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

crazy, people are being buzz killing cunts. Who would have known…

By: lulu

lulu — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

Birdman was so edgy and unique, but IMO Leonardo in a story about the obsessive and relentless male psyche is at risk of heavy ponderousness, I mean the guy\’s a self styled playboy so he should do what comes naturally and play more, have fun, and if we need evidence of that there\’s WOWS, which he was great in. The problem seems to be that LDC can be in anything he chooses while this feels like it maybe needs more inventive casting to lift it.

By: doris

doris — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:07 +0000

read the novel — the battles play a tiny part. The rest is Hugh Glass crawling through the wilderness reflecting on his past, plotting his revenge etc. But that\’s not what sells movies I suppose…

By: doris

doris — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

sad but true… I was genuinely excited to see a near-silent totally uncompromising movie where a half-mauled Dicaprio clawed his way through some stunning vistas… but it seems that\’s not what they\’ve gone for. Fair enough I suppose.

By: faulkner

faulkner — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

i think we have to view films as adaptations and not visual transcriptions of novels. if you watch this film with expectations of the former, you\’ll always be let down, imo. you\’re right about what sells movies, though.

By: faulkner

faulkner — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

oops, i meant expectations of the latter, i.e., visual transcriptions.

By: gradius

gradius — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

i hope this will be in 3D

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

Perez, it´s ´au naturel´. And it refers to the subject, the person or thing being naked. Not the surroundings. That´s just ´in the wild´.
Not only is the spelling wrong, but the context, too.

Stick to Spanish. It should be easier for you.

By: droop

droop — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

your comment seems to be spammy

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

This footage resembles a History Channel re-enactment segment in one of their documentaries. For them, it´s fine. And expected. Not for a medium thayt should draw the viewer in.

Go digital!

Not.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

And, Jay, it´s Newton Sigel.
If you admire them so much, have the respect to check their names.

By: Napalm

Napalm — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

Go to bed Jay. "Stock photography" lol

By: Cromby

Cromby — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

"in the early 1900s" – REALLY?

By: Bogart

Bogart — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

This looks amazing! Like a weird love-child of The Edge (Baldwin, you badass) and Malick\’s The New World!

By: jay

jay — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

i spelled a cinematographer\’s name wrong! agh! the embarrassment!

By: Kate

Kate — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

We saw this movie 41 years ago. It was called "Man in the Wilderness" and it starred Richard Harris and John Huston. Shouldn\’t this be referred to as a remake?

By: N

Mon, 23 May 2016 02:55:06 +0000

Take off of the classic Jeramiah Johnson!