Movies, TV

My honest notes about “The Revenant”

I watched “The Revenant”.

And I had a huge problem with it:


THE REVENANT Copyright © 2015 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All rights reserved. THE REVENANT Motion Picture Copyright © 2015 Regency Entertainment (USA), Inc. and Monarchy Enterprises S.a.r.l. All rights reserved.Not for sale or duplication.

Image via: Creative Planet

No one.

Yet we see it in movies. All the time. In every movie with a winter wilderness scene.

It is absurd and insulting to the viewer.

People don’t intentionally get wet in the wilderness in winter even if they are near a resort with a fireplace, hot water, and a clothes dryer.

When a character goes wading into water during winter, it takes me out of the story every single time.

I cannot conceive why a filmmaker would do that. Perhaps in hopes that the viewer will think, “Man, that character was cold before… but after wading through frozen water with no shelter in sight, they are really cold!”

To be blunt, it is stupid. Especially when the character is supposed to be a seasoned explorer or mountain man.

Getting submersed, outdoors, during winter, in the wilderness means death.

Argh. That is so frustrating and disappointing to see in a film.


Anyways, here are the notes I took while watching the film:

  • Lots of exposition
  • Leo’s character doesn’t seem like much of a nature expert
  • Gruesome doesn’t mean good
  • Some on-the-nose dialogue
  • Kinda cartoonish bad guys
  • It’s Braveheart, Revenge, Apocalypto, etc. set in the NW.
  • Gosh darn it! No survivalist, or thinking person, gets and stays wet.
  • No. One. Would wade into frozen water.
  • Gosh darn it. No one even tip toes near frozen water when trying to survive cold climate.
  • I thought his arm was broken??
  • The symbolism of trees is confusing, clumsy, and heavy handed.
  • Fogging up the camera was horrid. It ripped me out of the story.
  • Tom Hardy commands the screen!
  • The montages are clumsy.
  • Gah! More people wading through water.
  • Quite a few subplots that have a very weak connection to the main story
  • Subplots are a little hard to follow
  • Why didn’t he stay with the girl?
  • Why are those Indians attacking him?
  • He really doesn’t seem like an experienced nature guy.
  • Why would anyone get inside of a horse? Wouldn’t it be easier, safer, more sanitary to build a fire or ANY other shelter? Wouldn’t butchering a horse attract every carnivore in a 10 mile radius?
  • Why do the good guys trust the obvious villain?
  • The captain is too young
  • Leo’s voice rarely fits the character for me. But he consumes this character. Wonderful acting. Doesn’t seem like acting.
  • C’mon. Leo is splashing through water as he is tracking the bad guy and carrying the captains corpse. No. One. Would. Do. That. No one gets in water when they are trying to survive in winter wilderness.
  • Leo’s character still seems like a horrible mountain man. Can’t track, can’t read signs, can’t fight, wades through freezing water at every opportunity, prone to blinding emotion
  • The final chase and fight are good. Unconventional. Patient. Brilliant.
  • I love survival stories! Man vs nature and himself!
  • Revenge stories are captivating to humans

The Millennium Falcon

There’s a new Star Wars movie coming. And there’s a staggering amount of buzz about it. As there should be. The movie looks good, and the series is certainly good and worth continuing.

One of many reasons for that is the Millennium Falcon. I have stated many times that the Millennium Falcon is the greatest fiction space ship. (I would like to hear your opinions and support.)

Take a look at this: some very dedicated people made a very detailed Millennium Falcon using over 10,000 Legos. (And using them the “right” way. See end of this post.)

Two great creations brought together.

The “right” and “wrong” way to use Lego.

Or, How Lego saved itself by ending creativity. And how they kinda had to.