Review: The Revenant

Set on the American frontier in the 1800s (filmed largely in Canada) where a fur trapping expedition has come under attack by Arikara warriors, expert tracker Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) gets attacked by a bear. Expedition leader Captain Henry (Domhnall Gleeson) specifically requests three of the men stay with Glass and care for him in his final moments, as he looks to be certainly near death. The brutal and callous John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) convinces young and naïve Bridger (Will Poulter) to abandon Glass, leaving him for dead. When Glass’ teenage half-breed son (Forrest Goodluck) protests, Fitzgerald kills him. Glass, however survives, braves both the harsh elements and haunting visions of his dead wife, as he sets about exacting his revenge on his betrayers.

 

Although it’s basically one long vigilante movie that for all money seems like a three-way collaboration between Sam Peckinpah, Terence Malick, and John Milius, this 2015 flick is quite easily the best film to date from director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (“21 Grams”, “Babel”, “Birdman”). I mean, it’s a survival story and a revenge flick, set in a very harsh and unforgiving environment and populated by hardened characters. That’s clearly Peckinpah and Milius territory. It also contains a performance by Leonardo DiCaprio that, while pretty much Oscar bait, is his best work on screen since “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?”. He deserved the Oscar win here, so I’m glad he finally won. Sometimes Oscar-bait performances actually deserve the recognition, and this is one such performance. He’s so damn convincingly raw and real in this that if you go into it cold, you may not even realise it’s him at all. Ain’t no pretty boy preening in this one. Given how I’ve had issues with him being far too recognisable and boyish particularly in some of his early adult performances, it really is remarkable how he has turned that around, particularly here in this very mature performance. You really don’t want to be the guy Leo plays in this film, he goes to hell and back through the course of this film. Then again, you probably don’t want to be Tom Hardy’s character either, once Leo catches up with him. Also, anyone who thinks Leo’s character gets raped by a bear in this film is a frigging idiot. He gets attacked, not sexually violated. How did that idiot rumour even get started? The bear, by the way, is a much more convincing CG creation than many are giving the film credit for. I believed it. It’s a great scene, really frightening actually.

 

Is Tom Hardy doing a Tom Berenger in “Platoon” impersonation here? Certainly visually you can see the influence, with the bandana. The rest of the performance, though, for me is original enough that it’s not just a distracting impersonation. He’s been inspired by one of his favourite actors, quite clearly, but doesn’t let it get to the point where it’s in any way detrimental to the character or film. Whatever the influence, his performance works. Mumbly at times (seemingly something we just have to put up with when it comes to Hardy), he’s a damn good actor and probably deserved to win the Best Supporting Actor award at the Oscars. He’s certainly far more impressive than that year’s winner Mark Rylance for the otherwise very fine “Bridge of Spies” (Rylance wasn’t even the best supporting actor in that film, for chrissakes). Hardy is frightening, crazy, macho, and cowardly (or at least selfish) all at once, weird as that may sound. Also giving fine, if smaller turns are the seriously versatile Domhnall Gleeson and a well-cast Will Poulter.

 

This is a tough, uncompromising film that plays out over the course of 2 ½ gripping but gruelling hours. I’m not sure it’s the best-looking film of 2015, but as shot by an Oscar-winning Emmanuel Lubezki (“Gravity”, “Birdman”), it’s up there. It’s a stunning, yet harsh film. The amber filter/colour correction used for a scene lit by a bunch of fire torches is unrealistic, but undeniably beautiful. Apparently it’s the only scene with artificial lighting in the film, and it certainly stands out from the rest of the film, for better or worse. I could’ve done without the Terrence Malick-esque dreamy flashbacks, but that’s a minor drawback to an otherwise effective, tough film. The title is perfectly chosen too, if you actually know what it means, and the finale is pure Peckinpah/Milius machismo.

 

10 minutes is all it took for me to see just why people were raving over this film, and I kept being impressed throughout. Two terrific performances, stunning cinematography, and irresistible storytelling. Definitely one of the top 10 films of the year, this is gruelling stuff in the best sense of the word. The fact that this was apparently (loosely) based on a real guy is pretty damn astonishing. From the historical novel by Michael Punke, the screenplay is by the director and Mark L. Smith (“Vacancy”, Joe Dante’s “The Hole”).

 

Rating: B