Yes Hugh, I know that now.......after years of Navy Nuclear Power training and thermodynamics, etc, etc. Back then when I was 7 or 8 years old.......it was "magic"!

Far Fetched

Cool! Right up my ally!

I don't go to movies to see crap I can see every day - I go to escape!

:D

I don't understand people who go to see a Hollywood movie and then get mad because it isn't a documentary.

Saw it Sat evening. Not impressed, although I do like Leo. I found it difficult to put the story together. The dream scences were hard to understand.

You mean to say if they turned the camera around 180 degrees from the action of Leo starving and freezing in the bitter wilderness, we would see 50 people standing around in North Face, and Mountain Hardwear parkas, sipping hot cappuccinos and eating pastries? Say it ain't so!

I liked it. Drew you in, kept the story moving, great cinematography and acting. The sound editing seemed a little muddy but worth seeing.

Movies are an escape. When some Pelicans were complaining about The Lone Ranger and how you couldn't have a horse chase on a train, well I think you're just missing the whole point.

As a somewhat enthusiastic student of the era, and of all things relating to the Rocky Mountain fur trade era, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It was difficult to find fault with anything regarding the setting, the men, their equipment, their methods - any of it. The only thing that bothered me was their use of the term "tree nigger" - in literally dozens of sources, from first hand accounts to biographies of the men involved, I never ran across that term. Ever. "Bug's Boys" was the chosen label for the Blackfeet and pretty much every tribe they ran across. "Bugs" was the Devil himself - so, the "Devil's Boys". You can see where they got to feeling that way...

As far as survival under those conditions, with that equipment - everything portrayed in this movie is entirely accurate. Nothing far-fetched or the least bit unbelievable about the manner in which they made their way in the wilderness. The story of Hugh Glass is very well documented in a number of historical accounts; he really did spend months literally crawling out of the wilderness after having been mauled by a bear. The only inaccuracy in the movie was the presence of his son - he was not there. It was another grown man in addition to Bridger and Fitzgerald. Jim Bridger was very real, and recounted this story himself - Glass let him live because he was just a kid (17 years old) and on his first trip.

So, yes - a very accurate portrayal of the men, the times, and the location. The most accurate I have ever seen. Yes, Keith and Heston were great in The Mountain Men and Redford was great in Jeremiah Johnson (the real man's name was plain old John, by the way), but this one brought the authenticity to a whole new level.

I liked the movie, didn't love it. I'm not thinking it should win an Oscar or that DiCaprio should. The bear, though, should win some award.

Edit: I guess I should say "why". The plot was really predictable. You know he survives alone in the wilderness, so you know the boy is dying as soon as his dad can't protect him. The bad guy is identified as bad from the first scene where he opens his mouth. As soon as you learn about the missing daughter, you know she is going to cross paths with Glass. And so on. Nothing that happens is any surprise - at best, there is some mild curiosity, hmm it is about time for him to fall in a river or run into hostile Indians, wonder which it will be today?. In fact, after a while you've seen Glass wake up, crawl out from his bear blanket, and promptly suffer some abuse or encounter some danger, so often, that it gets to be the frontier version of "wake up and go to work", except that he doesn't get any coffee first. Absent anything unexpected happening, you have to get your pleasures from how beautifully or realistically or intensely filmed the predictable event is when it shows up as expected. And it is all that: the cinematography is impressive, all the wound makeup is cool, and DiCaprio has a good "I'm suffering" expression that he gets to use a awful lot. So, it was a good movie. But hardly a great one.

By the way, I was bothered by one detail. In an otherwise meticulous movie. How come everyone's hair is filthy, lank, greasy - and the boy's hair always looks like its just been blow dried?

If you want to go see one of the Oscar Best Picture nominees, I would recommend "Spotlight".

Saw it last Friday. Not a fan.

Terrible movie. Complete waste of time & money.

Three shots from a muzzle loader without reloading. Longbow arrows with impossible velocity. Poor cgi on the bear attack. Geology & habitat not consistent (rain forest one minute, tundra the next). Lighting gun powder to cauterize a neck wound- medically ridiculous. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Saw it over the weekend. One primary thought. It was an exercise in producing Oscars for acting and cinematography. Everything else was secondary. Out of balance with a predictable and comparatively under-developed story line.

watched "What's eating Gilbert Grape" last night.... that was an Oscar worthy performance by Leo..... simply excellent, hard to believe Tommy Lee Jones beat him for "The Fugitive"......

My favorite part was when he grunted and groaned and crawled through the snow......FOR THREE FREAKING AGONIZING BORING HOURS...... I couldn't wait to get out of there...I only stayed because we went with friends....who at the end of the movie also thought it was an OK story that could have been told in 20 mins....

saw it last night. mikesride's statement about the movie seems accurate.

don't think i'll bother to see it again.

^^^that's a cool picture. Were you involved with this one, craigster?

No. Revnant was shot in Canada and Argentina. This was posted on Facebook. A page called " Behind The Clapperboard". If you're on FB there's great behind the scenes photos of old and new films.

CAUTION!: It could destroy your whole concept of the reality of film! :)