Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

The Revenant

Michchamp

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
33,990
wife and I saw this last weekend. Liked it better than I thought I would. def Oscar-worthy.
 
Brother in law saw it and said he hated it. If it's ripped somewhere I'll probably watch it eventually.
 
I'll watch it when it comes out on DVD.

Survival movies really aren't my favorite genre.
 
Brother in law saw it and said he hated it. If it's ripped somewhere I'll probably watch it eventually.

why?

I came away thinking that it was a real crowd pleaser; had something for everyone. and it was largely based on true events, so even sticklers for historical fact should be okay with it.
 
LOL it was terrible IMO.

I didn't find the acting all that great, the story was changed significantly from the real events.

IMHO Straight Outta Compton and even The Hateful Eight are more oscar worthy, though the oscars are the biggest pile of rigged handjobs ever, so I could care less either way.
 
why?

I came away thinking that it was a real crowd pleaser; had something for everyone. and it was largely based on true events, so even sticklers for historical fact should be okay with it.

I'm pretty sure it didn't have boobs.

A movie without boobs doesn't have something for everyone by definition.
 
LOL it was terrible IMO.

I didn't find the acting all that great, the story was changed significantly from the real events.

.

i don't know about it "significantly" being changed. Glass was still on an expedition like that in 1823. it was attacked by the Arikara and the survivors fled to fort kiowa. en route he was attacked by a bear and the two men tasked with staying with him fled, and left him for dead. then he crawled back to the fort to get revenge. pretty spot on no?
 
thats basically the plot of the movie, with a few characters added and a subplot
 
why?

I came away thinking that it was a real crowd pleaser; had something for everyone. and it was largely based on true events, so even sticklers for historical fact should be okay with it.

I don't know. I could give you his number and you could call and ask..
 
i don't know about it "significantly" being changed. Glass was still on an expedition like that in 1823. it was attacked by the Arikara and the survivors fled to fort kiowa. en route he was attacked by a bear and the two men tasked with staying with him fled, and left him for dead. then he crawled back to the fort to get revenge. pretty spot on no?



Glass has no Half-Indian son that was murdered. The two men, John Fitzgerald, and Jim Bridger simply left him for dead. He didn't kill either of them, and Fitzgerald never killed anyone either unlike the movie. Glass forgave Bridger because he was just a kid, and Fitzgerald because he returned Glass's rifle.

Glass also crawled, because his leg was broken. In the movie he manages to walk most of the way and even run at some points.

So no, not at all spot on. I get it was "based" on a true story and not supposed to be an exact retelling but it reminds of of the series on History channel a while back about the American Revolution, 10% fact, 90% embellishment.
 
Glass has no Half-Indian son that was murdered. The two men, John Fitzgerald, and Jim Bridger simply left him for dead. He didn't kill either of them, and Fitzgerald never killed anyone either unlike the movie. Glass forgave Bridger because he was just a kid, and Fitzgerald because he returned Glass's rifle.

Glass also crawled, because his leg was broken. In the movie he manages to walk most of the way and even run at some points.

So no, not at all spot on. I get it was "based" on a true story and not supposed to be an exact retelling but it reminds of of the series on History channel a while back about the American Revolution, 10% fact, 90% embellishment.

the basic plot was the same! the half-native kid was tacked on, as was the subplot of the indian chief's daughter and the french fur traders, and fitzgerald was made into more of a villain, but to me, those are minor diversions from the true story. (or as true as men known to embellish their own feats can be, anyway.)

guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

i thought the nature scenes were pretty great, contrasting the vastness of the untamed west with the size of men, and the acting was solid. made me want to grab a rifle and run off to the mountains. I guess I don't mind Leonardo DiCaprio & his acting ability like some do. He is a solid actor in my book
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually he told my sister who told my Mom who told me. So I got nothing but "he hated it."

Remember that game everybody plays as a kid in school?

Rumor, is it?

Everybody sits in a big circle, and somebody whispers something to the person next to them, who whispers it to the person next to them, and so on and so on until it gets back to the person who whispered it in the first place, and it's completely different by that time.

Sounds like he probably loved it.
 
Remember that game everybody plays as a kid in school?

Rumor, is it?

Everybody sits in a big circle, and somebody whispers something to the person next to them, who whispers it to the person next to them, and so on and so on until it gets back to the person who whispered it in the first place, and it's completely different by that time.

Sounds like he probably loved it.

Knowing my sister that's probably accurate.
 
Back
Top