Discussion
Can't see a thread running on this.
Went with OH last night, good film, some pretty gory scenes, but some great acting, LDC putting in a very good performance, and Hardy also very good in support.
Seemed to go on a little bit longer than it perhaps needed to, but well worth a watch. Solid 8/10.
Went with OH last night, good film, some pretty gory scenes, but some great acting, LDC putting in a very good performance, and Hardy also very good in support.
Seemed to go on a little bit longer than it perhaps needed to, but well worth a watch. Solid 8/10.
It started slowly imo but had strong middle and end. Acting was good from LDC or Hardy who was equally as good as a supporting role but both not worthy oscar wise - I couldn't feel the pain from LDC or the anger from Hardy enough (they will probably win now). Too many scenery shots for my liking though...although very beautifully shot it was more stocking filler than anything else. 7/10
It's a remake of "Man In The Wilderness" from 1971, with Richard Harris in the lead role.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeJp7cvcpwg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeJp7cvcpwg
barryrs said:
It was OK in my view, I thought the outlandish survival of substantial injury's ruined it somewhat though.
Not outlandish at all.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass#Bear_maul...
cirian75 said:
barryrs said:
It was OK in my view, I thought the outlandish survival of substantial injury's ruined it somewhat though.
Not outlandish at all.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass#Bear_maul...
Wiki said:
He had festering wounds, a broken leg, and cuts on his back that exposed bare ribs
The injuries sustained in the film were considerably worse than this; using gunpowder to repair a massive hole in his throat stood out a one example. Also his foot was clearly pointing in a different direction when he first started to move...seemingly a few days later he was walking, unless the time frames were much, much longer than suggested in the film.
As I said in the review thread, great film, would never watch it again.
As I said in the review thread, great film, would never watch it again.
Edited by ukaskew on Monday 18th January 12:03
barryrs said:
cirian75 said:
barryrs said:
It was OK in my view, I thought the outlandish survival of substantial injury's ruined it somewhat though.
Not outlandish at all.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass#Bear_maul...
Wiki said:
He had festering wounds, a broken leg, and cuts on his back that exposed bare ribs
The injuries sustained in the film were considerably worse than this; using gunpowder to repair a massive hole in his throat stood out a one example. I really enjoyed, it action scenes from the start ,thank Christ wasn't living in that era , some self cauterising can't beat it ,
Solid 9 out of ten ,viewed it again few days later enjoyed it even more , the scenery was stunning and the attention to detail was great , if you check the account of what really happened his injuries still very gruesome .
Solid 9 out of ten ,viewed it again few days later enjoyed it even more , the scenery was stunning and the attention to detail was great , if you check the account of what really happened his injuries still very gruesome .
Edited by stuarthat on Monday 18th January 20:25
barryrs said:
cirian75 said:
barryrs said:
It was OK in my view, I thought the outlandish survival of substantial injury's ruined it somewhat though.
Not outlandish at all.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass#Bear_maul...
Wiki said:
He had festering wounds, a broken leg, and cuts on his back that exposed bare ribs
The injuries sustained in the film were considerably worse than this; using gunpowder to repair a massive hole in his throat stood out a one example. pissed me off when he was seen firing the same single barrel flintlock pistol several times in situations where he could not possibly have reloaded it,.
Also, the scene when he went into the river to escape the Indians - before he went in the scenary was covered in snow. Whilst in the river the wide shots showed the surrounding areas in summer time - no snow on trees, mountains etc. When he gets out of the river theres ice in the water and snow all around again,.
Also, the scene when he went into the river to escape the Indians - before he went in the scenary was covered in snow. Whilst in the river the wide shots showed the surrounding areas in summer time - no snow on trees, mountains etc. When he gets out of the river theres ice in the water and snow all around again,.
Great film, really enjoyed it, could (was) have been made in the sixties, no dialogue, stunning visuals, hardy characters; quite old school and good for it. A refreshing change to the typical cliched Hollywood churned out by the numbers. 9/10 but understand why some may not have had the patience.
TTmonkey said:
pissed me off when he was seen firing the same single barrel flintlock pistol several times in situations where he could not possibly have reloaded it,.
Also, the scene when he went into the river to escape the Indians - before he went in the scenary was covered in snow. Whilst in the river the wide shots showed the surrounding areas in summer time - no snow on trees, mountains etc. When he gets out of the river theres ice in the water and snow all around again,.
I mentioned the same errors to my wife when we left the cinema, but she told me that only I would notice such things.Also, the scene when he went into the river to escape the Indians - before he went in the scenary was covered in snow. Whilst in the river the wide shots showed the surrounding areas in summer time - no snow on trees, mountains etc. When he gets out of the river theres ice in the water and snow all around again,.
The scenery was stunning, and made me want to visit that part of America.
There was a story, but I wasn't gripped by it. The characters lacked depth. The violence/gore was gratuitous - that's not me being a sissy (I like Tarantino) but I thought it didn't add to the film.
Ultimately I didn't really enjoy it that much!
There was a story, but I wasn't gripped by it. The characters lacked depth. The violence/gore was gratuitous - that's not me being a sissy (I like Tarantino) but I thought it didn't add to the film.
Ultimately I didn't really enjoy it that much!
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff