Revenant Review

[cosmicfolklore]

There was once that I noticed the double firing pistol, but I don't recall anything about Rangers. Maybe I lost it the gruff Babel dialog. But, it was supposed to be based on a story, not necessarily a true story. But, the tribes were in an upset, because of the encroachment on land and trapping, violations of treaties. This wasn't neccasarily a time when anyone was at their prime. The Americans breaking treaties, Natives stealing furs to sell to the French who were already pissed at US cutting into their trade. IMO it was point on, but not everyone comes away with the same thing from a movie.
Blood Diamond, now that's one political bit of brainwashing that has stuck in the American market. Pisses me off. The Diamond industry single-handedly made it stick in the mind of the populace that if a Diamond doesn't have the industry mark, it is a blood diamond, Malachy! A hand ful of bad diamonds set in place the complete desolation of the free market that was making the diamond market drop and set the monopoly prices in place. Jeweler so were left with boxes f stones they couldn't sell. And the Diamond industry sets on more diamonds than amethyst to keep their market set to screw the people. A diamond can sell retail for premium prices, expensive as hell, with absolutely no real trade value. Once you buy it, you can only sell it for dilly squat. Diamond mining is at an all time high by one company, and no one is allowed to monitor how many diamonds are really available. Win win for the Canadian company, and lose lose for the people. This is why I don't sell diamonds. And, many jewelry stores just retail pre made crap set out by the diamond industry. And, all for a make believe issue made up by Hollywood and bought hook line and sinker by the media. /rant.

 

[tbradsim1]

Read the Book, Rangers were started by Steve Austin in about 1823 but a force of only 10 men, 1838 was when it was in force. Hate when those single shot pistols fire twice, Book was really good, movies always fall short. I probably will see it though after the Bengazi movie.

 

[okiescout]

Thanks for the info, Brad.
"Book was really good, movies always fall short."

+1
I am off the pipes for a month and a half so I went to the movie to relax. Wrong time - wrong movie :mrgreen:

 

[iamn8]

OMG it's a movies based on a true story. And the "books are better than movies"... Stop going to movies! Geez you people are old!

 

[conlejm]

I felt the same way when I saw Kylo Ren's light saber with the cross-guards in the latest Star Wars movie. I was all like "Really? How realistic is that?"... :wink:

 

[jkrug]

Previews for this have caught my attention. My oldest daughter and I are going to check it out one night next week. She thinks it looks pretty cool too. ::

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Sorry Okie, I hope the break from the pipe hobby isn't serious.
Cool. I've enjoyed this thread immensely! Also, my eyes aren't what they used to be. I thought that Fitzgerald's pipe was a small clay pipe. I liked the rhetrohale he gave when he was smoking while watching after Glass in the woods. Maybe it was a cob. But, I could have sworn...
Yeh, I'm getting old.I had to get up to go piss everytime I saw them wading through the water, ha ha!

 

[lonestar]

Awesome review Cosmic !

Okie, that sort of Hollywood crap is what's kept me from seeing it. I like to ruin movies by cussing out Directors the whole time for stupid details like that. But I think I'm going to have to overlook it all and see this one in a theater.

 

[peckinpahhombre]

filmed in a rain forest with fluffy ruffle ferns - never seen one outside of a florist shop anywhere on the upper Missouri.

I haven't see it yet. I do know that the wilderness scenes were primarily filmed in the Canadian Rockies just outside of Calgary. I did hear though that there wasn't enough snow, so they had to go to Patagonia in Argentina for a couple of weeks to shoot some additional snow scenes. A buddy of miney was part of the filming crew.
Can't wait to see it.

 

[philobeddoe]

Hugh Glass didn't have a son, at least not one on the expedition and he never did get revenge on Fitzgerald, by the time Glass caught up with him 10 months had passed and Fitzgerald had enlisted in the Army, and was thus untouchable as far as a revenge killing. Glass did get attacked by a bear, he did crawl/scratch/hobble/float the approx. 200 miles as the crow flies, he probably traveled more like 300 miles in his circuitous path and he did forgive Jim Bridger, most everything else was Hollywood improving on an already unreal story. That being said I did really enjoy the film.

 

[okiescout]

Thanks, Michael. I just have to give the pipes up for about 8 weeks to heal with a health issue.
"Blood Diamond, now that's one political bit of brainwashing that has stuck in the American market. Pisses me off."
I did not know that about Blood Diamonds, Michael.

But I understand your point. Which is exactly what I was irritated about with Revenant . Movies that bill themselves as being based on true characters lives. Because many folks do not read today, more and more will see something like this and it becomes their reality. If you want to make a movie like this, that is fine, just make it and do not market it as about a man that really lived, and load it up with misinformation.
"OMG it's a movies based on a true story. And the "books are better than movies"
If you have never said that about a movie, it tells me you are not much of a a book reader, Nate. :D

Personally I have never, that I recall anyway, enjoyed a movie more than I did the book if it was a book that I really liked. There have been some movies I liked as much as the book because they were well done and it is a different genre.
I'll help you out here youngin, your mind can do things a movie could not be expected to do. A book has much more time to set details a movie cannot economically afford to do nor would people want to set in their seats for the time it would take to do so. Your mind, with the proper stimulation, can imagine things that are also economically not possible with most movies. This is exactly a large part of what a movie based on a book is judged on. How the artist's producing the film evoke the emotions of the story (book) and so forth. The industry is rife with stories about producers departing from the author's edition of a book, which is being made into a movie. Sometimes it is an improvement sometimes not so much. Fiction is open but history has parameters. Unless of course, like Michael says, you are attempting to rewrite history or edit it to your purposes.
Others may have different experiences with books and movies, but as Brad said, this experience is common concerning books and movies. Nate, I do not think age really has anything to do with it.

 

[tbradsim1]

Well said Okie, portraying the Indians as grubby savages is wrong, they were a Noble people hounded by land grabbers, killed off like roaches. Not a honorable chapter in our History. Nate you are an intelligent young man, I say this without rancor, Listen To Your Elders. : :laughat:

 

[cosmicfolklore]

After looking at several websites that talk about the Glass legend, the one thing that stands out is that the whole story is embellished to death from the start. It's like Davey Crocket, John Henry, or Paul Bunyon, but less known about. Honestly, no one except a few history buffs would even know about this guy without the movie. And, most that do go see it have no idea that the characters may have actually been real people. The movie never had pop up that said it was based on truth. I don't think it hurts anything to make a better story out of the whole thing. Heck if they had of tried to base it on what was probable, the movie would not have been made. But, by further pushing it into mythos, the characters get a little more immortalized than they would have. I just hope someone embellishes my story when I am gone. Ha ha! And, without people in the mythos, we don't have Saint Nick or Santa Clause, or even stories of a young Lincoln or Washington. In my opinion the story hurts no one, it revenates the dead, and adds to our popular mythos, and universal consciousness.
Whereas Blood Diamond hurt a whole industry, I am not sure how embellishing the story of someone that no one has heard of hurts anything.

As far as Indians, I didn't see them living any less than the miserable white men. Like I said, the whole region was in chaos, and white people treated them like crap. And, they maintained a savage nobility the whole while, and I think the movie reflected that. Sure, they weren't as crisp and proper as in Dances with Wolves, but I think that the Costner movie was further from reality than this one was. It was a wet, cold, dirty time, and things were f'd up.
But, if you didn't like the movie that's ok. I thought it awesome and see it as a positive thing.
Yeh Nate, honor your elders, ha ha!!

 

[okiescout]

"Whereas Blood Diamond hurt a whole industry, I am not sure how embellishing the story of someone that no one has heard of hurts anything.

As far as Indians, I didn't see them living any less than the miserable white men. Like I said, the whole region was in chaos, and white people treated them like crap. And, they maintained a savage nobility the whole while, and I think the movie reflected that. Sure, they weren't as crisp and proper as in Dances with Wolves, but I think that the Costner movie was further from reality than this one was. It was a wet, cold, dirty time, and things were f'd up."
I could answer that by saying I do not know of any brides that have stopped wearing diamonds or anyone else personally. But that is my knowledge about your industry. I am ignorant about it.
These people are filthy, portrayed filthy, because of where they filmed it. The whole area was not in chaos at that time? No! But most of these guys operated on about a two year lifespan west of the Missouri. Several hundred whites at most (Americans) existed West of the Missouri at this time in history about 1840 and prior to that even less. The Hudson's Bay and American Fur company were in the beginning throws of a trade war, yes.
Kevin went too far north and this guy went too far south, but Kostner was far closer to his facts than this guy. They have backed off now, but it was marketed as the story of Hugh Glass. Michael they have made at least two movies about him so evidently somebody knew about him besides us history nuts.
Native people can be dirty like everyone else but the people of this period were not until there culture was destroyed by Sherman's elimination of their primary food source and Uncle Sam installing himself as their "Guardian".
These peoples could keep themselves warm and cool with their lodges and knew well how to fish, hunt, and trap. They had art, and rich cultures, proud of their existence and their ability to defend themselves. Europeans pooped and peed in their water, Native Americans knew better. These people people kept themselves clean and took great pride in their appearance. I am not romanticizing them but rather seeking to portray them as they really were. In this area. A highly developed stone age culture.
This country is falling behind on its own history and this type of film does not aid it. People laugh at they way old movies portrayed many things "because now we are enlightened" and guys make movies like this today? Like I said call it fiction and fire away. Call it history and do your homework. Educate someone while you entertain them, hey there is a concept.
Michael, all joking aside, I know you as a craftsman and artist. You work hard to have a good reputation. I doubt seriously you would really want someone "embellishing your life" with whatever popped into their head now or ever. :wink:

 

[mau1]

Although this is an old string, I had to comment on it. While doing genealogical research on the family surname, I ran across one of our own who was present at the attack depicted in the beginning of this movie. Sounds far-fetched but it's true. He was the man who cut the cable of one of the keel boats so that it might drift out of range of the fire of the Indians. The information comes from Hiram Martin Chittenden (1858–1917), a leading historian of the American West, especially the fur trade. The individual in question "immigrated" to St. Louis from Montreal by canoe in 1808, fought in the War of 1812 and was wounded in the Battle of Raisin River, and as a result of his exploits as a fur trader in the West, a number of geographical landmarks bear our surname. Cosmic's description of the realism of the conditions depicted in the movie struck me as I have often imagined what it was like for our distant ancestors as they fought and struggled to survive, let along make a living.

 

[mau1]

It's a miserable day out there weather-wise, while we sit inside in the warmth. Imagine the conditions our ancestors went through. Could we have survived?!

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Going from conditions of today, to what they lived through back then, I would just let the bear win. I probably could stay alive back then, but why?