Review: Is “The Revenant” Worth it?

Bryce VanDerveer, Reporter

The Oscar-nominated film known simply as “The Revenant,” starring Leonardo Dicaprio, has recently been praised for its intriguing plot and spectacular effects. But as far as I am concerned, this is about where the praise should end.

The unbelievable quantities of blood used to create the film were an unsuccessful attempt to enhance a dull story. All the interesting events that did take place during the lengthy film were overflowing with unnecessary plot holes. Despite this, the action sequences were among the few entertaining scenes during the entire two and a half hour ordeal. For instance, in the preview, one can see a bear attack take place (using this example to prevent spoilers). It was spectacular. This was by far the best part of the entire movie. The visual effects were unparalleled, and were among the best produced in cinema during 2015. It was truly amazing. But Glass, the main character, decided after the initial attack to attempt to once again shoot the bear. Keep in mind that Glass was already severely injured from the brutal attack that took place not thirty seconds before hand. Without question, this was the worst decision that could have been made. Glass was immediately mauled even further which limply propelled the remainder of the story.

On the plus side, there is the matter of the filming itself, and the methods behind it. The entire film was shot with natural lighting. This may not sound like a big deal, but as far as filmmaking goes, this is an extremely impressive feat. Possibly even more impressive is the shot length. It is very difficult to extend the shots during a film. The longer the shot, the higher the probability that something is going to go wrong. Despite this, the revenant contained a very high number of continuous shots that included dialog, camera panning, and precision timing.

Similarly, the acting was not half bad. All things considered, poorly written script included, Leo Dicaprio and Tom Hardy did well at delivering their lines. The characters were believable, and to an extent, oddly relatable. Again, the script made for some rather awkward periods of dialog, but because of the way the characters were developed, it was not as big of a deal as it could’ve been. Tom Hardy did an especially good job. He played the money driven antagonist Fitzgerald. He intentionally made many of the senses very uncomfortable, truly bringing out who the character was supposed to be. His acting far surpassed all the others, creating the perfect personality for the character.

Overall, this film is not recommended. The acting and CGI were decent, but the execution of the dialog and overuse of blood made for a long, uncomfortable film.