Pretty visuals and shock value cannot fix a bad plot

Rating: 4/10 (1 February 2016)

This movie to me is another one of those movies that seek to shock the viewer into appreciating a movie that lacks any kind of enjoyable or believable plot line.
It's just one incident followed by the next, painfully stretched over 2 and a half hours.
Yes, the scenery is beautiful and frankly it would be hard to shoot that in a way that the result wouldn't be very visually appealing. Yes, the exclusive use of natural light makes for an interesting palette. There's some CGI / animation involved that is very impressive. DiCaprio's performance doesn't leave much to be desired.
But the story.. is just.. terrible. And the character Tom Hardy shows us is nothing more than a cliché stereotype meant to inspire 1990s bad guy loathing.
With the credits rolling, this movie left me puzzled how other viewers can apparently be shocked or visually pleased into rating a movie with a story that is predictable, long stretched, with a lot of not very believable developments, an 8+. Doesn't story matter anymore?