Not Terrible, But Potentially Very Overrated Depending On Taste

Rating: 5/10 (26 February 2017)

When I first saw the promotional materials for "The Revenant", I wasn't all that excited. Wilderness/survival films aren't usually my cup of tea, and while I can appreciate the acting of Leonardo DiCaprio, his presence in a film doesn't usually vault it to the top of my "must-see" lists. But then, slowly but surely, "Revenant" became the film that any self-respecting film fan "must see" in order to accurately judge this cycle's Academy Awards. It even strongly positioned DiCaprio to win his first Oscar. So, I climbed aboard the hype train and finally went to see it. While it isn't a bad movie by any means, I left the theater thinking it has the potential to be very disappointing to people who don't really know what it is about or what it tries to accomplish.
For a basic plot summary, "The Revenant" is the story of Hugh Glass (DiCaprio), a fur trader in 1820s America. The basics of his character are that he's a bit of an outcast, having married an Indian woman (now dead) and having a son with her. He also happens to be the best scout of his trading group, so he's still accepted by Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson). However, when Glass sustains horrific injuries after being mauled by a bear, he is left behind with fellow trader John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy). Fitzgerald isn't nearly as sympathetic to Glass as the others, however, and basically leaves him for dead. But not so fast...as Glass proves again and again his determination to survive even in the face of insurmountable odds.
I think the major misconception I had about this movie was that it would be a dramatic epic...but it isn't. It looks like an epic and has been touted as an epic, but at its core that isn't what "The Revenant" is all about. It's actually more of an artistic picture, filled with long, lingering, and beautiful cinematography, some strange/bizarre dream sequences, and just that overall sense that the "look" of the film itself was more important than the story/characters.
Now, don't get me wrong...the cinematography in "Revenant" is some of the best I've ever seen on the big screen. That's why I can still give the move a three-star rating, as it is a visual treat in the way it portrays its wilderness setting. Seemingly around every corner is a new adventure or obstacle that must be faced, and all of those scenarios are filmed in a unique, rollicking style.
However, I was just expecting a bit more of a fleshed-out story and maybe some better- developed characters (this seems to start off as a character study of Glass but then morphs into a simple revenge tale). In terms of acting, I also don't quite understand why this is "the movie" to (maybe) finally get DiCaprio his little gold statue. His performance is good, but I didn't find anything spectacular about it. Personally, I thought the best character/acting of the whole piece was Tom Hardy's brooding, violent Fitzgerald, as I felt that he was creating emotional drama instead of just reacting to the next obstacle along the way (my evaluation of Leo's performance).
So, overall, "The Revenant" didn't live up to it's hype for me. I was decently entertained, but that was about it. Now, someone who has a keener eye/appreciation for pure cinematography than I might find it utterly riveting, but that just wasn't to be for me. I'm all about characters and story, and in those areas I didn't see any area in which "The Revenant" stood out against even average movies, much less those being heavily promoted as Oscar favorites.