Is this Leo's Oscar home-run?

Rating: 6/10 (21 December 2015)

With the Revenant you will join a group of world class actors and the rising stars on a cold, wet and bloody journey through natural lighted mountains, forest and swamps.
(small 1st plot point spoilers possible)
It's a simple story of a 'Dances of the Wolves' like man who lived among the "savages" and is showing the arrogant whites a save passage through enemy territory. It's a story of a man who's lost everything but his son, which he had with a beautiful Indian woman. A clearly ambitious Patrokles-like son, who is forced to keep his mouth shut in order to survive the hate of the whites. When the man loses his son, the problems begins - plot-wise. Since he's lost his only emotional connection, we don't get very much to know his character in later scenes anymore. And a death of a loved one might shock us for a moment, but as the character and as with every film and it's duration, we carry on. What can you offer me next?
Unfortunately even the beautifully conceived wide angle mood shots can't pick up the slack. All acquaintances are short. It clearly overkills the dark, noirish conception of the character. Now I have no clue about the original source of material but a reinterpretation of it would have been good - something like a companion, or even an animal. Think of Dances with the Wolves and how the death of the wolve grabbed our emotional attention, after we've learned how the friendship was build. Another appropriate example might be Nicholas Wending Refn's Valhalla Rising. There again we have a buddy-movie like plot device - the boy, with whom the nameless fighter can connect and defend, which makes him at least more of a three dimensional, human killing machine. The revenant is plot driven, which is such a missed opportunity, because we actually are interested and care for the main character, but are left unsatisfied, and I mean not in a cliffhanger way of unsatisfied.
Mr. Iñárritu co-wrote the script with Mark L. Smith. Now I'm sure that there is a clear set of symbolism which might illustrate certain inner thoughts etc., but this should'nt have been conceived as an art housian film. It should have been written with clear cinematic language, with iconic symbols, with more emotion, rather than too much of the ultra realistic gore. Yes, animals died for this movie and it's absolutely justified in order to depict the survival in nature. Take it or leave it, but your chicken did not die of stroking. I picture a lot of fun and work in the production design process, but as so often today, the script wasn't ready yet and no one cared, because great actors signed in already. The script heavily relied on Hemingway's iceberg principle. Show the tip of the iceberg, the rest is imagination. Well, in this case the polished mood pictures just weren't sufficient for me. Seeing all the twitter reviews about the bad pacing only proofs my point. As film lovers we all know that film is never about the real-time, it's about emotional-time. Scarface is a near 3 hour epic but for us it feels like a short drug intoxication. Why? Because we don't feel the grass growing, but rather a light-speed trip to mars.
To close with a Oscar prediction: Sorry Leo, it ain't work this time. You gave a marvellous performance. You swallowed so much dirt, only Christian Bale can beat you with that. But your character lacked the emotional dept an audience needs that in order to be behind you. No Sir, it was not your preparation, not your dramatic art. Through the setting you were forced to suffer, but any actor in this role would have, so what was there to stand out? Unfortunately the soucre material did not allow you to go in for more.