Too many holes in the plot..

Rating: 7/10 (29 March 2016)

Although heavily tipped to win, this film just missed out on winning the 'best film' Oscar but picked up a bunch of BAFTAS, including best film.
I am of two minds about it. It is entertaining, and my Thai wife also enjoyed it, due to the sparsity of dialogue. After all, not a whole heap happens and the plot is easy to follow.
The film is set in the 1820's in America's northern plains (The Dakotas) and it is a story of a fur trapping trip that goes horribly wrong.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays a frontiersman and fur trapper who is employed as an expert guide to a team of desperate, wild and violent fur trappers, led by a US army captain. The trapper gang lose many of their fellow trappers when they are attacked by Indians. Subsequent to this, DiCaprio is all but killed by a bear protecting her cubs. He is left for dead.
So far so good.
After this, I have serious a credibility problem with the story. Everything that happens up to the point when DiCaprio is mauled by a bear tells us that not one of this gang of semi-lawless ruffians, including the US Army Captain, would have had any compunction in leaving their guide to die alone, once it became clear that he was not going to survive.
They were in a desperate situation; they had already lost more than half their number to the Indians, the sub-zero weather was appalling, and they were in constant danger of further attacks.
Would anyone in their right mind leave two men behind – separated from the safety of the main party to await Di Caprio's death, just to give him a proper burial? What about all the other men who died? I didn't see any of them getting a decent burial. Sorry, but that part of the story is sheer tosh and predicates the nonsense that follows.
The baddie – Tom Hardy – volunteers to stay behind and watch over DiCaprio's demise, (for a bonus), but soon tires of this and buries him alive assuming he would soon die anyway. Even this lacks credulity – he didn't have any compunctions in killing DiCaprio's son and the second man who stayed with him. Why take a chance and leave Di Caprio in the hole to die? Why not finish him off?
Of course, DiCaprio didn't die, and after numerous brushes with near death, he finally staggers into the fort, where the baddie takes off in a rush.
By this time Di Caprio is near to death and painfully malnourished and weak from his horrendous adventures. Yet he is allowed to accompany the Captain to track down the baddie. Only two of them from the well- manned fort went after the baddie – the Captain and a barely alive DiCaprio
Sorry, again – total tosh!
DiCaprio, Hardy and the rest of the cast play their parts admirably. The cinematography is astonishing and the story holds your attention. It's a good yarn with some great photography, but it's a long way from being a great movie. For starters, there's too many holes in the plot – it's a bit like a boys' own comic story.
As for DiCaprio winning the best actor award – well apart from a few hoarse mutterings which are largely incomprehensible, he says very little. We can't see any 'acting expressions' because he is covered from head to foot with furs and shaggy beard throughout the entire movie. For sure, he does all that is asked of him, but is it really an Oscar-winning performance?
I reckon that a mute person, equally clad with fur and beard could have done the part just as well. The few lines he utters could have easily been dubbed in and nobody would have been any the wiser. If it was anyone but DiCaprio in this part, I doubt whether the various academies would be raving about it. Do you win an Oscar for bravery and sleeping inside a dead horse or do you get it for acting?
The Revenant is worth seeing, but if there's anyone in this movie who deserves an acting Oscar, it's the English baddie – Tom Hardy.