Beautifully shot, formulaic blockbuster

Rating: 1/10 (14 January 2016)

I was really looking forward to this, I love wilderness films. I was slightly looking forward to it less when I realized it was a re-hash of the classic Man in the Wilderness. Its a beautifully shot film with some good moments but it just seems that Hollywood bods get together, select a scenario and inject the same components over and over again. This could have been a war film set in the 1990s, or a 'defense against aliens' film set in 2200. Its the same growling macho performances, tinged with an honor and pride that only seems to exist in the dream world of Hollywood, finishing with a lesson that the human spirit, especially if you are American, seems to know no bounds. Why not tell the story like it is? People don't survive numerous powerful attacks by the same bear, or manage to endlessly dodge weapons, bullets and Indian ambushes. Build the story about what is realistic and inject some subtlety around it. People were simpler in the 19th century - this lot look like they have been spoon fed a cocktail of Tony Robbins and Bear Grylls. People are so impressed with big stars, huge performances, epic music and unworldly cinematography that they can't see that there is just so much padding to this simplistic narrative of growling and fighting. It's an OK film, it will win Oscars. Give me Richard Harris any day over this.