Not what I was expecting

Rating: 4/10 (7 February 2016)

I love period pieces, I love films about the old west and those based on historical events. I was expecting something spectacular based on all the press, the trailers and reviews.
What I watched was a boring remake of Man in the Wilderness. Yes it was a beautiful location, yes it was amazing cinematography but that can only take a viewer so far.
Forget the moralistic mumbo-jumbo and the deeper meanings that the writers and directors were trying to get across. One has to actually care about the characters to try and find the deeper meanings. Di Caprio's Glass doesn't give us any reason to root for the guy other than a revenge motive and the entirety of his lines for the film were grunts, groans and mumbles. At least Tom Hardy's Fitzgerald gave us a reason to somewhat dislike the guy, although put into his situation, his actions do make completely logical sense for those with a desire to survive.
The story moves at a pace that makes The English Patient seem quick after the initial scenes. The CGI with the beasties is right there with Sharknado.
With regard to "mountain man" films, Jeremiah Johnson remains the king of the hill. The Mountain Men with Brian Keith and Charlton Heston is a fun diversion and Harris's Man in the Wilderness was very good. This one, hmmm.
Let me put it this way...I thought that perhaps Terrence Malick was the man in charge as so much film time was spent focused on things that were not doing anything but existing...trees, leaves, snow, rocks, the moon. The story development regarding the main character is told in choppy flashback and at the end one is left with more questions.
So... disregard the trailers as they would indicate an action-packed, historical man-versus-nature revenge film. What you will watch is an Art House cinemagraphic snoozer of a film.