An Abysmal Waste of Time

Rating: 3/10 (7 January 2016)

It pains me to see a director fall from grace. I completely loved Birdman and was highly anticipating this film. Unfortunately, Innaritu dropped the ball on this one.
First off, let me say that this isn't a COMPLETE disaster of a film. There is some spectacular cinematography through the duration of the movie, especially in the opening sequence which I wont give away. Also, as seen in the trailer, there's an encounter with a bear that's completely over-the-top intense and will bring you to the edge of your seat. The score is hauntingly brilliant and fits the bleak, desolate setting of the story really well. But the movie literally fails at everything else.
I've never been huge on Leonardo. I used to really admire him a few years ago, but since I started paying closer attention to cinema, I realize he's a competent actor without much else. This movie only solidifies my opinion. I don't care how many animal carcasses Leonardo sleeps in, or how many hearts he eats, or how many times he commits bodily harm; the guy isn't a great actor.
His performance in this movie is quite bad. He seldom speaks, but when he does he bears the look of a man who's trying beyond all belief to be convincing. He makes a very poor attempt at an accent and it's honestly far from an Oscar-worthy performance. I felt really sorry for Tom Hardy, the only actor who made a great presentation.
Not only was DiCaprio's acting bad, but his character was shockingly underwritten. On top of that, I didn't care about his motivation at all because his son had literally no characterization whatsoever. We're supposed to accept his paternal relationship without any creative twists or exhibitions. It's really shallow and disappointing. I can't remember the last time I saw so much wasted potential. Innaritu treats the audience like a bunch of idiots and slaps us over the head with predictable and schmaltzy characterization techniques. Fitzgerald, Hardy's character, was the only person in the story that had any depth or mystery. I found myself gravitating towards him more than anyone else. If the villain is the most relatable figure in a revenge movie, then the script is essentially broken.
Glass, as played by Leo, serves as little more than a punching bag for the movie's setting. It's a dull, overplayed, miserable affair that actually gets laughable towards the end. It's indisputable proof that too much of a good thing can turn bad real quick. By the time the final credits came on, I knew utterly nothing of Hugh Glass other than he can endure a lot of pain. Also, he loves his son, in case you never picked up on it when the director was constantly bludgeoning you over the head with verbal reminders. It's like an episode of the Dick Van Dyke Show set in the American frontier, only there's no heart, joy, or creativity.
Overall, you should save your money. Besides the magnificent score and the shots of the wilderness, this is a lifeless snooze. I have no problem with violence or suffering in film, but when it's all incurred by a poorly acted and boring man, it doesn't amount to anything. It's style over substance with little to offer the viewer. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if it won best picture. People seem to have forgotten the value of resounding stories and characters.