Acting or Reacting? Who Knows?

Rating: 5/10 (29 December 2015)

So "The Revenant" is not a landmark film. It will not be remembered as a one of a kind, as a cinematic masterpiece, or as a total disaster. It isn't either because it does have some striking photography, and now I understand why I am not going to be spending Winter in Canada or the most northern states of the U.S. It also cements the fact that humans are one of the meanest species on the planet both on and off the screen.
To summarize, Hugh Glass has some rotten luck. His wife and son are killed. He's mauled and barely survived by a scared and testy Grisly. Then, he's left for dead by two men who were supposed to take care of him, and in ways that asks for to believe in the impossible and put Superman or any of the Justice League super heroes to shame, he makes it back to the fort, defying hypothermia, frostbite, every possible infection in the world, and other angry humans. Oh yes... he's alive at the end.
It is an impressive production when we consider what the actors and the crew probably had to go through. It looks cold. It feels cold, both in its physical presentation and its connection to the audience. With the exception of Hardy's thrilling performance as the insecure and treacherous hunter, we are witness to the lead actor (or his stand-in) enduring some of the most difficult situations you can torture a human being with. We are to believe that he had to consume some raw meat and fish, being bounced around by what I assume were some type of actors inside a bear rug skin, subject himself to some inclement weather (I sure hope he packed his moisturizer), in addition to riding horses, shooting guns, avoid arrows, and swimming in freezing river waters.
The score was fitting and unobtrusive. There were a couple of moments when it got loud, but I suppose it fit the scene. Unlike the deafening interruptions of the gorgeous music in "The Danish Girl", this was bearable. We survived it. The fantastic composition, all done with natural light was at some moments, breathtaking. I wanted to run and buy the companion coffee table book. Then, I remembered that I had seen a similar and arguably, more beautiful and spiritually resonant set of visuals in that Malick movie that came out a few years ago.
There was some good work by the supporting cast, particularly Gleeson, who managed to steal the role of best villain in "Force Awakens", and he's now proving his versatility here, as a leader with strict discipline but enough heart and fairness to protect his charges. Will Poulter is just standing around and not doing much, trying to hold his own against Hardy, who is as threatening as the surrounding environment. One look is enough to freeze us in our tracks, pretty much like that wild grisly. I was left wondering whether the mama bear could have stood a chance against Fitzgerald.
Finally, I have to admit that this was a difficult production. It's all up there on the screen, but I was also wondering how much of it was necessary. It seemed to me like they could have filmed half of it in a more welcoming environment, with the help of some good blue or green screen. Also, the movie was a tad long, with some of moments which lovingly portrayed the savage beauty of the north, adding at least another 30 minutes that the film didn't need. If we had all those beautiful shots, why didn't we get more of the aurora Borealis? Last but not least is the whole premise that there was just too much violence, yet it felt distant. Maybe the audience just got numb and shut down because 20 minutes into the film, we stopped caring about what would happen to them. We knew he would make it, and we had little emotional involvement to care for Glass, his mates, or the indians.