Beautiful filmography and direction but not flawless

Rating: 7/10 (3 January 2016)

Glass (Leonardo Di Caprio) is a scout working for a company that collects and sells fur pelts. His task is to protect his group and guide them safe. Things go bad once they are attacked by Indians that want to steal their pelts. 33 out of 45 die and the rest, along with Glass and his Indian son Hawk are left trying to get back to the fort safely. Fitzerald (Tom Hardy) is not keen of Glass as we understand from the very first moments, and he is actually the villain in this story. Not long after the attack Glass left the group to scout the territory and is viciously attacked by a grizzly bear. He's found almost dead and after given some basic medical care he is carried by his peers, on their way to the fort. The Indians that attacked them are still searching for them, and they are on foot, and after seeing it is almost impossible to keep going with having to carry Glass all the way, they assign a smaller group of 3 persons to assist him. His son Hawk, a young kid and also Fitzerald that actually volunteered (for a fee) to safely bring Glass home. Of course bringing him back was never his real intention so at the first opportunity he tried to take the life of Glass through suffocation and kills his son Hawk for trying to stop him. Then lied to the other kid that was accompanying them that Indians were coming and left on a hurry leaving Glass to die. But Glass is not dead yet and this is where the movie actually starts, with Glass trying to save himself, return to the fort and of course get revenge from Fitzerald.
The photography of the film is amazing, the direction of course too. The acting is perfect from both our leads (Di Caprio and Hardy) and we already know that Di Caprio is a candidate for the Oscar. As much as I'd like him to get it (cause he deserved one so far) and as much as I liked his performance, I'm not convinced for an Oscar. Definitely a candidate though. Hardy on the other hand could easily get one for a supporting role too.
My score is 7/10 for the movie cause, as much I liked it, I found it too long and had many inconsistencies in the script that I could not overlook.
First of all this guy should be dead. But even if he isn't, he should be crippled. We see him crawling for most of the second act, after he was left for dead. My thought was that how is he going to pull this off while crawling the rest of the movie? Well, to my surprise, he started to stand and then walk just a few scenes later! Although we do not have a time reference, it is obvious we are only a few days apart from the day he could not walk or catch a breath or move his hands. It would make much more sense if he would be able to stand and later walk AFTER he crawled all his way to the Indian friend he made, that fed him, carried him on a horse and fixed his wounds with affection.
I also do not understand why he was eating raw meat (and vomiting with disgust) when fires were lit all around him. It would take a moment only to get some cooked meat. Also, why would they act like crazy when they found water, when they had fire anytime they wanted and unlimited snow all around? Why wouldn't they store some meat from the huge animal they were eating (it is freezing cold so it would stay in edible condition for months) and had to eat roots only one scene later? Those things and a few more led to a 7/10 score. But if you can overlook those and let Mr Inaritu carry you away with his vivid direction then you are definitely going to receive at a great cinematic experience.