A tale of revenge... done boringly.

Rating: 6/10 (8 February 2016)

I left off reviewing this movie for some time. I wanted to mull over what I had seen and come to an understanding of what it was that bothered me about the film.
See, I liked the movie as I watched it. At least, for the first thirty minutes or so. However, once the revenge trail was well and truly set out upon, things started to go downhill.
At the end of that viewing, I was left in two minds as to how I felt about the movie and that was why I decide to wait until I had time to think things through before commenting on it.
Now that I've had that time, here are my thoughts: Firstly, everything about the movie screams quality. Quality acting, quality cinematography, quality effects and so on. If I had to make a film, I'd hire everyone involved in this one... with one exception.
The writer. Hugh Glass' tale is one of revenge, albeit heavily altered from the facts of the real Mr. Glass' exploits. So why then, did the writers see the need to push the survival element so hard? Sure, the tale of survival is astounding, but the heart of the movie is about revenge. That is what drives Glass on in the movie to overcome all obstacles placed in his way. Yet that revenge plays second fiddle to the "man vs. the elements" story that appears here.
What this means to the story is that there are altogether too many scenes of narrow escapes and ridiculous survivability going on. In fact, the movie is 90% this and little more.
What's that? The real Glass survived similar travails? Well, yes he did, in so much as no one story about him agrees on much of anything. Yet this isn't a factual account. It is cinema, and in cinema, we expect to be entertained. Incredible escapes are one thing, but when they verge into the ridiculous, they have gone too far.
Bear mauling...fine. Trek through hundreds of miles of frozen wilderness... fine. Wading and swimming through icy rivers in the winter and not getting hypothermia... wait, what? Riding a horse off a cliff and surviving the eighty foot drop with no broken bones... hang on a minute. Happening on a friendly native to help him... right. Rescuing a native woman from the French... huh? It goes on and on. The more you ponder it, the more ludicrous the whole thing becomes. Glass in this film isn't just a tough survivor, he's indestructible. He makes John McClane look like a pansy.
Now, don't get me wrong, everything is done well enough to make you buy the tale at first glance. But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Everything is contrived. Actual survival elements are ignored when they aren't convenient to the plot, such as the lack of hypothermia. In other words, the more you think about it, the less coherent it is.
I don't think I'll watch The Revenant a second time. It isn't that kind of film. Unfortunately, it doesn't know what kind of film it wants to be either. It's one of those films you will watch and then forget within months. And when you catch it on regular TV in a few years time, you'll frown, then recognise it, make that "Oh this thing!" face, and promptly change the channel.
A lot of praise has been heaped on it for its technical merits, and rightly so. But story-wise, it is a mess. And, ultimately, shouldn't we be watching movies for the story, not how well they are made?
SUMMARY: Cinematic equivalent of "Don't judge a book by its cover" Looks fantastic, but ultimately fails due to excess in the story department - and not in a good way. Too much contrivance and coincidence. Plays the "Look at me!" card too often. A tale of revenge lost in the survival motif. Not as good as it thinks it is.