Visually amazing but more of a horror film than a historical depiction

Rating: 7/10 (7 November 2017)

The movie is stunning there's no denying that. All this shooting directly in the wild paid off, it was worth the effort. Also, there are a couple of memorable scenes, like the bear attack, sleeping inside a horse's carcass... DiCaprio and Hardy are great actors, Hardy is like a chameleon... But he needs to stop with the weird accents, it goes too far.
What I didn't like about the movie is how bleak it is. You're made to believe at first that it's a period movie, historically accurate. And I know some people will still believe it going out from this... But it's wildly fictional. First, Indian attacks wouldn't decimate a well armed expedition like this. We're made to believe that back in the day EVERYONE was a savage. Indians killed for fun, the French raped and lied, and the Americans took Indians into slavery or something, and were basically constantly at war. All of this is false. First, the French were known to be mostly peaceful traders, never really at war with the Indians, forming alliances against the English. Second, in the real story, no one died. Glass just went back to Fitz, asked him his gun back, and Fitz didn't kill anyone (Glass never had a son). It's all fiction, and all false. You don't go in icy water so often without stopping first to dry off your clothes by a fire. You don't fall from a cliff into a tree without any injury. You don't recover from a broken leg in a few weeks, or from infection with dry grass and smoke. Texas didn't have any "ranger" at the time. The Indians weren't wiped and devoid of every property (yet). I know it's just a movie blablabla but I fear that many people will take this as historical accuracy, thinking white men were constantly at war with Indians, raping and murdering them at any chance in return. This was not the case at all...