Endurance, Cinematography... and Zero for Story

Rating: 3/10 (10 January 2016)

The Revenant's story is flat and difficult to accept as realistic or mythic. It may be magic realism but that doesn't make this particular story an effective narrative- its strengths lie in the visual trip it takes you on. However, what story it does have ruins that visual trip, unlike in the best works of Malick or Tarkovsky, where the natural imagery and the dreaminess better compliment the narrative, and vice-versa.
It's not realistic, despite being 'based' on a true story, because it keeps the main character alive past all biological possibility. (For those who would quibble with the 'true story' factor, the actual story of Hugh Glass doesn't have the main character defy death ten times over. Furthermore it's a 'true story' of a mountain man doing something extraordinary. This usually means it's a tall tale.)
And if Glass' death-defiance is meant to subtly show the main character as a kind of undead or supernatural being (or ambiguously or liminally so), that idea is not developed interestingly. Even worse, if Glass' endurance and death-defiance are supernatural, then his determination is irrelevant and the theme seems to be: 'family love powers magic revenge'. That's an F for story to me. I suppose that there could be some sort of grand allegorical meaning, but since the story doesn't work on the literal level, that potential is irrelevant to me.
Although others may see it differently, the highest score I can give a narrative film with a zero for story is a 3 out of 10. I find it sadly amusing that after Birdman, with its examination of the perils of ego, Inarritu follows with an egomaniacal stunt of his own.