You Do Not Have To Shoot Him Now..."The Revenant"

The Revenant (2015)

Rated R

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson, Will Poulter, A Very Angry Bear

Directed by Alejandro D. Inarritu

The Story:

Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) is a scout for a fur expedition in the wild American frontier of the 1820s. After leading the group away from an Indian attack, Glass is attacked and brutally mauled by a bear. As they are trying to outrun the Indians that want them all dead, Glass is simply slowing them down.  They leave a few behind including John Fitzgerald (Hardy) to care for him. Bad idea. Fitzgerald wants to leave Glass high and dry. Now Glass has to survive his wounds, the weather, escape the Indians and find Fitzgerald and kill him!

Naturally you have to mention that his was inspired by true events.

How much, and what exactly was true, well that's a mystery lost to the ages.

But Glass was a real guy, and he was attacked by a bear and lived.

Other than that, feel free to take creative license and do what you will with the story.

That DiCaprio finally won an Oscar for this role is odd to say the least.

For the first half of the movie, he barely has any dialogue at all.

Then the last half, well he has a reason not to talk, but still.

It seems like anyone could have the role of trying to survive and seek vengeance. I'm not so sure what was so special about DiCaprio's performance in this film that finally pushed him over the edge with voters.

Matt Damon in The Martian or Bryan Cranston in Trumbo (review coming soon!) were much more watchable and entertaining in their roles than DiCaprio.

Of course, that's not the only example of actors to have lost that deserved to win (those reviews still to come as well!)

And seriously, what was with all the actors breathing heavily onto the camera?

We get it, it's cold out there.

Seems like amateurish filmmaking more than symbolic or anything else.

The good part, with the majority of the film being dialogue free, I was able to Fast Forward through much of the 2 1/2 hour (!!! seriously ?!? !!!) runtime to get to the scenes where things actually happened or people actually spoke.

It's a fine, watchable movie, but Best of the Year or Most Entertaining?

Not even close.

Final Grade: C

Greed Is Good. "The Wolf Of Wall Street" Is Not

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Rated R for Excessive language, nudity and drug use

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio

Directed by Martin Scorsese

The Story:

Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio) is a stock broker.  This film chronicles his rise to riches, and his fall due to corruption.

Color me not-interested.

The movie opens with excess after excess flying off the screen.

Based on the true story of Jordan Belfort, DiCaprio does nothing to make me want to endure 3 hours of watching this sleazy con-artist go from rags to riches, to richer still.

This is not to say that this movie isn't probably good or entertaining.  Scorsese and DiCaprio seem to have developed some magical chemistry together.

But when I'm five minutes into a film, and the main character is snorting cocaine off a the butt of a hooker...

Yeah, I'm in for a long 3 hours, or I can cut my losses and realize that this brand of entertainment is just not for me.


So off it went, and I don't feel like I really missed anything.

Final Grade: D

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: Of all the things I think I could accomplish in my  life in a 3 hour span... attempting to watch this movie again...ever...does not make the list.

"The Great Gatsby" ? That's One of Many Adjectives I Would Not Use to Describe This Movie.

Great is overrated.

Let's see if I can't fix that!

And that's about the same face I made as I was watching this movie as well, thanks Tobey!

The Story:

The movie opens with a drunk, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) telling about his life up to this point, and apparently how it intersected with that of Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio).  The flashbacks unfold as Nick begins feverishly, both literally and figuratively, begins banging out his story...

20 minutes later... I was bored.

:)

Wait, let me be perfectly clear, I was bored long before the 20 minute mark, I just invoked the 20 minute rule at that point.

That's right, The Great Gatsby didn't even get the chance at 1.5x speed on the PS3 for me to see if there was anything redeeming to this feature.

Perhaps I'm just not a fan of Baz Luhrmann?  I was underwhelmed with what I saw of Moulin Rouge, and his Australia! put me to sleep.

This looked like the roaring twenties, so I'll give them credit for a great look and feel to the film.

But I honestly didn't care to keep watching.

Tobey Maguire doesn't have the commanding presence to keep me glued to the set waiting for the Great Gatsby to arrive.

I suppose it would have gotten better had I kept watching, but I'll consider that an extra 2 hours of my life saved.

Besides, while you can't *always* judge a movie by its trailer, I did in this instance.

And I found the final product about on par with what I was expecting.

Final Grade: D-

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: No, I'm good.  If I really want to find out what happens, there's a book out there with the same name. ;)

With Great Power Comes Great Paranoia... "J. Edgar"

Does this dress make me look manly enough?

The Story:

In a story that jumps between flashbacks and "modern" day, J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) recalls his early days in the Justice Department and how it soon branched into the FBI, which he would head for the rest of his life.  Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) is promoted to his right hand man, and the two have a lasting relationship until Hoover's dying days.  The movie shows Hoover's penchant for spying on everyone, and having secret files which kept him in a position of power over the Presidents.

Meh.

For a period piece, it's okay.  I thought it would be more engrossing and  involving than it was, at least for me.

I mean, you've got the subject of literally the most powerful man in America for over 50 years, who outlasted administrations that wanted him out of office, yet had no power to do anything about it, as they most likely had a little file hidden in Hoover's office about their misdeeds.

All of the actors do a fine job, especially DiCaprio who basically carries the film through the years in makeup and without.  How his lifestyle contradicted everything people thought they knew about him, and met most of all with disapproval from his mother (Judi Dench) is probably a nugget that the President could have used to get him out of office at anytime in his career.  Of course if your job is to get secrets, it only makes sense that Hoover was probably the most private man in the world.

Clint Eastwood solidly directs as usual.  Again, the movie just never really grabbed me and made me want to watch.  Instead, it simply played, and I paid as much, or as little attention as I felt like as the movie progressed.

Your mileage could vary!

Final Grade: C+

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: Nope, I'm good.  2 1/2 hours was plenty.

What In The Wide Wide World of Sports Is "Django Unchained" Doing Here?

How the South Was Won...

The Story:

Django (Jamie Foxx) is a slave who is rescued by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a bounty hunter.  He needs Django's help identifying three bounties, and offers to give him some of the reward.  The two get along quite well, and Schultz takes him under his wing.  Django proves to be rather adept at being a bounty hunter, and asks for Schultz's help to find his wife ( Kerry Washington) who has been sold to a southern plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio).  The two pull off an elaborate scheme to get to attempt to buy her freedom, but there's a good chance not everyone will walk away from this plan unscathed.

Dear Quentin Tarantino-

I apologize to you on behalf of all of the things I've ever said about your movies.

I didn't enjoy Pulp Fiction, I'm not even sure I finished it, and was unimpressed with Kill Bill.

So I believe I added him to the short list of directors whose work I do not like, and therefore will avoid.

Then I watched Inglourious Basterds, and rather enjoyed it.

So I'm now in a conundrum, has Tarantino's work shifted over time, perhaps showing me a growth in his work?
Was I simply missing out on the greatness that people profess of his work, or was I just not feeling that great when I watched Pulp Fiction?  I do remember being sick that day...

Or do I only respond well to genre films from him, From Dusk till Dawn (horror), Inglorious Basterds (WWII) and now Django (Western) ?

I'm not sure.

But I really enjoyed this film.

Jamie Foxx did a great job as the slave turned gunslinger, and owned the role.  I read that it was designed for Will Smith, but he turned it down because he thought Django wasn't the main character, or because he doesn't kill the bad guy (DiCaprio) at the end.

First, I'm glad that Will Smith didn't take this role.  It would have been too hard to see the guy who grinned his way through Wild Wild West try and become a hardline bounty hunter.  While he can go dramatic, I think he's seen too much as the fun actor to bring the edge that's needed to this part.

Plus, he's wrong.

The REAL bad guy of this film is not DiCaprio.  It's Samuel L. Jackson's character.  Take him out of the equation, and everyone walks out of this film alive.

Never have I rooted for a character to get killed more in a western, and his death was spectacular, and well deserved.

Jamie Foxx works well as the star of the film by allowing everyone else to overshadow him, something that I don't think Will Smith's ego would allow.

One of those, Christoph Waltz is simply amazing in his role as Dr. Schultz.  This is his second Oscar under Tarantino's hand, and he deserved both, as he was the most mesmerizing character in both of those films.

DiCaprio goes full on Johnny Depp mode as the bad guy, and I think he really plays well as the bad guy.  It's a role very unlike him, and I think Tarantino brought out the best in his actors.  Reading the background of the film, they say he used a real glass and actually cut his hand in one scene so that real blood and anger were on his face.

Method actors, gotta love 'em!

: )

Finally, I would be remiss to say that I would like to thank Mr. Tarantino for balancing out two of the most gruesome scenes ever filmed (The Dog and the Mandingo Fight) by trimming their grossness, but also by putting in two of the funniest scenes not in a Western by Mel Brooks.

1) The first big shootout in Candie Land.  The guy screaming in pain as he was shot repeatedly by accident... sorry, that was just hilarious.  That whole gunfight was epic and well done.
2) The Regulators getting to ride, but first discussing their masks.  Hahahahahaha... that was so politically incorrect, it was awesome.


My hat is off to you sir, thank you for an excellent movie.

I may have to revisit your catalog and see if my initial opinion was wrong, or if we've just both changed over the years.


Final Grade: A-

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: I could be persuaded to do either.  Be advised, the film is rather lengthly (nearly 3 hours) but sure doesn't drag like it's 3 hours.