Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) STARTED TO WATCH IT LAST NIGHT BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID IT WAS GREAT. Some day I'll learn. Once again someone thought it would be a marvelous idea to make the music and background sounds blot out the rest of the movie. In addition they found the most annoying music ever penned, two or three chords repeated over and over and over again in a truly funeral-paced tempo. The cinematography left a lot to be desired, too. Too rapidly moving from scene to scene, long distant shots so bad that I couldn't even see the action, and scene skipping shifts. Blurring scenes brought to perfection. After maybe ten minutes I turned it off. It was supposed to be a rendition of the true story of Hugh Glass, a man who was left behind after a battle and struggled courageously to return to his headquarters camp.....and survived against all odds..... but I couldn't find it in me to watch any more of it I grew up in the Rocky Mountains and the story of Glass was well known and the man was a hero to those who knew that story. Mr. Glass, I apologize for myself and no others, for this atrocious POS. You deserve better. Edited September 22 by Forty Rod SASS 3935 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Gun Preacher Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 I agree with you-however-its worth watching for the performance of Tom Hardy (and maybe the questions it raises about the legendary Jim Bridger) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 In my opinion the movie was just “OK”. I agree with Forty Rod that the music and background noise was a bit much. That bear attack scene was quite intense. 26 minutes ago, Long Gun Preacher said: I agree with you-however-its worth watching for the performance of Tom Hardy (and maybe the questions it raises about the legendary Jim Bridger) I have a feeling all or most Old West heroes weren’t the pillars of honesty and morals most people make them out to be. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 I didn't stay with it long enough to see the things you all mentioned. At my age I just don't have the time left to put up with that sort of crap. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 2 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said: I didn't stay with it long enough to see the things you all mentioned. At my age I just don't have the time left to put up with that sort of crap. Here’s a 3 minute clip of the scene - which brought up another annoyance to me. Many scene have seriously poor lighting. ALL: Please don’t turn this into another firearm vs bear in the wild thing, please. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyesa Horg Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Yep, would've been much better with some light! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 I couldn’t stay awake! Boring as he$& Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailrider #896 Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Haven't seen it and don't intend to. I've known the story of Hugh Glass, aka Lord Grizzly for years. Was the youngster who left him Jim Bridger? Glass swore he'd kill him, but forgave him when he reached the fort. There were some tough hombres in those days! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 5 hours ago, Pat Riot said: Here’s a 3 minute clip of the scene - which brought up another annoyance to me. Many scene have seriously poor lighting. ALL: Please don’t turn this into another firearm vs bear in the wild thing, please. This is what happened to me when I wore my muddy work boots into the kitchen right after the warden had washed the floor. I am still in recovery. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 5 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said: Yep, would've been much better with some light! Almost any light! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-BAR #18287 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 (edited) I liked the movie. It was not a documentary on Hugh Glass anymore than all the movies about Doc Holiday or Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok or General Custer are expected to be historically accurate. The cinematography was superb. They decided to use only natural ambient light, which restricted filming to only a few minutes each day. Artificial electric lights were only used in one campfire scene, when the firelight was inadequate. The film was shot entirely on location. No sound stages in this one. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm sure you don't care about mine. I simply think its 193 award nominations, including 3 Academy Award nominations, were earned. Edited August 20 by J-BAR #18287 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 9 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said: I liked the movie. It was not a documentary on Hugh Glass anymore than all the movies about Doc Holiday or Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok or General Custer are expected to be historically accurate. The cinematography was superb. They decided to use only natural ambient light, which restricted filming to only a few minutes each day. Artificial electric lights were only used in one campfire scene, when the firelight was inadequate. The film was shot entirely on location. No sound stages in this one. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm sure you don't care about mine. I simply think its 193 award nominations, including 3 Academy Award nominations, were earned. That explains a lot. I was not aware. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpo Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 I have not seen the movie. I have no interest in seeing the movie. Having said that --- Too many movie makers these days seem to think that they are producing ART. They try this effect and they try that effect because they want it to be so damn ARTISTIC. But I don't go to the movies to see art. If I wish to see art, I go to the museum. I go to the movies to be entertained. Movie makers are producing entertainment. If the movie is too dark to see, or has background music that is so loud it drowns out the dialogue, or the picture jumps from here to there quickly with no rhyme or reason - well, that might be art, but it is not entertainment. If I have to try to make sense of it, it is not worth my time. The Harry Potter movies are a great example. The first few were well lit movies showing the troubles poor little Harry has. But the last three or four are dark. Now I realize the story is dark, but the damn visuals were dark. It's like they filmed it at night and didn't bring any lights with them so they were depending entirely on the light capturing ability of the size of the lens. Wow. So artistic. Would have been easier to watch if they had used a light. Or maybe filmed it in the daytime. Filmed it in the daytime using those blue filters like they used to use in the 50s, so you knew it was was supposed to be night but you could see everything that was going on. But that's not ART. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 (edited) 12 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said: I liked the movie. It was not a documentary on Hugh Glass anymore than all the movies about Doc Holiday or Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok or General Custer are expected to be historically accurate. The cinematography was superb. They decided to use only natural ambient light, which restricted filming to only a few minutes each day. Artificial electric lights were only used in one campfire scene, when the firelight was inadequate. The film was shot entirely on location. No sound stages in this one. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm sure you don't care about mine. I simply think its 193 award nominations, including 3 Academy Award nominations, were earned. I DO care about your opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it in this particular instance. However I really don't GAS about awards, academies, anything said, either pro or con, in any form of news media, very little said by more than a very tiny percentage of other movie or other entertainment people, or anything said about me except for folks like most of the writers on this wire.....so long as they also have the guts to say it to my face, and are prepared for my rebuttal in whatever form I choose to reply. Edited August 20 by Forty Rod SASS 3935 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horace Patootie, SASS #35798 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 I've seen it and liked it. Haven't planned on seeing it again but seeing this thread....well, maybe. Horace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater 53393 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 I thought the movie was “okay”. I waited until it was free to watch and I am glad I did. It certainly wasn’t something I’d spend money to go and see. As to awards and such bestowed on this film or that, I have seen too many instances where politics, (world or industry) had more to do with the winner than the quality of the film or the entertainment value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgavin Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Meh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horace Patootie, SASS #35798 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 12 hours ago, Horace Patootie, SASS #35798 said: I've seen it and liked it. Haven't planned on seeing it again but seeing this thread....well, maybe. Horace Yep. Just finished watching it again. Supposedly 1823 but everyone's using flintlocks still. Horace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dantankerous Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Saw it on the big screen in the theater and it was quite excellent. Got the DVD later and have watched it a couple more times. Very enjoyable movie. As previously mentioned I thought the cinematography was incredible. The storyline deviated with artistic license from the real Hugh Glass story but that's fine as movies do this and I did not expect a historical documentary. The brutal fight for survival in both the historical account and the theatrical version is almost painful to watch/read and very, very well done. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpo Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 6 hours ago, Horace Patootie, SASS #35798 said: Yep. Just finished watching it again. Supposedly 1823 but everyone's using flintlocks still. Horace This is about mountain men, right? My understanding is that many mountain men continue using flintlocks long into the percussion era, because percussion caps had to be bought from somebody. Flint could be found on the ground. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokin Gator SASS #29736 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 I had to look it up but the info I found is that although they were around earlier they were not commonly used until the 1830s. Likewise many still used their cap and ball Colts even after the introduction of the SAA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted August 21 Author Share Posted August 21 15 hours ago, Horace Patootie, SASS #35798 said: Yep. Just finished watching it again. Supposedly 1823 but everyone's using flintlocks still. Horace I've been told that a lot of mountain men kept flintlocks "because percussion caps can't be found in nature, but flint and obsidian can be." Could be true, but growing up in the Rockies I found a lot of "facts" and legends that just didn't ring true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpo Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 52 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said: but flint and obsidian can be. Obsidian? You can get a spark with glass and steel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster Ron Wayne Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 I enjoyed the Original movie and this remake myself. Tom Hardy was great in this movie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paradiddle Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 On 8/19/2024 at 9:10 PM, J-BAR #18287 said: I liked the movie. It was not a documentary on Hugh Glass anymore than all the movies about Doc Holiday or Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok or General Custer are expected to be historically accurate. The cinematography was superb. They decided to use only natural ambient light, which restricted filming to only a few minutes each day. Artificial electric lights were only used in one campfire scene, when the firelight was inadequate. The film was shot entirely on location. No sound stages in this one. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm sure you don't care about mine. I simply think its 193 award nominations, including 3 Academy Award nominations, were earned. This. Fantastic film. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paradiddle Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 On 8/20/2024 at 8:35 AM, Alpo said: I have not seen the movie. I have no interest in seeing the movie. Having said that --- Too many movie makers these days seem to think that they are producing ART. They try this effect and they try that effect because they want it to be so damn ARTISTIC. But I don't go to the movies to see art. If I wish to see art, I go to the museum. I go to the movies to be entertained. Movie makers are producing entertainment. If the movie is too dark to see, or has background music that is so loud it drowns out the dialogue, or the picture jumps from here to there quickly with no rhyme or reason - well, that might be art, but it is not entertainment. If I have to try to make sense of it, it is not worth my time. The Harry Potter movies are a great example. The first few were well lit movies showing the troubles poor little Harry has. But the last three or four are dark. Now I realize the story is dark, but the damn visuals were dark. It's like they filmed it at night and didn't bring any lights with them so they were depending entirely on the light capturing ability of the size of the lens. Wow. So artistic. Would have been easier to watch if they had used a light. Or maybe filmed it in the daytime. Filmed it in the daytime using those blue filters like they used to use in the 50s, so you knew it was was supposed to be night but you could see everything that was going on. But that's not ART. Couldn't disagree more. There are popcorn movies, then there are films They are different. It's okay to like one and not the other, but strive to understand. Is music art? Dance? Or does it have to hang on a wall, or rest on a pedestal to be "art"? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.