I am surprised how much I didn't like this. I didn't even like the photography. Too many 360° pans and jumping off cliffs that make the camera a character, or at least felt very out of place in the setting (when they were very reasonable when used in Gravity, for example). Some great acting, some amazing VFX, but... no story. I mean sure there's a story, but somehow one that was so fantastical, so remote from the actions of the characters that I didn't ever connect the two so didn't feel any emotional attachment to it. Even the bear scene was the tour-de-force of film-making that everyone says while also making me have absolutely no concern for Glass.Take the opening attack, and compare it to the attack on the convoy leaving the fort in Last of the Mohicans. The latter gives you a much better sense of the geography of the action, even when they go off to the river and are chased down; this all gives the scene a distinct sense of peril. The characters might not make it. Not so in The Revenant. Even with the quite common chance of death, as people start dropping from arrows and hatchets, it all feels remote, cold, isolated. And confusing. Warriors coming from off the frame to kill someone doesn't seem frightening, so much as confusing.

Very good, but the film would have been just as powerful reducing scenery screen time...even a few seconds most times would have made the movie even more watchable.

By they, I mean the producers. Many things have been said about the flaws and the triumphs of this film.Like many contemporary films the actors are unable to convincingly portray the period they are set in. Films like Fury, Ain't Them Bodies Saints, and this film has acting which fails to account for times in which they are set.The manner of speaking, their worldview, their reason, their nature is still in the 21st century and it's very distracting to a viewer who knows better.Tom Hardy's character is terrible. (And I like Tom Hardy) He sounds and acts like a man you would meet in rural Missouri today. The English isn't archaic enough across the board. That goes for all the actors.Also, the little speech by the Indian discussing with the French how they've stolen so much land... This is South Dakota in the 1820's! Ok? There were barely any Indians much less Europeans settlements out there. (Especially by the French!). It was large wide open territory with few people per sq acre. Bayou could walk for days without seeing another living person! To this day barely anyone lives there! And the Indian nations that did exist we're still autonomous! In another scene, Tom Hardy talks about Texas Rangers! In the 1820s! Please, if they're going to make these kind of films they need to drop the pretense of the modern mind and not only take the time to learn about the setting, but the actors need to do some research into the speech, worldview, and culture of the times. This isn't camp. If they're going to try hard to make a serious film, hit all the marks.

I haven't seen this before tonight on TV (damn ads) and wow that was something else. The cinematography is exceptional and it's that scenery that keeps the action flowing, and the acting was so real it brought me right into the Film. I don't comment here often because I'm a man of few words but sometimes I'm compelled to say something after seeing this. All in all I gave it a ten because I can't really fault it.