Movie Review: The Revenant

I apologize for all of my R rated movie reviews recently.
That said, this is the goriest, heaviest, adult movie to date on my blog with a review.
I make this note so that no one takes this R rating lightly in any way shape or form.

(Source)

The Revenant (2015)

Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu
Producer: Arnon Milchan, Steve Golin, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Mary Parent, Keith Redmon, James W. Skotchdopole
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Release Date: December 16, 2015 (TCL Chinese Theatre), December 25, 2015 (U.S. Limited Release), January 8, 2016 (Worldwide Release)
Running Time: 156 minutes
Country: United States
Language: Arikara, English, French, Pawnee
Rating: R

Trailer

Inspired by true events, in an expedition of the uncharted American wilderness, legendary explorer Hugh Glass is brutally attacked by a bear and left for dead by members of his own hunting team. In a quest to survive, Glass endures unimaginable grief as well as the betrayal of his confidant John Fitzgerald. Guided by sheer will and the love of his family, Glass must navigate a vicious winter in a relentless pursuit to live and find redemption. (Source)

Movie Tags: Historical, Man vs Wild, Survival, Drama, Western, semi-biographical

Note: Please note R rating.

This film may be, by far the goriest grittiest movie I've seen in years, but it was worth watching.

I'm going to be honest.. I saw this over two weeks ago and still have no idea how it makes me feel.
It's a story about real people's lives, it's history. It's gritty, unpleasant, cringe inducing, insightful, beautiful, ugly, raw...
I loved it but I also hated it... unsure of where that leaves me. Conflicted. Confused.

I feel the need to consider it given me a different view on my life, the value of how easy life and death came almost 200 years ago. The idea that I came from those that survived those conditions, ones I can't even imagine, always blows me away. Something I try not to think too hard about because it might blow my mind away too much. 

This movie dances around the entire reality that lives hanging in the balance. Struggling with the ideas of if you are able to change your life or if you are meant to let things be.
That partnerships, friendships, relationships, life and death, all come and go so easily and quickly. While some.. last longer than you'd ever expect, but let's dive in.

Hugh Glass was real. His story is true, this version however, not entirely. You may have no noticed the "semi-biographical" tag.
Hugh Glass was a mountain man and beaver fur trapper in the American West in the 1820s and 1830s.  On his first trip up the Missouri River in 1823 he was severely mauled by a grizzly bear, left for dead by his companions, survived, and struggled on his own for about six weeks and 200 miles back to Fort Kiowa. This feat was legendary among his peers almost immediately and the story has been retold (and elaborated on) ever since. (Source)

(Source)

What I enjoyed the most, were the little details this movie touched on. Actual research into the lives, culture, and practices of indigenous tribes.

There's a scene where a Pawnee man dies and a piece of moss is placed in his mouth. This is something they actually did to respect their dead.
The person I watched the film with pointed it out to me, I noticed it, but hadn't really thought much of it. It's such a simple, but beautiful moment which only adds farther depth to the complexity of this film.

Along with that, there is a meeting of chance, which leads to Hugh being kept alive by someone solely for their consideration and kindness. The effort they put into building shelter is beyond amazing and authentic to the times.

There's the hunting techniques, the Pawnee hunt with fire. There's a moment when you see fire rage up and take over a flat area and wolves running off. A Pawnee man is taking a kill from the wolves since they fear fire, as most animals instinctively do.

As I've already discussed, some of the facts have been altered an that effects my feelings and review of the film. Mainly because it's disappointing. While I understand there are issues of entertainment and different version of memoirs of the events. The heaviest point, some characters did not die, those that somewhat impacted the story line, as well as the driving force of the film doesn't hold against the facts of the journey. But I'm trying to avoid spoilers.

If you are interested... Farther reading... Fact checking...

IMDb | Wikipedia | Rotten Tomatoes

Movie Review: I Love You, Man

(Source)

I Love You, Man (2009)

Director: John Hamburg
Producer: Donald De Line, John Hamburg
Distributor: DreamWorks Pictures
Release Date: March 20, 2009
Running Time: 105 minutes
Country: United States
Language: English
Rating: R

Trailer

Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd), a real estate agent, proposes to his girlfriend Zooey Rice (Rashida Jones); both happily become engaged. The conflict is that Peter seem to not have any close friends to share the good news with: only family and superficial (mainly female) acquaintances. After overhearing Zooey's female friends voicing their concerns over his lack of close male friends, Peter realizes his abnormality and decides that he needs to find male friends in order to have a best man for the upcoming wedding. (Source) Which leads him on a series of man-dates and to meeting Sydney Fife (Jason Segel).

Movie Tags: Comedy, Goofy, "Guy" humour

Note: Please note R rating.

First as foremost, the language of this film.

Now that that's out of the way, this film was hilarious. Not in a series of fart jokes/potty humour sort of way. Not a let's talk like men in locker rooms about women sort of way. But a genuine high quality entertainment of trying to understand how men having friendships, works.
What things are open for discussion, what conversational topics needs to be prompted or have the right situation to be acceptable.

Along with that concept, the different levels of seriousness in friendship. Just because you talk to someone everyday, do a regular activity together, doesn't mean you know them as well as you think. Doesn't even mean they're your 'friend' just because you cross paths a lot, it involves taking that extra step to actually get to know someone.

Rudd's character, Peter, is timid in every sense of the word. Along with awkward. This many defines it.
He so unsure of how to be himself in social situations, especially those that are among other males. Constantly being a 'try hard' and fumbling to be one of the 'cool guys'. Is cringe-worthy to sit through.
Enter Sydney, Segel's character. Who see Peter as a nice guy, sure he's socially awkward, fairly square and rigid, but he's honest. Which say something about a person.

The combination of the actors and two characters they created together is heart warming, cue fart joke. Just kidding!

Being someone that in their adult life struggles to have friends I consider to be in my inner circle, this film hit a little close to home. It's not always easy to make friends, have relationships outside of work, or even be able to have the same friendship you once had with someone from high school.

The only negative point I feel the need to bring attention to, what I thought, is the very obvious signs pointing to this being "written by a man". There just off about the female roles at times. There are certain disagreements and topics I felt were almost robot like in how they reacted or behaved in those situations. However on the other hand the argument could be, the story wasn't really about them.


I adore Paul Rudd and am fairly fond of Jason Segel. While I've swooned over Paul Rudd in almost every roles he's done since Clueless, I'm always a little wary about Jason Segel's humour and performances. Having experienced some of his hit-and-miss roles throughout his career.
This one is particular shows his more charming side while not ignoring the fact his character is also crude, blunt, and only occasionally vulgar.


Recommend: Adult humour, awkward situational humour, quirkiness, and comedy, guy humour.

IMDb | Wikipedia | Rotten Tomatoes

Movie Review: Swiss Army Man

(Source)

Swiss Army Man (2016)

Director: Daniel Scheinert, Daniel Kwan
Producer: Eval Rimmon, Lauren Mann, Lawrence Inglee, Jonathan Wang, Miranda Bailey, Amanda Marshall
Distributor: A24
Release Date(s): January 22, 2016 (Sundance Film Festival), June 24, 2016 (United States)
Running Time: 97 minutes
Country: United States
Language: English
Rating: R

Official Site | Trailer

Hank (Paul Dano), a man who is attempting suicide after being lost on an island, when he sees a corpse wash ashore, Manny (Daniel Radcliffe). He develops a type of friendship with the dead body and discovers that he can manipulate the cadaver like a Swiss Army knife and ends up slowly reanimating him from the dead. (Source)

Movie Tags: Comedy, Emotional, Goofy, Sentimental

Note: Please note R rating.

"If you hide farts from those you care about, what else are you hiding?" - Manny

Before I start, this is what I believe the underlining message of this story is. We're all kind of gross, we all do things, like fart, why hid it?
Everyone poops. While it's great to 'keep the mystery alive', don't feel shame for it.


Going into this, I wasn't sure what to expect. I'd seen the trailers online, thinking they were silly yet curious as to what the film would actually be about. "Light hearted and hopefully silly to watch", I hit the nail on the head.

While is film does carry very heavy subtext, starting with a man ready to take his life, as well as the main protagonist questioning almost every aspect of his life, almost obsessively, it's very well hidden under a layer of utter silliness. I'm practically fond of movies that address very serious issues, in a very non-serious sort of way. I personally think life is about laughing, even if it's not all the time.
You should be able to view yourself, your issues, and see some of your hang ups as silly, while still being able to embrace them. Which I felt was the main theme of Swiss Army Man.

The entire premise of a man that's dead, but is he really dead? Is rather interesting. It may lead you to assuming you'll show concern, of the bad kind, for the leading man Hank. The catch is, there are other things to be more concerned about.
Not once did I really find the idea of a friendship with a "dead but not quite dead man" concerning, which in retrospect makes me wonder about myself a bit.. Let's chalk that up to the flow of the story being so smooth.
You simply go with the flow of the current and get swept away by this odd movie.

One thing I am somewhat unsatisfied with, which is why this only received four stars, that's is the ending. It felt almost, uncomfortable. The journey, is what catches you, then reality sets in, and you're left trying to salvage what you took from the experience.
While it, once again, indirectly addresses the primary concerns of the movie. Too many "what ifs" "what's next?" were left open.
However the point is, does that all really matter as much as you think it does?



As a disclaimer I should comment, quirkiness is almost always a plus in my book. Even more so if it's quirky without being weird. Which is movie flirted with that line, I choose to give it an overall good rating.

Recommend: Emotional drama, adult humour, quirkiness, and comedy.

IMDb | Wikipedia | Rotten Tomatoes