‘Every awards consultant known to man’ has been hired for ‘The Revenant’

rev2

Late last week, the second full-length trailer for The Revenant was released. This one has more BEAR ASSAULT. As in, that bear really mauled the crap out of Leonardo DiCaprio and in turn, Leo shoots the bear in the face and the bear is all “Nah, bruh.” Here’s the trailer:

Does this make you want to see the movie? To me, it just looks depressing, although I think this trailer is the best one so far because we’re getting to hear Tom Hardy’s character speak a little bit more (and Hardy seems to be playing a monster). But everyone involved is really, really hoping that this film gets great buzz. They’re hoping it makes money and they’re hoping it gets nominated for all of the Oscars. The Wrap had an exclusive story about the money situation and the awards season plan for The Revenant last week as well – go here to read the full piece. Some highlights:

The cost ballooned to a crazy degree. Originally, The Revenant was supposed to come in under $100 million. The original budget was $95 million. But they ended up spending $135 million on the production, plus they’re doing a pricey media rollout which will put the entire cost of the film around $165 million.

Again, director Alejandro Inarritu was mostly to blame: One source said: “It was very difficult production. We were really biting off a lot more than we could chew. The movie just kept getting bigger and bigger, more complicated, the weather — waiting for the light to be a certain way.” Producers are also getting blamed for not successfully reining in Inarritu, with one source saying: “I don’t think the studio put in stopgaps to keep the costs down. There were a lot of indulgences he got that could’ve been a ‘no.’ Alejandro is a little bit like a child. He tests the parameters all the time. When you don’t say ‘no,’ he takes advantage.”

Slow release: The film will get a limited release in late December before going wide on January 8. Box office experts are worried about releasing such a dark, depressing movie around the holidays, especially since everyone involved NEEDS this film to make money.

Oscar season: One knowledgeable insider claimed that New Regency has hired “every awards consultant known to man” to strategize an Oscar campaign for “The Revenant” — evidence of the studio’s emphasis on awards prestige which have also been known to boost a film’s box office prospects.

[From The Wrap]

The Wrap also says that the studio is really, really worried about the beards. As in, they’re worried the ladies won’t come out to see this dark, violent, depressing film because Leo and Tom’s faces will be obstructed by beards. Which is funny, when you think about it. After all of this expense and time and drama, what if the whole thing did come down to “God, so beardy, I don’t want to see that.” Anyway… it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I’m guessing that they’ll be able to buy their way into several Oscar nominations, especially for Best Picture. But I just don’t know if anyone will want to give Leo the awards.

rev1

Photos courtesy of WENN, stills from ‘The Revenant’.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

186 Responses to “‘Every awards consultant known to man’ has been hired for ‘The Revenant’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. GlimmerBunny says:

    Well I personally think it looks really good. Guess I’m enough of a DiCaprio and Hardy fangirl to not care about the beards :)

  2. Shijel says:

    Well, I like dark and depressing films. I’m just curious about what happened on the set. Heard the filming was a painful process for everyone involved.

  3. Loopy says:

    Lol so women only go to watch movies to drool over the male characters not for the story, how shallow.

    • Exactly! How insulting. Personally, I think this looks like a really good movie and the story is interesting……but I might wait to rent or watch on Netflix, because of Inarritu. I hope one of their Oscar consultants is reading this now, lol!

    • A.Key says:

      Actually, most films are so bad these days that the occasional eye candy is the only reason I’m willing to go see it. When they start making high quality films again, maybe I won’t care whether the leading man is good looking or not.

      On the plus side, I like beards :D

    • Beth No. 2 says:

      Yes, I found that perception shallow too. As if women only watch fluffy happy movies or films with hot men. Though the responses in this CB thread suggest the studios may not be wide off the mark, LOL.

      Personally this is one of my favourite trailers this year, fantastically cut and showing off the stunning cinematography and natural landscapes, plus excellent use of background aural effects. I enjoy dark and depressing films and I can’t wait to see this.

      • Korra says:

        Ladies I don’t know why you’re so offended though! The studio has about the same faith in you as their male Audience. Like these major movies aren’t made to make the girl as attractive as possible because otherwise she wouldn’t be f*ckable and we all know men would be turned off the film by that. So at least they’re considering that for us!

        Me personally I’m not paying money to see this sorry. Already supported Birdman and saw that underwhelming over praised crap fest The Martian. Hope Leo gets his damn Oscar though so people will shut up about that at least.

      • Beth No. 2 says:

        I’m not offended LOL, but I do find that perception shallow. But then again, like I said, a lot of responses here “I find this too dark, bleak, too many men, no women so I’m not gonna watch it” are proving that perception right, sadly.

      • Korra says:

        I think those are valid reasons for people not going to see it. Lol I at least have to accept their valid because I hear a lot of men give similar reasons for not wanting to see a movie. “Too many women, bleak, and dreary, it’s a chick Flik (because the mere existence of women in the leads MAKES IT SO), etc” But they’ll get down on their knees to see Leo be bleak and dreary. That’s how far their loyalty to this guy extends. The perception that male execs are supposedly saying is women are turned off by the beards. Not that they simply wouldn’t want to see it for other reasons.

      • Ally8 says:

        Since Kaiser is too modest to re-use a great joke, I’ll quote her. This is “Beards In the Woods: The Boy Drama Movie”.

        But clean-shaven, it would be equally unappealing to me. Violence, macho posturing and Oscar-baity glowering — no thanks.

        Anyway, sounds like The Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood, Oscars!) crossed with Jeremiah Johnson (Robert Redford, bear) and The Edge (Alec Baldwin, Anthony Hopkins, bear).

    • Lisa says:

      Yeah, I found that insulting but also hilarious and revealing. If that’s what executives making movies think I’m basing my movie-going decisions on, it’s no wonder I don’t go to the movies very often. I don’t at all mind dark and dreary on occasion, and I certainly don’t need some man’s face to look a certain way in order to “make up” for the darkness/dreariness.

  4. Rachel says:

    Forget the beards. They lost me at shooting a bear in the face. Thanks for the heads up.

    • Jag says:

      Agreed!

    • Mimi says:

      His character is being attacked by the bear, would you have preffered to die, if in his place?
      PS: they didn’t REALLY harm the bear, if that’s what you meant.

      • WinnieCoopersMom says:

        Thank you. Did anyone who saw War Horse think that the horses were actually injured or abused on set? Or Water for Elephants? No..the animals on sets are actually really really well taken care of.

    • Beth No. 2 says:

      Even when the shooter (Leo’s character) is defending himself against a bear attack? It’s not like some gratuitous bit of violence; him being mauled by the bear sets certain events in place for the rest of the story.

    • Marrrrria says:

      You must consider that this movie takes place in the 19th century. A time where hunting bears increased due to threats to livestock (in the U.S.). Also, I love animals as much as the next person but if I’d be in such a situation, I’d shoot the bear as well. Call me a monster but it’s the truth. Like I said, it’s historical fiction. They won’t show a character who’s inspired by a fur trapper and frontierman cuddling up to a giant bear.

    • Jlh says:

      Oh, brother.

    • What was that says:

      Well ,I am with you Rachel,…
      It is nothing to do with historical context or animal cruelty…although don’t be fooled some sets have been known to be cruel…
      It just when I want to go and see a movie I would rather not see that….I think I must be a real product of a Disney upbringing as I am very squeamish and can’t stand a violent movie..too much blood and I feel ill…
      Plus I would like to point out that when you are watching a story you are suppose to suspend disbelief so that means it is real at that moment…
      There is also the argument about whether seeing these things in a movie ,allows certain types of people to think it is OK in real life….

    • Blaise says:

      Me too. I feel sorry for the bear. I enjoy these wild west or frontier stories, but it disturbs me when people take this stuff literally and thinks they’re still living in those times. I’ll bet there’s a huge population of tough NRA members and the like who love stuff like this for that reason.

      • ican'tsnap says:

        Wait but you know they CGI’ed that right? They did not ACTUALLY SHOOT A BEAR in the making of the film.

        What?

      • Blaise says:

        Oh, dang it! I really thought they shot a real-life bear! I was talking hypothetically, for the story’s sake.

    • Mrs. Darcy says:

      Grizzly bear attacks are rare (black bears even less so) yet any time we see a bear in film it is a monster that has to be killed. It is so trite, a shortcut to “authentic” wilderness films, when in reality the bear used in the movie is a highly trained, not remotely aggressive animal to be able to perform scenes like that and not hurt the actor/stuntman. I am wondering if they used Bart jr. the bear. One thing I like about Brad Pitt is he made an effort to learn about bears after working with them.

  5. vauvert says:

    Ha ha ha…. Of course they hired every award consultant. God, the thirst. I would not see this if they paid me. I expect that in general, most women won’t care for this, and not because of the beards either (although, if female movie goers were a concern, perhaps that should have been addressed before filming??) But maybe I am wrong and the ladies will flock to see this bleak, bloody, grunty and bearded bear mauling flick. Ugh.

    • Elisa the I. says:

      +1.
      The trailer looks so OTT and I had to laugh at some of the scenes. They are trying way too hard(y) to look tough. :) Also, is this an all male movie?
      Seriously, I have my doubts that this will appeal to the mainstream.

      • mimif says:

        Pffft everybody knows there were no women back then.

      • Elisa the I. says:

        I figured out the reason! As mentioned on another wonderful CB thread: menstruating women attract bears -> women get killed -> result: no women back then
        :)

      • Ally8 says:

        All male can be good. I love Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, for instance. But something about the yachting Hollywood set spilling blood and roughing it in the woods (to win Oscars) both bores and repels me. Also it sounds like a mashup of older cowboy/wilderness movies.

      • Blaise says:

        “The trailer looks so OTT and I had to laugh at some of the scenes. They are trying way too hard(y) to look tough.”

        For some reason it comes across okay because of the context. What’s more laughable are those crime films with the amped-up gangsters with tough accents that are so prevalent these days (see Tom Hardy’s resume for examples).

    • littlestar says:

      They should really hire Jennifer Aniston. She can tell them what NOT to do during awards season when one is so desperate for an Oscar.

    • Blaise says:

      It’s not so much award thirst as commercial thirst. It’s a machine.

  6. ShazBot says:

    I still can’t even figure out what it’s about.

    • mimif says:

      Men grow beards. Men go hunting. Bear maul man. Men rob mauled man, kill injun son, leave man to die. Man lives, spends 90 minutes dirty stinky mad hunting down bad men. Eats Cake with Jen.

      FIN

      • I Choose Me says:

        Sounds about right. I still want to see it. I’m all about the bear/ds. :D

      • mimif says:

        Dances With Bear/ds 😛

      • Mimif, you trolll. Are you SURE You don’t live in Lower Michigan?

      • mimif says:

        Michigan is filled with trolls. ;)

      • Uh ONLY if you live in the Lower part. Us UPers aren’t trolls. I’m Living Proof (haha).

      • PennyLane says:

        Thank you for the plot summary; I recently saw this movie. It had exactly the same hackneyed plot, same all-male cast, it was kind of a road movie but kind of a robbery movie, and there was lots of gratuitous violence to demonstrate how “real” and “authentic” the filmmakers were – the only difference seems to be that this film was set in the Old West rather than the Far North.

        It is called “Bad Company”, it was made in 1972, and it stars a very young Jeff Bridges:

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068245/

        Seriously, it sounds like it is the same movie. I found it to be tedious and thought that even the violence was boring, but there are lots of enthusiastic reviews on IMDB from commenters who appear to be mostly young men. So since it’s basically the exact same film as Bad Company, this renamed remake should score highly with that demographic as well.

      • Dame Heddy says:

        @PennyLane
        Man in the Wilderness is the movie, in which Richard Harris plays the character based off on Hugh Glass. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067388/

    • Size Does Matter says:

      I read the book. Book is about a group of fur trappers in the 1800s Northwest of St. Louis. Leo’s character is kind of a badass, lead hunter type but not in charge of the expedition. In the book he survived being picked up by pirates and Indians and the death of his fiancée before joining the crew. Hardy’s character is the bad guy. He’s a gambler, fighter, thief, awful person. Leo’s character gets attacked by a bear. Hardy’s character volunteers to stay back and bury him when he dies. Bad things happen after that.

      • WinnieCoopersMom says:

        Then this sounds really boring, IMO. Basically a woodsy adventure, like The Hobbit, but with bad humans instead of goofy fantasy creatures. Yeah, no thanks.

      • Size Does Matter says:

        I liked the book a lot, and it was based on a true story. But I’m a total history geek. Actually a general geek.

    • ds says:

      Yep, it’s not a good trailer.

    • mimif says:

      @Size, did you happen to read A Sudden Country? ‘Twas brutal and reminds me a bit of this tale.

      • Size Does Matter says:

        I have not, but now I will. Thanks for the recommendation! I wish I could find a way to get paid for reading.

      • mimif says:

        It’s really good, and the author’s personal story is interesting too. Report back after you’ve finished!

    • AntiSocialButterfly says:

      Hardy tries to off a bear- injured DeCaprio, son catches him & tries to stop Hardy. Hardy kills son and thinks he has killed DeCaprio. He was wrong, DeCaprio crawls out of his shallow grave, and stalks him across the continent in an effort to avenge his kid’s (and wife’s?) death. Not sure how the baby-mama’s death fits chronologically.

      C’est tout ! ~Fin~.

      I’m not a big fan of Leo’s. I like Hardy (eye candy)- but the whole bit about the beards being off-putting is just ridiculous. It’s a dark period piece with some sweeping cinematography, and I’ll watch it at the theater just for those long, dark, beautiful landscape shots.

      • Blaise says:

        “I’ll watch it at the theater just for those long, dark, beautiful landscape shots.”

        Me too. Love the look of this film.

  7. kay says:

    Why should women bother with movies like this that are only made to cater to the male audiance, Hollywood always claims that female centered movies don’t make money and men don’t care about them but they want women to go watch these dudebro movies with no women in sight?

    Ughh.

    • JWQ says:

      To be honest, as a woman, I prefer dudebro movies with no women in sight than the usual dudebro movies with useless women as love interest (put there blatantly only because having romance is the only way, in their minds, to attract women to watch that stuff) that they make on a regular basis.

      I also prefer dudebro movies to female centred movies because the stuff done with women as leads nowadays is for the most part terrible. I cannot remember the last time I have seen a good movie centred on women that wasn’ t either sappy or exist!

      • Tiny Martian says:

        Thank you, JWQ. I totally agree, and couldn’t have said it better myself!

      • Jayna says:

        I really enjoyed Reese Witherspoon’s Wild.

      • jugstorecowboy says:

        I watch very few “grown up” movies, but I’d recommend Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day.
        This movie looks dusty, gross, and boring to me.

      • kay says:

        What would men do without women like you?!

      • I Choose Me says:

        Thank you. I can’t stand films with a shoe-horned love interest.

      • Bridget says:

        It’s fine to like dudebro movies, but there are definitely women-centered movies that aren’t ridiculous and sexist and if you want to see more like that, seek them out and watch them. We’re not going to fix the problem if we don’t prove that women-led movies make money. Awesome examples: Pitch Perfect (1), Obvious Child, Wild, An Education, Trainwreck.

      • Korra says:

        What stuff done to women leads is terrible? I feel like these days is the first time we’re getting a diverse number of female leads. Weak silly ones, awesome kickass superhero types, dark brooding ones, horror movie, hilarious, raunchy types etc. maybe with these big silly want to be guaranteed blockbusters Oscar bait yeah female leads are treated like shit. But that’s because we aren’t profitable in big productions like this is what the studios say.

      • Beth No. 2 says:

        Oscar bait movies are rarely blockbusters though. They are usually prestige historical biopics, wartime movies, or movies with socially relevant topics that don’t make the kind of money that blockbusters (e.g: Jurassic World and superhero movies) make.

        That said this season there is a heartening increase in the number of female-centred films in Oscar contention. Carol (a lesbian drama which won at Venice), Room (which won the audience award at TIFF), Room and Joy. Definitely more women-oriented than usual. It’ll be interesting to see if AMPAS embraces these films or rejects them and still go for the traditional male lead fare.

      • mimif says:

        Anybody here see Brit Marling’s new movie The Keeping Room?

      • JWQ says:

        @kay: what does that even mean?

        @Korra: the variety you are talking about is like the 1% of female lead movies made today. The remaining 99% is made of depressing dramas with women as mothers fighting the fight, or romantic comedies.

        @Bridget
        I wasn’ t saying that female centred movies shouldn’ t be made/talked about and that we shouldn’ t be treated as potential audience without insulting our intelligence. I was just saying that we need a bigger range of movies with lead female actresses, because the ones that are made now do not cater to even 25 different women’ s needs, and if you are a little picky, it’ s easier to watch a male lead movie for the simple reason that there are more, and it’ s easier to find something good. I don’ t need a woman on screen to like a movie.
        I understand the point you are trying to make, if we don’ t support, we don’ t get more. I agree, but I am not going to pimp a movie lead by a woman BECAUSE it’ s lead by a woman if that movie sucks hard! I don’ t want to have a gazillion of female lead movies that are terrible to decent at best. I want them to be awesome! And I won’ t get them by pandering to mediocrity.
        And out of the movies you have listed, the only one I am interested in and have not seen is Obvious Child. That sounds cool, and I will watch it as soon as possible.
        But Pitch Perfect was terrible: it was smug, it was not funny, and it had that fake-mean-but-actually-sickly-sweet vibe that irritates me to no end.
        I have seen An Education, and I found it terribly boring.
        Wild is a freaking Oscar bait movie lead by one of the most unsufferable actresses in existence.
        Amy Schumer does nothing for me, so I doubt I would have an epiphany about it.

      • Bridget says:

        It’s not rocket science. What we pay money to see, we’ll see more of.

      • JWQ says:

        Yes, and I don’ t want to pay to see more mediocre movies like Pitch Perfect, An Education and Wild, even if they have women as leads. I want to pay for awesome movies, possibly with female as leads. That’ s not rocket science either!

      • xmas in july says:

        @ JWQ: If you think Wild is insufferable Oscar bait, but not The Revenant, I don’t think there can be any reasoning here. God bless you in your journey through this life, that’s all that can be said.

      • korra says:

        @JWQ and I’m saying the variety I’m talking about is better than it’s ever been. That’s what’s sad about it. You’re still using it as an excuse to somehow suggest female led movies across the board are terrible. You’re FURTHERING this perception that female movies just suck when in reality they’re aren’t enough female movies given support compared to the men. Guys. A LOT of movies made by men suck. But people (especially the industry) don’t use that as an excuse to not support a film made by men.

        Case in point. Anything Michael Bay has made.

        You don’t have to pander to mediocre female films if you don’t want to, but don’t pretend you don’t watch a crap ton of mediocre male films and that the female driven only films are somehow just not able to compete. That’s just an unfair standard. I want to live in a world where women are allowed to make mediocre movies like the guys. And we aren’t held to some higher standard to show that we deserve to make movies. I’m not saying here that you should support it, but don’t get up in arms with some of us that want to vote with our dollars so to speak so that we HAVE variety. I will go out of my way to spend money on a female driven film. Yeah I risk it being mediocre, but that’s the fun of going to see movies I guess. I watched the Martian with the supposed guarantee that it would be amazing. Guess what nope! My god. The most mediocre movie of the year yet has been praised to no end.

        @xmas in july BUT REALLY THOUGH. This is complete and utter Oscar Bait. As was gone girl, silver linings playbook, the imitation game, and read ANYTHING that Leo has done in the past decade and a half. Lmao. Criticizing wild for being oscar bait with an insufferable actress (who produced Gone Girl so you should avoid that movie too) as the lead is ridiculous. And saying it was boring and then get annoyed that people find this film bleak and dreary from the trailer is dumb they need to see good movies…..what a load. You won’t know if this is a good movie until you see it people.

        Also Tom Hardy beats people up and even admittedly acts a diva all the time and yet people aren’t saying they’re not going to see it. Jesus guys. Everyone is up in arms about how we go after actresses for not identifying feminists. How about getting over their entitled mistake. I mean seriously she acted like an idiot and entitled, but is that really worse than what half her male colleagues have done?

        @Beth No. 2 Fair point. I used the wrong word. They aren’t blockbusters, but they are so hyped, lauded, and studio supported and made for Oscars because the studio believes they’ll get a lot in return. These particular oscar bait films are in fact designed to make money.

      • JWQ says:

        @xmas in july: Where did I say that I don’ t think the same of The Revenant?
        It IS an Oscar bait movie, it was two days ago, and it is now that it is established that it was carefully constructed to get as many awards as possible.
        What I said in my first comment wasn’ t directed at THIS movie but in a general sense, and it wasn’ t hard to understand given that I referred to “movies” and not to “The Revenant”.
        I am not particularly interested in this, I was when I heard about it the first time, but the more I read, the less I want to see it, and the fact that it’ s an Oscar bait, and for Leonardo Di Caprio, an actor I find incredibly overrated, is the main reason.

        So, before insulting people by implying that they are stupid for not seeing an obvious thing, maybe you should check if that is what actually happened? Because I can say for sure that functioning reading comprehension skills are more fundamental for “your journey through this life” than the evaluation of stupid movies!

      • Beth No. 2 says:

        Hmmm ladies I don’t consider The Revenant as Oscar bait. There is no strict definition, but “Oscar bait” are usually movies with some combination of the following:

        (i) historical importance, e.g. WWII;
        (ii) social relevance, e.g. LGBT issues, slavery;
        (iii) biopic, e.g. The Imitation Game;
        (iv) features an illness or disability, e.g. Theory of Everything;
        (v) has an uplifting message; and
        (vi) is made in a humdrum, formulaic, safe manner.

        I think (vi) is an important factor because while Schindler’s List meets a few of the above criteria (namely historical importance and biopic), it is a masterpiece and shouldn’t be relegated to “Oscar bait”, which carries derogatory implications. It is also why movies like TOE and TIG are classic Oscar bait – safe, formulaic, cliched movies designed to pander to AMPAS.

        The Revenant has no historical importance (how many people know who Hugh Glass is?), no social relevance, no illness/disability, is not uplifting, and is certainly not made to be a safe, humdrum movie. You can see by the responses in this thread alone how many people are put off by its violence and bleakness. Dark movies generally do not fare well at the Oscars. In fact, I heard that Leo has very little dialogue in the film.

        The Revenant is expected to do well at the Oscars because of its pedigree – starring Leo (and with him the circus of people who think he’s overdue), directed by Innaritu who just won three Oscars last year, and shot by Oscar-winning cinematographer Lubezki. But I wouldn’t call it Oscar bait. Its subject matter is far tougher, more remote and more alienating than what the usual bait would suggest.

      • JWQ says:

        @korra:
        Yes, it is sad, and no, I am not using it as an excuse to suggest that female lead movies are bad because the leads are women, nor I am calling for a boycott. In fact, I have seen the stuff listed above only because the leads were women. I would’ ve never watched a movie about a bunch of guys singing a cappella and I would’ ve never watched a movie about a guy’ s life struggles during the ’60s. As for Wild, I don’ t watch it because I don’ t like Reese Whiterspoon the same way I don’ t watch 127 Hours because I don’ t like James Franco.

        I watch more male centred mediocre movies for the simple reason that if they are bad, I don’ t get mad at them. I don’ t feel personally insulted if I watch a stupid movie with a man in the lead.
        Because while I think you are right that it shouldn’ t be the case, at this point in history, the sparse female oriented/made movies are representative of the entire category. It’ s like when you watch something with one single female character, and she is usually shredded to pieces because, since she is by herself, she cannot be allowed to be a mere character, but needs to be a representation of the entire gender, and it’ s impossible to please everyone.
        It’ s not fair, I don’ t like it, and it is a problem that could be resolved easily by making more female movies/having more female characters, but it cannot happen overnight, and until we reach that point, I do believe that we SHOULD show that we can do better. Then when we have some numbers by our side, we can allow ourselves to be mediocre.
        You are talking like we should aspire to be mediocre from the get go. Allowed? Yes, absolutely. Have that as the standard and what we should want as long as women are represented, especially now that we have eyes on us? NO! If you want that, good for you. I don’ t.

        And just to be clear, I am really not acting like I am somewhat superior than people who watch these movies like you implied. You are doing it, because you think that spending 10 dollars to watch a movie in a theatre makes you righteous, while my critics make me an anti-feminist, anti-women loser who should just shut up!
        I just offered an opinion in my first comment that was completely devoid of any kind of sentiment. The second was more aggressive because I was frustrated at not making myself clear enough. It seems like people read my comment and thought: “God, this one wants only male oriented movies and ban female oriented movies forever.”. You included.
        I am not furthering anything, I just dared to voice my opinion that lots of movies that are made with women as the leads are bad. They would be bad if they had male leads as well, but they happen to be with women.
        Lots of movies that are made with men as the leads are bad, too, yet men who think these movies suck do no get attacked by other men the way you are doing with me. Why? Because they are not held in higher standards regarding their gender, which is the entire point of your reasoning. As a woman I should suck it up and not voice an opinion unless it works for “the cause”?
        You can’ t have it all: more movies means more criticism. You can’ t actually expect people, women included, to shut up if something made by or with a woman sucks. This “women should stick together no matter what” thing is irritating to say the least!

      • korra says:

        @Beth It absolutely qualifies. Dicaprio doesn’t act in films unless he perceives them as Oscar worthy. The prestige of its cast, the director, the studio support, and yes the “unique” story is what makes it Oscar bait.

        @JWQ Girl this superiority complex you’re accusing me of is EVERYWHERE in your own post. Nowhere did I say that we should aspire to mediocrity. What I’m saying is, it shouldn’t be held against women if there are mediocre films because guys make mediocre films ALL THE DAMN time and it is never held against them. There are real implications to saying women make mediocre films and therefore I won’t support it because it’s like you said it’s held against their entire gender which then prevents the MORE that I want. I want diverse and more because then women are able to really flex their skills. Also I’m confused. Did you watch Wild or not because it’s really unclear and yet you’ve mandated an opinion on it. And yet people are annoyed that women on these boards are doing the same after seeing just the trailer of this movie.

        What I’m asking for is more films and opportunities for women because then it actually allows the stars to shine through. You decide what’s mediocre, but the quality of movies I’ve been watching that have female leads hasn’t exactly gone down. Spy (which is a fun, entertaining popcorn flick), The Babadook, Pitch Perfect 2 (while not as good as the first one was okay), Inside Out, Girl who Walks Home Alone At Night, etc. It’s a mix of mediocre fun popcorn flicks with high concept indie arthouse ones and blockbusters. You know…the kinda sh-t men are allowed to do all the time. I still enjoyed them all.

        You offered an opinion, but you basically said you’ll only watch dudebro films with no women in sight because of how women are treated in 99% of those movies. The movies where you see a shoe horned love interest or an annoying foil to the man….are typically produced, directed, financed etc by those same dudebros. It’s not like those dudebro films are really all that much better anyways. Fine you feel personally insulted. But that’s why there is such a big push to get MORE women in all these areas so that BETTER roles for women and therefore BETTER movies can proliferate. That’s why I’ll spend $10 on a movie that’s a gamble, because movies in general are a gamble. You really won’t know whether something is a good film until you actually watch it. I’m actually trying to take the action versus the words that so many women want when we criticize actresses for not saying they are feminist.

        I don’t understand why I’m being criticized for choosing to do that when I always hear guys say they won’t spend money on a film unless it’s Tarantino. Or Fincher, etc. Why is that so much more acceptable than me saying I’m going to focus on female directors, actresses, etc????? We’re not really doing anything that different. I didn’t think I was better than you, I was annoyed by your insistence that basically all female driven movies are just crap. Because guess what…..YOU ARE INSISTING THAT. I didn’t say it made me a better person.

        Look I made my decision. If there are going to be a bunch of crappy male movies that make a crap ton of money….there’s nothing lost in me supporting a potentially mediocre film by a woman. Going to the movies is a gamble regardless. Again you won’t know something is good in your opinion unless you go see it. I’M THE WORST AREN’T?!

        “Lots of movies that are made with men as the leads are bad, too, yet men who think these movies suck do no get attacked by other men the way you are doing with me. Why?”

        LOL! Go to any movie review site and you’ll see infighting galore. Men attacking each other left and right for their opinions and calling each other idiots. Dare to say Leonardo Dicaprio is a bad actor, see where that gets you. You yourself are holding women to a higher standard for how they should behave, criticize, and make sh-t. THAT is the crux of my criticism.

        I have no issue with films being criticized. Damn I criticize everything. Why would I care if you criticize a movie? But I need substance in criticism and you’ve offered none of that really. Calling Wild boring with an insufferable actress when it’s kind of unclear that you’ve watched it isn’t really substantial criticism now is it? And you would be torn to shreds by men if they knew you didn’t watch 127 hours simply because you don’t like James Franco. They’d ask you why does that matter it’s a good movie. Girl you’d get torn up.

      • Beth No. 2 says:

        @korra

        No, “Oscar-worthy” is NOT “Oscar bait”. Schindler’s List is absolutely Oscar worthy for instance, and you will find very few esteemed critics who will call it Oscar bait. “Oscar bait” has a derogatory implication, that the movie is made solely to pander to AMPAS and win awards, that the artistic value of the movie itself is a lesser objective. Prestige of a cast has little to do with baity movies, although it is true that many baity movies star well-known actors/actresses. The Tree of Life for instance, is directed by Terence Malick and stars Brad Pitt. Super prestigious, with star power to boot. It is most definitely NOT Oscar bait given its loose narrative structure, lack of historical importance or illness, abstruse content and may even be off-putting to some. It was BOOED at the Cannes festival cos it was that divisive, regardless of its prestige.

        Oscar bait are cookie-cutter, bland, safe movies. Just because a film is (supposedly) Oscar-worthy or boasts a prestigious crew does not make it Oscar bait. That is a flawed understanding of the term. If that is the case then every single Oscar-winning movie would be Oscar bait.

      • JWQ says:

        @Beth: you’ re right, Oscar bait is probably not the best term, but you said it best: pedigree. The fact that it has several people with a history with the Oscars and that it’ s not even a secret that they hired consultants, means that while not part of the categories you have listed, it will be targeted as heavy contender for the simple presence of “big” names. There is also the possibility that the bleak is only in the trailer, and the movie is pretty damn formulaic. It wouldn’ t be the first time this happens.

        @korra:
        No, I haven’ t seen Wild because I can’ t stand Reese Whiterspoon and because it is an Oscar bait movie that I have no interest in watching. I have never said it’ s a bad movie, nor that it’ s boring, I just said that I don’ t want to watch it because I don’ t consider Reese Whiterspoon a particularly good actress, and a movie centred on her doesn’ t appeal to me at all. This is not a criticism, it’ s an opinion, so your “I am fine with criticism but yours is dumb because you don’ t offer support to your ideas” is nonsense, because I wasn’ t criticising, I was simply saying why I won’ t watch that movie and that I perceived it as mediocre, even though I have no way to know for sure.

        And no, I haven’ t said I only watch dudebro movies with no women: I just replied to kay who said that she doesn’ t understand why a woman should be interested in watching a movie unless there are women in the cast. And I said that if the choice is between a movie with no women and a movie with a woman who is only there to be a useless love interest, then I prefer watching the no-woman movie, because at least I won’ t feel like the female character is in there only as an attraction to women who, producers think, can only be lured to watch anything if there is a love story. Then I added that I would prefer watching a good movie with a male lead than a bad movie with a female lead and you and others turned that into “you are anti-female oriented movies and you are actively supporting the fact that women shouldn’ t be allowed to make anything because men are better at everything”.

        For that matter, I haven’ t even said that EVERY female driven movie is crap! I just said that lots of them still focus on sappy stories and sexist portrayals despite being about or made by women, and that I don’ t want to watch them because I don’ t want those movies being made at all. You think that the best course of action is to be fine with mediocre movies now so that we can make great movies in the future, I believe the opposite. Because since NOW there are few female oriented movies, they should be AWESOME, so that in the future we can be allowed to relax and make worse stuff.

        “LOL! Go to any movie review site and you’ll see infighting galore. Men attacking each other left and right for their opinions and calling each other idiots. Dare to say Leonardo Dicaprio is a bad actor, see where that gets you.”
        Did you completely miss the part in which I said that the criticism I was referring to was about their gender and not their opinion on one movie or one actor? Because THAT is the point I was trying to make, not that men do not fight over movies. It’ s just that they do not feel personally attacked and against their gender if one prefers, say, Thelma & Louise over The Gladiator. Women, however, and you are the proof of that, if they dare to prefer male oriented movies are automatically anti-feminists! Which is the evidence that you yourself are holding women in higher regards, and then you have the nerve to criticize me to do the same. I am unapologetic about it, not because I want to take women down, but because I KNOW that we can do better.

        And I am not criticising you for watching the movies you want (you are doing that to me). I don’ t care how you spend your money, and I don’ t care what you like. You however are criticizing ME for the fact that I choose to not waste money on every movie with a female lead just because I dare to think that not everyone of them is a masterpiece. While I agree that you can’ t know if a movie is good or not unless you watch it, everyone has standards and interests, and if watching a trailer makes me want to gag, why exactly should I watch that trailer’ s movie for two hours? You are saying that I should, because if I don’ t I am not supporting women! I’ m not going to watch a movie with an actress I can’ t stand just because she’ s a woman. I am not going to watch a movie about romance just because a woman wrote it and directed it and starred in it. If you want to do it, then fine, but don’ t go around insulting people for disagreeing and then try to pass as the victim yourself.

    • Beth No. 2 says:

      Well everyone’s preferences differ but I’m all for watching GOOD MOVIES, regardless of whether they star men, women, transexuals, gays or whatnot. This movie’s awesome cinematography and the interesting premise of the story (extreme survival and revenge tale) is enough to convince me to spend my money on this.

      • A.Key says:

        I agree.

        The Revenant looks very interesting to me, and frankly this idea of a “male catered” film is insulting to me.

        So as a woman I’m unable to find this type of film appealing?

        Well I’m sorry, but I do.

        I don’t need a woman in a film in order to be interested in seeing it.

    • Isabelle says:

      I’m a woman and this one of the few films I will see in theaters this year. Its preferences and likes, I like Dark and hate fluff films (the ones they tend to sale to women). Women should be actually more insulted they often dumb down the films being sold to us.

    • Kate says:

      I’m a woman and this film appeals to me. I don’t need a random woman shoved into the plot (and that’s what it would be in a film with this story, set in this time) to make it enjoyable.

    • Blaise says:

      Looks like the women/men love this type of stuff generalisation won’t hold. I’m with the posters who don’t like chick flicks and don’t subsist on a monotone diet of dramas. Love me some SF, action, and all the other “bro” stuff.

  8. QQ says:

    Nothing about that movie gave me digestible cant wait to watch, and I watched Birdman!!, the beards and unwashed Leo looks are the least of their problems, LOL

    • Neah23 says:

      “the beards and unwashed Leo looks are the least of their problems, LOL”

      Yes this was Leo two weeks ago at the club😄

    • Marrrrria says:

      True. As much as I’m interested in the topic, it does look (a bit) boring for people who aren’t into historic fiction. It’s just not a box office hit type of genre. I know almost certainly that mostly bros and history-nerds are excited for the release. I mean I’m looking forward to it, I’m just not falling all over because of the sheer excitment. Like you said: “The beards and unwashed Leo looks are the least of their problems”. :D
      The studio should be realistic about money. Reminds me of the J. Edgar release. I loved it but just because actors like Leo star in it, doesn’t mean they’ll draw a huge crowd in. Just my two cents.

    • belle de jour says:

      Dirty Leo hunting for the perfect beard at the sacred Victoria’s Secret backstage hunting grounds might be another way to go.

  9. LadyMTL says:

    I saw this preview last week during a screening of the Martian and I’m on the fence. I don’t mind dark or broody movies but this seems…very bleak. I have a sample of the book on my Kindle so maybe I’ll read that first and then decide.

    • SusanneToo says:

      I saw the preview the same time. It’s a skip for me.

    • Cheryl says:

      Saw the same preview. The thing is, I think life is tough enough, real enough, I go to the movies for eacapism. I don’t want to leave a movie depressed or having to ‘work’ through a movie. I want to laugh. I want to at least have hope or feel entertained. But I have kids and I’m in medicine, so that might just be me…

      Ima gonna skip this one.

      • EN says:

        > The thing is, I think life is tough enough, real enough, I go to the movies for eacapism

        This is how I feel most of the time too. But then I watch a really thought provoking movie or a play, which kind of drags me out of the routine and make me think about – what is it I am living for? And I am glad I watched it. it is like you suddenly wake up.

        We get so lost in the routine , we live our lives in a dream like sate, going through motions, and it takes a shock of an event or a strong piece of art to make us stop and think, what the life is really about. That is where the true power of art lies.

      • Calcifer says:

        @ EN ‘We get so lost in the routine , we live our lives in a dream like sate, going through motions, and it takes a shock of an event or a strong piece of art to make us stop and think, what the life is really about.’

        Great observation, I completely agree and thank you for reminding me of this!

    • lucy2 says:

      Me too (I forgot this was one of the other trailers with no female characters of importance in it). When it was done, I just wanted to take a shower – so much dirt, mud, beards, etc.
      I don’t mind a tough or depressing movie, but nothing about that trailer made me want to watch the film.

  10. Andrea 1* says:

    I will be watching this…. I know this isn’t a popular opinion around here but I must say Leo is a good actor I love his movies….plus the bloke I mean the bloke how can you say no to the bloke… The bloke sets my pant on fire…. Fans self😉😁

  11. Unmade_bed says:

    This is the first Leonardo DiCaprio movie that I can pretty safely say I won’t see at theaters, via Red Box or even for “free” on Netflix. It’s not the beards; there seems to be no light–all darkness. There is no reason to watch.

  12. lorelei says:

    Now that I’ve seen the trailer I can safely say I have no interest in seeing the movie. I think we all know how the plot will develop and it has very dark and depressing visuals so why bother?
    And the beards don’t help :p

  13. mj says:

    grrrr bunch of white dudes battle ~nature~ for oscar go hollywood

  14. anonymous says:

    Well, this woman says: BORING.

    Give me the money, I’ll make a better movie than that.
    (At least when a woman directs a bad movie, it’s invariably lower budget than this mess.)

    And Viggo was HOT in a beard.

  15. Crumpet says:

    Hmm. I was all in until he rode the horse off the cliff. :( I still might watch it – I’m an outdoors kinda gal and the survival aspect of it intrigues me as does the story.

  16. Bridget says:

    All that effort on using the natural light, and the damn thing looks literally too dark to sit and stare at for 2 hours and change.

    • PennyLane says:

      Ever since I watched Barry Lyndon, historical movies have been ruined for me. I’m always noticing how obviously fake the lighting is! Barry Lyndon was such a gorgeous film.

  17. Sarah01 says:

    I love these types of movies they are somber, quiet yet graceful. I’ll be watching this for sure. I don’t watch movies based on drool male factor, I love the story telling aspect and if I’m going to drool it might be at the set, cinematography or costumes.

    • AntiSocialButterfly says:

      The cinematography looks magnificent, doesn’t it? Those long shots!!
      I like these somber films, too. I think it will provoke the same feelings in me as Babel did.

  18. Ann says:

    Are there no female characters in this movie?

    • kay says:

      No, it’s all about men doing important things. Full of action and violence.

      • A.Key says:

        You do realize it’s based on the real story of a 19th century frontiersman?

        Maybe, just maaaaaybe, his life was actually full of violence, action and lacked women in the wild?

        Did you ever consider that was a possibility?

      • JWQ says:

        @A. key: precisely, and thank you!
        I mean, what’ s next? Saving Private Ryan is sexist because there weren’ t female soldiers in Tom Hanks’ s unit? Because Spielberg didn’ t show female generals in the american army of World War II?

      • Isabelle says:

        Its true story that happened on the frontier with a bunch of fur trappers. No women were in the book its based on as I remember?

    • Blaise says:

      Only Leo’s dead wife’s ghost, I think.

    • Ann says:

      @akey and jwk: thank you for explaining that to me. My lady brain just couldn’t figure out what was going on there. What I’m saying is tired of yet another overrated sausage fest coming into the movie theaters.

      • JWQ says:

        Actually, we were replying to korra and not to you. You not being interested in a movie without women is legit, even if I don’ t agree. korra’ s post was just unnecessary passive-aggressive. She has the right to say that, of course, and we have the right to be sarcastic about it for the fact that she cannot fathom that not every movie needs a woman, and not every movie without women is sexist!

      • korra says:

        @JWQ LMAO! Seriously girl learn to read. You’re better than this. My post wasn’t unnecessary passive aggressive. It was fairly straight forward. If I attacked you for your gender, fine I’m sorry. You’re not doing much different to me despite the fact that you insist you are (if we’re apparently reading between the lines like you want to do here).

        And no I did not say this.

        “the fact that she cannot fathom that not every movie needs a woman, and not every movie without women is sexist!”

        Nowhere did I say this. I simply criticized the higher standard you hold women to versus men, which is silly and sexist, especially given the fewer opportunities women have as compared to men in a male dominated industry…where the men hold much more power.

      • JWQ says:

        I actually need to learn how to read because the comment I was referring to wasn’ t yours. Yours are the ones I replied up on this thread, and I wrongly put your name here, probably because I was writing to you there, and I was confused.
        I was talking about kay’ s “No, it’s all about men doing important things. Full of action and violence.”.

        So, I guess sorry? Even though you are rude as Hell and you are accusing me of not knowing how to read when, since you are twisting every word I write in the other line of comments, it’ s either because you are doing it on purpose or because you yourself have problems reading? At least I have the excuse that English isn’ t my first language.

  19. A.Key says:

    Looks good to me, I’m gonna see it!

  20. bread says:

    Looks like it’s about Men, Fathers, Sons, Rivalry, Revenge, Nature, Survival and probably some Biblical references as well. It’ll be every 20-something male faux-intellectual’s favourite Film of the year, and I get to look forward to having it mansplained to me at a boring party 6 months from now because women couldn’t possibly get the subtle themes of this Important Story about Men. It’ll be like “There Will Be Blood” all over again.

    • Korra says:

      Lol. Really though. The movie looks good from the trailer. But I’ve been fooled before (Martian). I’m sure it’ll be fine I just don’t think it’ll be $13 good. I’ll admit I’m on the fence though. But I’m preferring now to give my money to female driven movies for the rest of the year. I doubt I’ll miss an event by skipping this lol.

      • Beth No. 2 says:

        I would really love to hear CB’s response to a male poster saying “I will only reserve my money for male-driven movies.” He will probably get torn to shreds. :D

      • korra says:

        @Beth No. 2 They already do. All the time. But yeah let’s fight for their right to continue to say it because we’re all just a bunch of big hypocrites.

        The cause is different. We ask time and again why aren’t there roles for women, why aren’t they made, etc, etc, etc. And I’ve been told time and again those movies just don’t make a profit. So if we wanna see them, we should support them. It’s why M. Night is allowed to work. I think we can all agree he makes TERRIBLE movies. And yet he continues to work. Why? Because his movies make money. End of. The Visit was made on a budget of 5 million and made 100 million at the box office. Almost every single one of his movies has been a box office hit with the exception of 2.

        That’s why I try to focus my spending money towards female driven movies. Sorry I try and do my part and take action like everyone including Emily Blunt wants us to do and get criticized for it. I thought action was more important than words guys! I don’t spend money on my else, I will spend money I have budgeted towards what I want to watch. And since a night at the movies is a gamble anyways I’m going to gamble it on a female driven film so that I at least did my part in making it the tiniest bit profitable. I still watch a crap ton of male driven sh-t and enjoy it and as SEEN by my post will shill out the money for it if I deem it worth my time. What We Do in the Shadows. Worth it. The Man From Uncle. I had fun. The Martian. Absolutely not worth it. I got the audiobook for free and that was the performance I should have paid for. I regret shilling money for that.

      • EN says:

        >The cause is different. We ask time and again why aren’t there roles for women, why aren’t they made, etc, etc, etc. And I’ve been told time and again those movies just don’t make a profit. So if we wanna see them, we should support them.

        You are right, but I don’t think it has to be men vs. women. Men struggles are just as valid as women struggles.

        On the subject of money, though, there was “Far from the Maddening Crowd” with excellent Carrie Mulligan and Mattias, it only made 30M worldwide. Then there is going to be “Suffragette” also with Carrie, Meryl and Ben Whishaw. All great world class actors. We’ll see how it does.

        But this is why women actresses are not paid as much , because yes, women stories don’t make money.

        Anyone posting here on the issue should suck it up and go watch these movies 3 times in a row.

      • korra says:

        Look the only people making it men versus women is you guys. I think I’ve already said I’ve spent money on male driven films this year, I’d just like to focus on female driven movies. Case in point after Beasts of No Nation (a film I might go see again in the theater for the experience) I’m going to rent War Witch to see it as a companion piece to Beasts.

        So Carol, that Ellen Page movie, Suffragette, Sciaro (since Blunt is the lead), and rent Testament of Youth. The men aren’t going to suffer AT ALL if I don’t give them my support. Most movies are a gamble. You won’t know if it’s good until you see it. I don’t see the point in saying I’m only going to watch good movies. No, I’m going for the experience of seeing a movie and then determining whether they are good or not after I see them because …..I like to watch movies.

      • Beth No. 2 says:

        “But yeah let’s fight for their right to continue to say it because we’re all just a bunch of big hypocrites.”

        That’s not my intent though. My intent is to say that I am for supporting good movies, regardless of whether they star men, women, gay, transgender or whatnot. Obviously what counts for good movies varies from person to person but I see no reason to discount a movie just cos it’s male-oriented.

        The notion of supporting female movies is a valid one, because there is indeed an issue of under-representation. But my support is not given irrespective of quality. I would rather pay to watch The Revenant than something like Hot Pursuit. Upthread I mentioned some female-centric movies this year like Carol, Room and Brooklyn which have gotten praise, and I would happily fork out money for these. More GOOD QUALITY female-oriented movies need to be made.

        For the record, I avoid crappy movies, period. I have not paid for a single Transformers movie, have not watched Terminator Genisys, Fantastic Four or any of the male blockbuster nonsense released this year. I care first and foremost about quality, and less about the gender of the filmmakers. Support has to be earned, at least from me. But obviously it’s your money and you can spend it however which way you want to.

      • korra says:

        I want to watch quality movies too, but if I can add to the profitability of a female driven film that is also perceived as quality….then that is where I will send my money. Given that my money is finite. Yes, I will willingly support well reviewed female movies like The Babadook, Spy, etc. I’ll go watch Brooklynn, Room, and Carol will travel kinda far to go see it even by myself. I’ll rent War Witch. I don’t understand all the people that are getting mad that I won’t see the Revenant and focus on female driven movies telling me they only watch good movies. Lol okay. I try to watch good movies too. What you deem a good movie I might deem utter crap and vice versa. You don’t avoid bad movies. You avoid male driven blockbuster nonsense. There’s a difference. The Revenant could very well be an utterly boring mess compared to Hateful 8 and yet it’s still a possible quality movie that someone will shill money for? You’ve based that on the brand/consistency of directors and actors and the trailer. It’s not a singular reason.

        Let me reiterate. I don’t avoid any male driven films. No I watch them, quite a few of them. I’m going to go pay for Beasts of No Nation despite seeing it on Netflix because I liked it and want to experience it as the director intended. I’ll also go see Sciaro because it has a female lead and is supposedly a good movie.
        I’ve even given money to male driven films that I thought would be good that ended up being mediocre drivel that the masses love because it makes them feel smart (The Martian).

        “I mentioned some female-centric movies this year like Carol, Room and Brooklyn which have gotten praise, and I would happily fork out money for these. More GOOD QUALITY female-oriented movies need to be made.”

        ….Then go do it. Go out search for where they’re playing and DO IT. Otherwise, your insistence that you’ll only watch good movies and well made female oriented films and you want better female oriented films is hollow. THAT is what I want to avoid. I don’t want to ask for more (and yes guys better quality), pat myself on the back for having good taste, and then realize I don’t actually take time to support it.

      • Beth No. 2 says:

        Well korra when you write something like:

        “I don’t see the point in saying I’m only going to watch good movies. No, I’m going for the experience of seeing a movie and then determining whether they are good or not…”

        It does give the impression that the quality of a movie is not a terribly important factor for you in determining which films to watch. But it is fine, your latest post clarifies that you are not indifferent to quality.

        And no, I do certainly avoid crappy movies of any genre. I only cited the male blockbuster nonsense as an example. I have not watched Hot Pursuit (female comedy), United Passions (sports drama), Pan (fantasy), The Visit (thriller/horror) and a million other duds I won’t bother to name.

        And rest assured I would watch Carol, Room and Brooklyn. I can’t go “do it” now cos they are not yet released in my city. I have watched and enjoyed TONNES of female-centric movies – Blue Is The Warmest Colour, Mommy, The Duke of Burgundy, The Kids Are All Right, Under The Skin, The Tale Of The Princess Kaguya, Frances Ha, Volver, Persepolis, The Hours, etc. It’s a bit rich to suggest my assertion is hollow. I walk the talk, don’t you worry.

      • korra says:

        @Beth Well thank god you do. I was basically saying why I do it since it was such an issue for you. You say I don’t support good movies when all I said was I’m going to watch more female driven fare the rest of this year. Jesus I’m not made of money and it’s not a guarantee that I’ll enjoy The Revenant or any movie. Again going to see a movie is a gamble! Like with any experience. But that’s the fun of it. Did I also not say that I thought this movie looked good? I’m just unsure of whether or not I can see it being worth my money. You haven’t seen any of those blockbuster movies? Me neither. Let us both pat ourselves on the back for having such good taste! Unfortunately for you the Visit wasn’t a dud box office wise, so we are stuck with another M Night film for a long time. Guillermo is on thin ice though even if his movie is getting good reviews. $$$$$

        “It’s a bit rich to suggest my assertion is hollow.”

        It’s a bit rich to suggest that you only watch good movies and avoid others. It reeks of pretentiousness. Again. I’m not going to outright call a female driven film good. If it peaks my interest, people say it’s good (sometimes they won’t but it’s done something new) then I go to judge for myself. I literally do that with every film.

        And yes. The Revenant is oscar bait. Silver Linings Playbook, Birdman, American Hustle (also not a biopic), and Joy (not a biopic) fall out of your criteria of Oscar Bait….yet they’re still Oscar bait. I’d argue that Joy and The Revenant are similar in that they are biopics about unconventional people. This is oscar bait as intended by the studio. Of course not by the story alone, but the story being different, with a prestigious academy beloved director and actor….is what makes it Oscar Bait. But you’re right I didn’t mean to use Oscar worthy. I was being nice to him. Leo would never sign up for it if he didn’t think it was Oscar bait and he wasn’t getting a big fat juicy check from it.

        To me Oscar bait doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad film. I loved Birdman and didn’t like The Imitation Game. Good entertaining movie, but did nothing new for me. Again I’m not going to say the movie is bad or good until I see it. Oscar bait is a movie that’s designed to be marketed as if it’s the most earth shattering movie made since I don’t know what. That’s why I don’t like films deemed as Oscar bait. Doesn’t mean I won’t ever go see them or that they are bad movies. Just overhyped like all the duds you listed.

        But it does annoy that you seem to only want to watch quality movies, when quality moves are often prevented from being given their due credit or market because of big budget films like this that take over all the hype. We may be on the same side more than you want to believe, we just have different approaches to how we want to support quality.

      • Beth No. 2 says:

        “You say I don’t support good movies”

        In my earlier reply I already quoted the sentence of yours which gave this impression, and acknowledged that you have clarified it is not your intent.

        And yes, I would only pay for good movies. Obviously what is considered good varies between people, and there have been instances where I paid for a movie I thought would be good that turned out to be poor. But I would absolutely not pay to watch crap. If that is pretentious then so be it. I am very clear as to my likes and dislikes and am not afraid to state them plainly.

        On The Visit, I was referring to critical duds, not box office. I should have clarified.

        In my earlier reply I already laid out the criteria which, in some combination of, would deem a movie as Oscar bait. You keep insisting The Revenant is Oscar bait. And so far, putting your replies together, the reasons are because it is:

        (i) “Oscar-worthy”
        (ii) “prestige of its cast, the director”
        (iii) “the studio support”, and
        (iv) “unique” story
        (v) “a movie that’s designed to be marketed as if it’s the most earth shattering movie made”

        For (i), you agreed that this factor is erroneous so let’s leave it.

        For (ii), like I said earlier, many Oscar bait movies indeed have prestigious casts and directors but that itself is not indicative of a movie being baity. Would you call Schindler’s List, or Tree of Life Oscar bait?

        Number (iii) makes no sense. PLENTY of movies are backed by big studios/distributors each year. X-Men Days of Future Past and Spy are backed by 20th Century Fox, same company as the one backing The Revenant. Are these Oscar bait? What about the critical and box office duds under Fox? Oscar bait too?

        In fact, if having “studio support” is indication of being baity, then by reverse, only those movies which the studios want to bury (e.g. those sent straight to DVD) are not Oscar bait. Which is ridiculous.

        As for (iv), I’m not sure what this means. Snowpiercer is a hell of a “unique story”, as are Mad Max, The Duke of Burgundy, Under The Skin, etc. In fact, many small indies have unique stories, and in no way are they Oscar bait.

        For (v), I think that is what every marketing team attempts to do? Differentiate the movie, sell it as the best, worth watching, etc. Though I would really contest the term “earth-shattering”. Oscar bait movies are generally safe, formulaic, cliched because AMPAS is a conservative voting body. They are by and large not earth-shattering. Look at the films that win Oscars Best Picture year in year out. How many of them are earth-shattering or examples of revolutionary film-making?

        On your last point, it is a valid one cos I do agree there is a problem of blockbuster movies crowding out better but small movies. But I would rather the studios cut out the gazillionth superhero movie or stuff like Terminator Genisys rather than The Revenant. Unfortunately, money talks and the studios would keep on churning out such fare.

      • Beth No. 2 says:

        To reiterate, “Oscar bait” usually carries derogatory implications, in that those movies are made primarily to win awards while artistic value is of secondary importance. TIG and TOE are classic Oscar bait – formulaic, conventional movies that contains just about every romantic cliche (TOE), or avoids the messier aspects of its protagonist’s life (TIG).

        Just because a movie got Oscar nominations or wins, or features prestigious filmmakers, does NOT mean it is Oscar bait.

        Take Amour for instance. It won an Oscar and scored four other nominations. Directed by super “prestigious” director Michael Haneke. Has a “unique story”, esp given the dearth of movies about old people. Backed by Sony Picture Classics, a big Oscar player. Is Amour Oscar bait?

        Or The Grand Budapest Hotel. Directed by the acclaimed Wes Anderson, with an all-star cast and a two-time Oscar nominee Ralph Fiennes as the lead. VERY unique story. Backed by Fox Searchlight, another big Oscar player. Oscar bait? It was released in March for crying out loud, definitely NOT Oscar season. It was seen as way too quirky for AMPAS, and nobody foresaw that the love for it would sustain it all the way to the Oscars. And yet it literally meets all your criteria.

      • korra says:

        Jesus Christ, I do not care. I see this movie as Oscar Bait. You don’t. That’s fine. It’s a vague term and typically just means movies that are produced to win awards. I consider the Revenant and Leo’s involvement clearly fitting that definition. Same with WOWS…which I enjoyed. It doesn’t preclude me from ever seeing the movie. Besides I’m just totally wrong our good ole bud leo NEVER stars and only does movies he believes in. Not ones where he could potentially get oscars ever…….and the revenant isn’t at all that. Lmao. I think Leo himself is Oscar bait. Get him in your movie….oscar bait.

        Got it beth. You have phenomenal taste in movies. All of us are just way too stupid to realize the beauty of an Inarritu film because we just don’t watch quality movies which you can outright tell that this is because you just get it. Yet haven’t seen.

        Frankly I don’t need a movie to be nominated or win an Oscar to tell me it’s good. I just enjoy talking about them for the politics and the dog and pony show. They themselves are a performance. But I just probably have the worst taste though so okay.

      • Beth No. 2 says:

        “Jesus Christ; I do not care”

        LOL, that definitively settles the debate then. I presented arguments, examples, etc to prove my point. What you mustered is that The Revenant is Oscar bait because you think so. Um, ok.

        And who’s saying you are stupid? I even specifically said, TWICE, that what constitutes a good movie differs from person to person. LMAO, what kind of deflection tactic.

        But I see there is no point continuing since you have declared that you “don’t care”. Truly resounding argument.

      • korra says:

        @Beth Awww.

        Honestly Beth I think this is a waste of time and a stupid argument altogether. You made a set of criteria that you think Oscar Bait films are. But…where exactly did you get it? Of course there is a general consensus on it and yet it’s also a vague term. We see it a bit differently. I see it more like how Justice Stewart saw it. I’ll know it when I see it.

        Here let’s look at the wiki page for some of the defining characteristics of the term which you are more than free to disagree with.

        “Oscar bait is a term used in the film community for movies that appear to have been produced for the sole purpose of earning nominations for Academy Awards or “Oscars”, as they are commonly known.[1] They are usually released just in advance of Oscar season, late in the calendar year, so as to meet the minimum eligibility requirements for the awards and be fresh in the minds of Oscar voters. The prestige or acclaim the studio may receive from the nomination or award is often secondary to the increased box office receipts such a film may garner; some films may even be depending on it to turn a profit.[2][3][4][5]”

        That is why I see it as qualifying for the term Oscar Bait. Obviously I’m not the only one who thinks so. Does it fit all YOUR criteria? No. It’s historical fiction, a biopic, but since Inarritu is the director it’s obviously not made in a formulaic or safe manner. SLP is the same and I consider that Oscar Bait…when in reality it’s probably much less so Oscar Bait than anything else.

        “Number (iii) makes no sense. PLENTY of movies are backed by big studios/distributors each year. X-Men Days of Future Past and Spy are backed by 20th Century Fox, same company as the one backing The Revenant. Are these Oscar bait? What about the critical and box office duds under Fox? Oscar bait too?”

        So I guess this is where I should clarify exactly what I had in mind. You have to understand the type of movie and the studio support behind it. If The Weinstein Company is releasing it (and it’s not a major studio), it’s likely Oscar Bait and will have an intense campaign.

        Now here’s where we differ. I do in fact commonly use Oscar Bait as a derogatory term but most typically in the marketing campaign leading up to the Oscars because I think those awards are meaningless. But it doesn’t preclude me from seeing the movie or considering it a bad or good film. You apparently do. A film can be Oscar Bait and STILL be one of the most amazing movies I’ve ever seen. Oscar bait refers to the marketing aspect of the movie more to me, whereas you see it as a solid set of criteria that you also just kind of made up no? You consider it derogatory full stop. Schindler’s List by your own criteria can also be subjectively considered oscar bait and yet you consider it a masterpiece that shouldn’t be relegated to that notion. See what I mean? Just because something does fit your criteria didn’t make it Oscar bait. By the same reasoning, just because something DOESN’T fit your criteria doesn’t make it not so.

        But then again. I still don’t need the Oscar’s to tell me what’s a good movie and what’s not. They’re a silly and ridiculous industry sponsored event now designed to maximize the box office of their films.

        Girl you know why I said I don’t care….because we’re arguing about something really stupid. Don’t you think? I’m really evaluating my life choices right now because this is the most useless argument I’ve ever partaken again.

    • A.Key says:

      LOL, forbidden topics, I see :P

      How dare they make a film about men taming the wild American frontier.

      How unrealistic, boring and insulting.

      Just like history, yeah…

    • Elisa the I. says:

      @bread: LOL at your comment.
      I just don’t see anything new in the trailer. It’s the same old, same old story, yawn.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      I will see it in the cinema, although I suspect I won’t love it, and I suspect it will be mansplained to me. To which I will then ask “please explain how this hairy wilderness frontier in winter film involving bear attacks and offspring being murdered differs from others in the same genre like Jeremiah Johnson?” I expect sputtering in response

      • belle de jour says:

        Speaking of… I watched Jeremiah Johnson again a few weeks ago; it was better (and more random) than I remembered it being. Also recall that Redford said it was his favorite movie to make.

      • PennyLane says:

        Jeremiah Johnson – ha! What a trip down memory lane. That movie was HUGE in the early 1970′s, and even as a small child then I could tell that it was a silly film. I predict this movie will be similarly huge among the young male “dude, it’s so real” demographic.

        This Revenant film sounds like ‘Jeremiah Johnson’ meets ‘Nanook of the North’. Who knows, maybe it will be good.

        At least it will have gorgeous scenery…

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Let’s all sing: “Jeremiah Johnson made his way into the mountains …”

  21. HoustonGrl says:

    They lost me at Leo. And call me crazy, but aren’t beards in fashion?

  22. moon says:

    This looks like a self-indulgent chest thumping oscar bait-y piece.

  23. tracking says:

    I might see it because of Innaritu, but can’t say it looks remotely appealing.

  24. meme says:

    I am never ever going to see this movie despite that Innaritu directed and Tom Hardy is in it. The trailer is awful.

  25. tacos and tv says:

    Remember a time when movies cost less than 20 million to make and were actually profitable? Those were the good ol’ days.

    • FingerBinger says:

      Those films are still being made. There are dozens of good films worth seeing without bloated budgets.

      • Blaise says:

        Some of those that go straight to DVD or streaming are actually really profitable, margin wise. I can’t remember which actor it was – probably Ethan Hawke; he’s done a lot of those films himself – who was talking about that.

  26. Cindy says:

    Somebody tell Leonardo Dicaprio that Lukas Haas is just fine. He looks really upset!

  27. stinky says:

    Leonardo will be winning a long-deserved Oscar.
    I’ve been waiting for him to bring it for a really long time. . .. . .
    Kept just seein him in his beard, here & there, out on boats, looking bloated etc. and I knew nothing about this production until right now (thx CB) The whole thing looks gorgeous and authentic, and the cinematography is kicking ass.
    This movie looks amazing and I cant wait – for real.
    Black powder CRAZY!

  28. Nona says:

    This movie looks amazing! I love the starkness—it looks beautifully filmed. There are only a few movies each year that I want to see on the big screen, and this will be one. Also, Leo’s a great actor and I’m rooting for him to get his Oscar. Hope this does it for him.

  29. pancake bacon says:

    I can’t with the whole “poor Leo — he doesn’t have an Oscar!!??!” What performance has he done that you can say he really should’ve one for it? Out of all his nominations, I MIGHT have given it to him for “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?”, but many acclaimed actors have the “one” they should have won for.

    There are people like Glenn Close has been nominated SIX times, and hasn’t won. She could’ve had it for Dangerous Liaisons, or The Big Chill or Fatal Attraction. People like Alan Rickman and Donald Sutherland have NEVER been nominated, and they have so many roles over the years where they were robbed.

    I guess I’m just not into Leo’s acting style. He seems so hardened and heavy when I see him on screen. Something happened to his face from This Boy’s Life (still my fave performance of his) to his leaden style today. What happened to Leo?

    • Mitchie says:

      Not only do I agree with you, but I’ve been craving pancakes and bacon for two weeks now. I say just give him the damn award, so we don’t have to hear about him every award season. Hopefully, his career will go like most award winners…south!

    • EN says:

      Leo deserves an Oscar for every single one of his movies. I can’t think of a single movie where he was bad.

    • korra says:

      He’s really good at one certain role. He’s not that diverse. And What’s Eating Gilbert Grape is the performance he should have been rewarded for. It was truly fantastic.

      But seriously for godsake give him an oscar. So people will shut up about how it’s so wrong he doesn’t have one.

    • Marny says:

      Omg- The Departed!! I don’t even think he was nominated but he was fantastic.

  30. Willa says:

    Beards are smexy ^.~

  31. Viv says:

    I can’t wait to see it, I love Dicaprio as an actor and would watch him in anything, beard or no beard.

    The Oscars are ridiculous, lots of talented people don’t have them, Leo included, while Natalie Portman and George Clooney each have one despite not being able to act. It’s all politics.

    • Aren says:

      I very much agree. It would be sad if Leo was really so obsessed with the Oscar thing. They’re not a big deal.

  32. Kitty 28 says:

    I will be watching. And I like beards.

  33. Dee Kay says:

    I think I am probably the only person alive who thought Birdman was a boring and flat and super-pretentious and that Revenant looks at least technically brilliant (though the story sounds lame).

    Actually, I did think some of the long takes in Birdman were also technically brilliant, so maybe that’s my general reaction to Inarritu: technical genius, lame on story.

  34. EN says:

    Oh my, but this is beautifully shot. It is definitely an Oscar material. It reminds me Jack London stories. By the way, why nobody is making movies based on Jack London, he wrote some powerful stuff.

    I loved Inarritu’s Birdman too. I just love his work I guess. It is very atmospheric ( is this even a word?)
    And it is high time somebody gave Leo that Oscar anyway, so why not now.

    • Ennie says:

      A twin soul!
      I am a woman and my most beloved stories from childhood were Verne’s adventures, particularly the search for gold in the Klondike (What was that called?), Salgari’s pirates stories, Dickens boyish stories, and of course, London’s gritty stories about animals and people in the cold northern woods.
      These were absolutely fascinating. I was enthralled by them, and reread them many times. I was very happy when I visited Santa Rosa, CA, since it was around this area that the author lived and died.
      I saw White Fang years a go, a whitewashed movie about a pet or something. absolutely unremarkable compared to the book.

      • EN says:

        Jules Vernes (did you mean Golden Volcano?) and Jack London were my absolute favorite authors in childhood. There was so much imagination in there. I don’t understand why Hollywood struggles so much with finding stories. If you just look 100-200 years back there is so much original and unique work.

        Verne’s “20 thousand miles” and “80 days around the world” are mindblowing.

        And London’s “Call of the Wild” and “White Fang” just can’t leave anyone unmoved.
        “Revenant” reminds me the “Love of Life” by London too. And London’s story is probably better.

        And then there were “Robinson Crusoe” and “Treasure island” and “Gulliver”.
        I don’t think modern kids read any of it. My kids are not interested in these stories.
        I noticed at school they read modern works, but not classic books. That is very different from my education.

  35. I. WILL. SEE. THIS

    that’s all i got

  36. Corrie says:

    Eh every award contender hires plenty of awards consults. Its the name of the game. And awards contention stars – every last one of them has to play famewhore games for the next 5 months people. This aint new info. Reverant isn’t the only one by a long shot – its the way this oscar season game works.

  37. PixieWitch says:

    I’m a woman and this looks amazing. 2 cents given. Its reminds me of Valhalla, with Mads M.

  38. Madpoe says:

    Imma gal and I love grizzly men beard p0rn!! – don’t like seein’ animals, even if its CGI, get shot in the face – still can’t watch “Bambi” now that I think about it.

  39. alice says:

    Hollywood campaigns for the Oscars are a very complex and intricate political game. there are thousands of millions at the stake, and the stars and their Oscars are just the tip of the iceberg, the meetings and hustling happens behind closed doors and with a lots of negotiations going on.Of course they hire the best consultants . Remember how American Sniper came out of the blue last year with all those OSCAR noms and Bradly Cooper made his way with even a best actor nom for what we can all agree it was a mediocre movie and performance at best. The movie was a huge hit among a certain demography and that weighted a lot. IT’S fascinating and at the same time frustrating how and who get the noms.

    • EN says:

      I didn’t watch the movie, not my cup of tea. But from the short clips I actually thought Bradley’s transformation was impressive.
      How do you go from what we see in real life – the long-lost Barry Manilow’s love child to a uptight pumped up American sniper?

      But I agree with your post overall – Oscars are just like political campaigns, are very involved and complicated. And I see no reason to be snide about them – the actors, directors, producers and everybody else involved have to play the game, or just stand back and lose. And if they care about what they do, then , they have to play the game and do the best they can.

  40. kris_jenner_is_my_idol says:

    There is no way I’ll be sitting through this. Sounds like a major bore fest topped with a sunken feeling of depression fresh from the oven.

    Wake me up when Leo’s much-belated sex tape hits them Internets.

  41. Tara says:

    I want to see it. I think it looks really good.

    The amount of money these studios spend on Oscar campaigning is ridiculous however.

  42. MND says:

    I actually met Leo once. I told him that I loved his work and he said “Yeah, you like my movies?” and I said “You make movies?”

  43. Blaise says:

    I’m female and I love it and can’t wait to see it so the suits don’t have to worry about me. I really hope Leo gets his Oscar finally. I wonder if these bloated budget stories are leaked to get more people thinking about how much of a perfectionist the arty director is and how hard he battled against the accountants to get his vision across. Please, let this film succeed. We need these genre-bending or whatever films to do well because if I see another superhero film I will run out screaming.

    Oh, and if you like Leo, you have to catch his SAG Foundation interview with Jenelle Riley. Thoughtful, mature (despite what his dating history would suggest), and very serious about acting. The bits on his early career were really interesting.

  44. 7-11's Hostage says:

    With every fiber of my being I pray this movie wins all the Oscars. then, on March 1, 2016, I hope to pick up the pieces of my ruined life. Plans, I’ve got them.

    • MND says:

      Tell us more about your ruined life. I’ll advise you on how to fix it. Seriously, take my advice I’m not using it.

  45. MND says:

    “There were a lot of indulgences he got that could’ve been a ‘no.’ Alejandro is a little bit like a child. He tests the parameters all the time. When you don’t say ‘no,’ he takes advantage.”

    Sounds like my ex.

    “Slow release: The film will get a limited release in late December before going wide on January 8. Box office experts are worried about releasing such a dark, depressing movie around the holidays, especially since everyone involved NEEDS this film to make money.”

    Why? Christmas is depressing as shit for a lot of people. A really dark depressing film could be cathartic.

    Re the beards: the hipsters and wannabe hipsters will love them.

  46. Bread and Circuses says:

    I really don’t think anyone’s going to see Leo Di Caprio’s films because they think he’s pretty anymore.

  47. I heard you could get an oscar for not wearing makeup, is that true?? Oh yeah, if you send cookies to the oscar committee. Who wore the bear costume??

  48. Ain't No Telling says:

    I did not read most of the comments. I tried, but y’all became quite verbose in the middle, and it was too much to go through, after 2:00 a.m. I have been watching Leo’s career from the gate, and he has long “left the building”. He a horrible actor. Even in this trailer, the guy has just lost “it”. No magic, no craft. He’s always dialing it in. Too bad. He had so much potential. I guess that the yacht life will change a man.

  49. Jenny says:

    I don’t mind the beards. In fact, when it comes to Leo I prefer the beard since I never liked looking at his pudgy, smug face anyway. Tom Hardy’s face is so generic-looking it doesn’t matter much if it’s covered with a beard or not either. In fact the beard may even give it a little more character.

    (Yes, I’m grumpy today. Baby kept me awake last night. So looking forward to a childless house again in 18 or so years…)

  50. Meryl says:

    Unbroken and Universal hired a Oscar consult even before a single scene was shot and look how that turned out. Unbroken and Angelina both ran a expensive Oscar campaign too but it fell apart as soon as the bad reviews for the film and her directing came. I think the Revernent will be a good movie though. Innartu atleast is a talented director unlike Jolie and hired a good cast but this is a dangerous move spending so much money on a Oscar campaign still.

    • Cacao says:

      Tom Hardy and Leo both have more cred than Angelina as character actors as well, so I hope that’ll help the movie.

  51. MyHiddles says:

    This movie holds zero appeal for me and that has nothing to do with the beards.