The Revenant's only flaw

You seem pretty cranky today.

And no I am not offended you dont like the actor. Please pay attention. Yes, I am on his payroll. He just sent me his private jet for showing him this thread. Thanks. I'm in the mood for a caribbean holiday right about now. How very imdb of you to call someone a shill

The Revenant is a 10/10 for me.

__________________
You talkin' to me?

I love the movie, too. I just wish they had found a believable lead actor.

Are you escaping my questions?

__________________
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me" (Frank Costello)

Nope, my silence implies that I already answered your questions, multiple times, in multiple ways, in my above posts I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again for every person here that disagrees with me.

I have a right to think Leo DiC sucks and you have a right to disagree.

Of course you have the right, but to clarify, this is what I have deduced from what you have said:

A frontiersman who lives in the wilderness and hunts animals for their fur would have to have bulked up muscles, despite a lack of a gym and protein shakes.

You seem to assume that 'skinny' can't be strong.

Bruce Lee anyone?

The truth is anyone with extremely large muscles would struggle in this environment as they would have a much higher metabolism and would need to consume thousands of calories a day. Di Caprio and his physique is therefore much more believable than the alternative that you suggest.

Hope that helps.

Yes to both of those.

And not having the bulk of roid abusers does not make a male a 'girly boy'.

LMAO. I think I get what you're saying ... if you're disagreeing with me, thank you for being civil while also making me laugh audibly.

Wasn't your whole point that it would have been better with a different lead actor? I don't see how what I wrote is supposed to be interpreted as a disagreement with that.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Hmm, I thought you were suggesting a disagreement sarcastically, given your comment about Samuel L Jackson being in the role (seemed random).

It can be hard to decipher tone from text. Text removes so much context and other non-verbal cues from the intended communication.

In any case, I liked your comment.

iderno.
That whole mountain man, fur-trapping life seems pretty tough to me. Poor diet. Constant physical labor. Poor rest and recovery. Harsh environments (more than most of us could comprehend). Fight or flight lifestyle, both wild and man-made. Seems reasonable that a man in that lifestyle would be fairly slim due to low caloric intake and constant aerobic labor.

Would casting Viggo Mortensen have changed your opinion? I mean to ask: is it that L DiC (as you put it) as a man is "girly," or is it that you find the character's physical presence to be girly? If not Mortensen, then perhaps some other scrappy slim kat. Maybe Daniel Day-Lewis? Where would you stand with either of those two replacements?

Off topic, I think some of the response *you're getting isn't so much defensiveness and anger as it is just in line with the style of the OP and following posts. It's all in good fun, with the invite; however, things read (to me) a bit tabloid in commentary. Snippy reviews will invite snippy replies. I think there is a (probably) thin line between dry humor teasing at things and strategically placing bait looking to agitate bored fish. It's very hard to read the difference in text, and it may be even more difficult to write it with a clear line of separation. As the thread stands now, I honestly cannot yet tell which this is. Added texture such as "L DiC" later evolving into "L DiC sucks" and all the implications that brings to the table are too on target to assume it was coincidence, does kind of push things to one side of that line. Just sayin'.

YMMV.


*edit cuz i'm illiterate sometimes.
- frowny face goes here.

Yeah I don't get why you think he looks 15 years old, I thought you were talking about that young guy who was in The Millers at first.


I like Leo in Django Unchained and Wolf of Wall Street but I don't care about his other work. He is a talented versatile actor I don't understand how you can't see that.


What I don't like about Leo is that he's a hypocritical douche bag and so called " environmentalist" complaining how there should be extreme gas taxes for boats and such and yet on his away to accepting his award he pollutes the ocean taking a nice ship cruise. His life style would cease to exist with his proposed tax plans.

With all due respect, I'm sorry but there is really no excuse for the rather immature behavior I encountered in response to my opinion about an actor. There is no excuse for other members to personally attack *me* instead of attacking *my opinion*. Why in the world do people need to take it personally, as if I was attacking them directly ? We can debate all we want, but that is rather immature behavior to me.

If someone has a disagreement with my opinion, great, that's why I'm here ! To discuss thoughts, without getting *personally* attacked for my opinions. I'm NOT here for some stranger on the internet, who knows less than nothing about me, to tell me that I am a misogynist or that I have "archaic beliefs" or that I need to "shut up" or whatever. In another lifetime, I would have responded with equally harsh and infantile words.

It is too easy for someone to be a keyboard warrior and call others names, but I refuse to stoop that low, to that level of immaturity. I prefer to be civil and address the behavior rather than mistake the behavior for the person.

There is a difference between attacking a person and attacking his opinions ... that is what I've been unsuccessfully trying to convey all along. You don't have to dislike Leo DiC as much as I do ... in fact, I prefer that you disagree with me, so we can have an interesting debate. But, I'm not going to stand here and take personal insults, no sir. That's not why I'm here.

It seems that you're just making excuses for people because they're the majority, their opinion is the popular one. And that is how it usually goes ... if one person speaks out against a popular opinion, that person is shot down blindly, without anyone taking time to consider the minority view. That's how I interpreted your response.

And no, Leo DiC is not a reference to the d i c k word, it is just a reflection of my laziness to keep typing his whole name.

Example of a civil response that disagrees with me - "I think Leo DiC is great. He has plenty of depth. I don't know what you're talking about."

About casting the right person for the role, I would have preferred someone I consider masculine/rugged with some acting depth (of which I think Leo DiC has none).

I think Liam Neeson, if he were twenty years younger, would have been perfect for it. Liam N was a boxer earlier in life ... a tough guy. Undoubtedly masculine, if you ask me. That's what I'm talking about. He has plenty of depth as an actor, and there is always a sense of mystery about him on-screen. This is exemplified in The Grey.

Or Russell Crowe ... physically rugged and with plenty of acting depth.

Again ... my opinion only.

Talk about pots and kettles. You spent all of yesterday baiting including to criticise the entire forum yet now you want to pull the victim card? Are you a 'girly boy' whatever that is? Maybe behave like 'a real man' whatever that is.

See how that works?

Three hundred watches sounds pretty nuts to me. I'm no fan of DiCaprio. I watched it for Hardy. My thoughts on my single watching experience...

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...94#post1577694

__________________
"I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."
E. K. Hornbeck

Example of a civil claim to kick off a discussion:

"DiCaprio didn't seem grizzled enough to play a survivalist."

Things you actually said:

"puny 15-yr-old-girl looking actor who can't act to save his life"
"I cannot take that girly boy seriously"

You deliberately chose to phrase a controversial opinion in a way that would provoke a strong response. And both statements carry implications about sex and culture that, right or wrong, are also fair game. christine's response on this point was civil and substantive and tackled those implications (and with them, the entire complaint) with intelligence and civility, though you brushed it off (and seemed confused both about who said it and what they said) almost immediately, despite your ostensible desire for debate.

And really, what kind of "debate" do you expect? Even your example above is just a flat contradiction. There's no real opportunity for debate with something like this. When someone says some highly admired thing is "overrated" and loads their description of it with incendiary pejoratives, they're not really looking for discussion.

I think Neeson could have been fine for the part too with exceptions that I'll bring up in a bit. I believed his character in The Grey and even Taken, oddly enough.

As to DiCaprio, I personally thought he did fine. I had no issue at all with his build due to reasons posted earlier. With that said, I was surprised to see his height is like what, 5'11" - 6'? He has never appeared to me as physically imposing. I had a similar reaction as yours to him in the Basketball Diaries. He just did not look the part to me. Some of that could be that I just could not break his What's Eating Gilbert Grape character and I constantly found myself thinking of that kid when watching his movies for years. The Beach was annoying and just reinforced my frustration with the guy as an actor. Titanic didn't help, but I do not blame him for that. I just thought the movie overall was contrived.

Once Gangs of New York came out though, I felt like he was a great cast for that role: youthful, wiry, and non-assuming with a false submission to the Butcher. I get a tickle out of this scene every time, starting around 00:48.




For me, that movie was a great transition for him and for my perception of him. That role opened my acceptance of him to then later enjoy Catch Me if you Can (again, a good casting IMO), and especially The Departed---which is now one of my all time favorite movies.

All of these movies have a nonthreatening character surviving their hardships in spite of their seeming limitations or vulnerabilities. Well. Except for Titanic. But you get my point! Simply put, those around the character underestimated him. Part of that is due to his characters' stature and personalities. Had someone more physically dominating been cast, then I'd argue it would make little sense for the other characters to doubt him and feel confident that they could overtake and abandon him without concern. They probably never would have made the effort with someone that looked like Neeson.

These are the subtleties beneath superficial physical presence that must be taken into account in order for the movie to work as a whole. Clearly there's not a right or wrong answer, but I believe it falls to how all the moving parts react to each other as a whole. It's an organic choice: give some here to gain some there. Perhaps that was an internal debate in casting, I don't know. But I think more good was gained from it than not due to what probably would have felt forced as a plot point having cast someone larger.

I think this scene from The Departed pretty much hits all these nails for the argument.They recruit him because of these qualities. Just as I believe he was cast for them.



In my opinion, it was not his physical attributes that carried his character forward. Instead, it was that character's will and determination. I can believe that.

(This is a prime example of the kind of discussion I originally intended to initiate ... thank you, ynwtf)

Fair enough. You bring up some good points here. LDC may have been suitable for The Departed or that other movie you mentioned, but I thought he was totally misfit for The Revenant. In essence, and I'll quote you here ... "he just did not look the part".

With exception, a lot of actors in the business have their specialties ... I mentioned an example earlier ... Arnold Sch for instance, would not make a good candidate to play someone who is shy and lacks self-esteem and cries a lot or is a physical weakling, because he has a larger than life on-screen presence and is full of himself (in life as well as on-screen). He has his niche ... as a badass. And, I don't think LDC's niche, if he has one, is as a barbarian. I can see Liam N or Russell C gutting a horse, with ease. I can't see LDC doing that, without questioning it. Something just doesn't look right.

We all have our prejudices and biases that determine how we evaluate someone. And, perhaps for that reason more than any other, I cannot take LDC seriously.

I know that LDC is someone the movie business considers a great actor ... that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly accept him as such. I have my own independent thoughts from watching him on-screen and evaluating him. And, to me, he's a joke. To me, he belongs on the cover of GQ magazine, and not on the movie screen.

You mean like this?