Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu
The Revenant

The Revenant is one of the most anticipated and publicized titles of early 2016, and rightly so, given the names associated with it: Iñárritu, Lubezki, DiCaprio, and Hardy. Early reviews have described it as a true tour de force with a feral DiCaprio, immersed in a desolate and hostile landscape in the early 1800s in North Dakota, accompanied by the superb cinematography of Lubezki, a director of photography whose resume of collaborations would make even veterans in the field envious. As the saying goes, all smoke and no fire. More than a few have noted that the film is a parade of references to Malick, Tarkovsky, and Kurosawa, but I've found very little of the genius inherent in the three filmmakers I just mentioned. The sacredness and symbolism that permeate the film's entirety struck me as tedious and pointless, as if they were added simply to give the film an extra layer, masking what is, in reality, a true auteur blockbuster. Another important aspect of the film is the presentation of the perspective of indigenous populations that lived for centuries in those lands, through scenes depicting the abuse and cruelty executed by European conquerors who barbarically did not hesitate to kill women and children. Lubezki is the backbone of the film, thanks to his innovative ideas and innate and undeniable mastery in composing and choosing breathtaking scenarios, successfully immersing the viewer in the raw and mystical atmosphere the film seeks to evoke, making us participants in every breath and wheeze of each character. It’s hard not to talk about the two lead actors; DiCaprio and Tom Hardy are both impeccable, yet at the same time limited by a sterile characterization, another weak point of the film, and by somewhat dubious directorial choices. Given the enthusiastic reviews, DiCaprio, more than anyone in this film, needed to deliver a grand performance, finally putting an end to the old and well-known tale of "give an Oscar to Leo!!1!!1". By this, I do not mean that DiCaprio is not a good actor or does not deserve an Oscar (as I have yet to judge the other nominees), but I believe that this particular performance relied more on some extreme choices, which, yes, surely indicate a certain versatility in immersing himself in the character portrayed, but alone cannot elevate it from an excellent to a great performance. Even Tom Hardy delivers an excellent performance, managing to overlook some writing flaws of the character and adopting a particularly southern accent for this film, making the character more real and above all effective. The real weak point of the entire construction is indeed the director. Iñárritu, probably following the success of Birdman (which I really appreciated), has let success go to his head a bit too much, going beyond his actual capabilities. As I mentioned earlier, it is not easy to integrate a unique sensitivity into a film, such as that of Tarkovsky, and try to emulate it through symbolic and mystic scenes of dubious quality when the same artistic sensitivity is absent in the director. If Iñárritu had endowed his characters with a slightly more developed psychology instead of making them passive instruments of his rather confused ideas, the result would probably have been better, and the film would have benefited in quality. This half-bashing mainly stems from my disappointment, as I had built up too many expectations, which certainly in part affected my viewing. Despite everything, the film is still quite engaging, with some overly lengthy references to Malick that are nevertheless not just for their own sake and may destabilize a less prepared viewer, yet thanks to the power of its images, it still stands as an excellent entertainment product.