Yeah it would have been cool to see the indian that saved him sew the bear's skin that Glass killed to his back. That supposedly happened. Regardless, Glass was one bad mutha. It would also have been nice to see that Glass didnt get Fitzgerald killed, or even fight with him. In reality, he just wanted his rifle back. He didnt kill Fitzgerald because he had joined the Army and killing him would have meant certain death for Glass.
-
Isaiah 5:20 -
Plus, how many of us wouldn't have left a seemingly-dead man's side in those conditions? With hostile natives bearing down on us? With all but certain death staring us in the face, as well as Glass? It's a complicated but sympathetic situation. Could've led the audience to ask themselves some strong moral questions.Comment
-
SPOILERS, of course.
I'm not sure if we're talking about the movie story or the history story, but I think the major dilemma in the movie was the murder of the son.
It looked like Glass gave the guy permission to kill him with the blink. The whole conflict was with the son...and the fact that the guy was a thieving, greedy marauder.Comment
-
Right. I'm saying the fabrication of the son was unnecessary. I think the historical account would have been compelling enough on its own and given audiences more to chew on. Of course they're going to pull for the guy when he's seeking revenge for the murder of his kid. A more interesting conversation would have been whether or not Fitzgerald and co. were in the wrong, and whether or not we'd have done the same. That would have been something audiences could wrestle with.Comment
-
Glass held on as long as he could with the blink. Eventually he had to close his eyes. That's why Glass tells him in the end that there was never a deal. It was always Fitzgerald's intentions to kill him; he just wanted it to seem as humane as possible from every angle.
I maintain that Hardy makes this film go. He's such a great bad guy. I couldn't stand him in this.Comment
-
Will be catching Zootopia on Friday or Saturday with my wife and three sons. It looks like another Disney hit, as all indications are that it's awesome. I can't wait.Comment
-
He tells him that the deal was void when he stabbed his son to death.
And unlike Downes, I thought the son was vitally necessary. I'm not that intrigued by a movie about a fur trapping dispute. The son was essential to the novel and the movie. The alternate version, where Glass tracks him over a rifle or whatever, sounds...well, terrible.Comment
-
He actually doesn't say this in the movie. Perhaps he does in the novel, but it's nowhere in the movie script. Glass' exact words were, "There was no deal. [pause] You killed my boy." If he had simply said, "You killed my boy," then I would agree that that he nullified any deal that was in place. But letting Fitz know there was never a deal is the clincher for me.Last edited by Wonderstruck; 03-02-2016, 02:35 PM.Comment
-
Side note with regards to The Revenant: did anybody understand a single word of dialogue that Tom Hardy spoke?
His accent was fascinating and nearly impossible to peg down.Comment
-
Let's fact it: Leo was suffering for a little golden statue, not art.
Leo's performance in "The Wolf Of Wall Street" was much more impressive than "The Revenant," but the Academy didn't have the stones to award that movie what it deserved.
I guess it's all a moot point, since he should've won a decade ago for his performance in "The Aviator."Comment
-
That entire conversation actually doesn't show up in the screenplay at all, it doesn't look like.
I think the blink is open to interpretation, but I took the unusual time he closes his eyes for as indicative of giving up, and then the son's murder is the catalyst for his desire to live. Could be wrong, but I think the filmmakers were letting viewers draw their own judgments there.Comment
Comment