Nit Picky, "historical accuracy" obsessive, types need not apply.
Yeah I figured but got it for free on a shared Amazon account and my wife wanted to watch it so...
I'm not even a history buff and there was so much crap that even I caught that it was overall not enjoyable. Had they not based the film on real people and actual events (and left out the crappy political commentary on native Americans/westward expansion) it would have been better but when filmmakers take real people and actual events and then ignore the known facts and make up what they want then I can't handle it. Just make your own movie.
Timeline of the west was all screwed up:
Massacres by the army and the collecting of buffalo skulls for fertilizer (his haunting dreams)weren't happening in the 1820's etc. There was more but I realize nobody cares about that kind of reality.
But...
Hugh Glass was a real person. We'll never know what really happened and the myth about it is pretty fantastic... but we do know he didn't come back to kill Fitzgerald (and didn't kill Fitzgerald at all) for killing his fictional son. So that being the main plot is retarded. It's like if I made the movie Apollo 13 except in my version Tom Hanks kills Jack Swiggert in the LEM because he porked his wife the week before. Would that be entertaining? Maybe, but it didn't happen so it'd be stupid to anyone remotely familiar with the story.
Also I think DiCaprio is generally a good actor but didn't really care for his performance. I thought the other guy did a better job (Hardy?)
The bear scene and the first attack on the trappers was pretty cool.
