I was watching a scene where Dicaprio runs off with a stolen horse from a bunch of indians before diving off a cliff into a tree. Did i see that single shot flintlock pistol shoot 2 times? it looks like when he stole the spotted horse he shot 2 times there too with a single shot flint lock. I didn't know such a weapon existed.

Don't you know in Hollywood, you don't have to reload...

There were so many things wrong with that movie that the incidents you are citing are minor quibbles. Watching it was some of the worse use of time in my life - and I have used up a lot of time poorly.

drover

I'd like to know how you convince a horse to go over a cliff.

Threaten to pull his SAG card, maybe?

The Revenant is an entertaining Western. But the “inspired by” Hugh Glass tagline is definitely loosely applied. The winter environs is one major error the Oscar-winning movie got wrong in its depiction of Glass’s real-life survival odyssey. – Images By Kimberley French / 20th Century Fox –

1. Opening Scene Battle with the Arikaras: Andrew Henry’s group did not battle the Arikaras. The Arikaras attacked the group led by Henry’s partner, William Henry Ashley, which included Hugh Glass, but Ashley was not depicted in the movie.

In 1822, Henry and his first expedition were at Fort Henry on the Yellowstone River. The second expedition, led by Ashley in 1823, was attacked after Ashley traded gunpowder for horses with the Arikaras. When a big storm blew in, Ashley and his men got stuck waiting it out (you can’t push a keelboat upriver in a storm). At the end of the three-day storm, the Arikaras attacked, killing 15 whites, not 32. None of that was shown in the movie.

2. Punk Kid: Jim Bridger may have been only 19 at that time, but he was a journeyman blacksmith and probably stronger than most of the men in the company. He definitely was not the punk kid the movie made him out to be.

3. Timing of the Bear Attack: The bear attack occurred in August 1823, while the weather was still mild. Glass did not have to crawl through snow and battle hypothermia.

4. The Son: Glass did not have a half-breed son with him on that expedition. Even if he did have one, based on the time he spent with the Pawnees, the kid probably would have been about four years old, not a teenager.

5. Charbonneau Confusion: Toussaint Charbonneau is shown stealing an Indian woman and raping her, then getting caught and being forced to run to Fort Kiowa naked. Not true. Perhaps the writers were thinking of John Colter, who, in 1809, escaped from the Blackfoot and ran naked for days before reaching civilization. Charbonneau and Glass did escape death by the Arikaras once, but that came later in the story.

6. Texas Rangers: John Fitzgerald talks about his father having friends in the Texas Rangers and about going to Texas and joining the army himself. Yet, Texas did not have an American army in 1823, much less Texas Rangers—Texas was part of Mexico.

7. Hugh Glass’s Route: The movie shows Glass crawling in pursuit of the men who had left him to die. In real life, Glass crawled in the opposite direction from the men. He was attacked by the bear somewhere near the last week of August and made it to Fort Kiowa (almost 300 miles) by the first week of October. Armed with a new rifle, Glass then turned back on his trail to hunt the men who had betrayed him.

On October 11, Glass joined Charbonneau’s ill-fated expedition to the Mandan villages. Only Glass and Charbonneau survived that expedition. The Arikaras killed the other five men. The Mandans gave Glass a ride to Fort Tilton. After that, he walked to Fort Henry. The bad weather hit after Fort Tilton, not while Glass was still crawling.

8. John Fitzgerald was Not a Murderer: The movie shows Fitzgerald killing Glass’s half-breed son. He also did not kill Henry, who lived to the age of 57, dying in 1832.

9. Fuzzy on Furs: The beginning of the movie makes a big deal over hiding bales of pelts so that the Indians would not get them. But Henry did not have any furs at that time. He had brought furs from Fort Henry and given them to Ashley, who took the furs to St. Louis, Missouri, to sell.

10. Glass the Guide: Glass may have had some familiarity with the area from his time living with the Pawnees, but he had never been to Fort Henry. The movie portrays him as Henry’s guide. He was a hunter for the group, but guide? No. Henry and the others knew the way better than Glass did.

11. Arikara Assault on Glass: The Arikaras did not catch up with Glass while he was working his way to Fort Kiowa, nor did he ride his horse off a cliff to escape.

The Arikaras did try to kill Glass at least three times: 1) When they attacked Ashley and the other trappers in early June 1823 (Glass was shot in the leg). 2) When Glass joined Charbonneau and five others on their trip to the Mandan Villages. The Arikaras killed the five men, while Glass and Charbonneau escaped. 3) In late March 1824, when Glass left Fort Henry to continue his hunt for Fitzgerald, he traveled with four men—Dutton, Marsh, More and Chapman. Thinking they were in Pawnee country, Glass led the others into a village that turned out to be Arikara. More and Chapman were killed. Glass escaped again.

The Arikaras did ultimately kill Glass. Ten years after the bear attack, in February 1833, Glass, Ed Rose and a man named Menard were crossing the frozen Yellowstone River when the Arikaras caught them on the ice and killed all three.

12. The Faux Slaughters: While Glass was working his way to Fort Kiowa, he discovers a mountain of buffalo skulls. The bear attacked Glass in 1823; the buffalo slaughter would not take place for another 50 years.

Another slaughter the movie got wrong was Glass’s Pawnee wife being killed. No white army, be it French, Spanish or American, ever slaughtered a Pawnee village. When the Indian wars broke out, the Pawnees tended to side with the white man against their ancient enemies, the Sioux, the Comanches and the Cheyennes. Many worked as scouts for the U.S. Army. The Pawnees never declared war on the United States, as the other tribes did.

13. Glass Did Not Try to Kill Fitzgerald: Glass forgave Bridger because of his youth and because Fitzgerald had goaded Bridger into leaving Glass during the five days they had stayed with him. The following June, Glass caught up with Fitzgerald at Fort Atkinson. The fort commander warned Glass that if he harmed Fitzgerald, he would suffer. If he killed Fitzgerald, Glass would have been shot or hanged. Fitzgerald was forced to give Glass back his rifle, and the fort took up a collection to pay Glass for his trouble.

Bonus: The movie never explains the term “revenant.” A revenant is a ghost. When Glass arrived at Fort Henry, supposedly on New Year’s Eve 1823, Bridger was so overcome with guilt for leaving Glass to die that he thought Glass was a revenant. Glass ended up forgiving Bridger, but not before working him over a bit.

Bruce Bradley, author of Hugh Glass, is a winemaker in California’s Napa Valley. The wine helps him forget how, back in the 1600s, two of his great aunts—the Towne sisters—were hanged as witches during the Salem witch trials. A third sister, Sarah Towne Cloyce, was arrested, but released. Bradley is her descendant.

Interesting stuff Sharpsman,
Thanks for posting that.......

As I recall, there are two occasions in the movie in which a flintlock single barreled pistol is magically a two-shooter. And it must be using them newfangled infrared homing roundballs, because they unerringly hit moving targets at 40 yards while Glass is riding a horse when he shoots at them.

Hollywierd should not have tied the story to a real one. That put most people off. They should have just made a movie all on its own story. It was hard for me to watch ,all the hollywierd crap ,pf horses running off cliff, two shooter flintlocks, shots made at running targets from the back of a horse. Just to nake a few

Sharpsman,

Good list of some of the things that were wrong in the movie. The one that I really had to chuckle at was in the beginning when they were being attacked in their camp - how did the indian sniper get up the tree in the middle of the camp and no one even noticed him before the attack.
Then there was the scene near the end when Glass and Henry were tracking Fitzgerald through deep snow but when Fitzgerald came out from behind a rock a few yards away to shoot Henry - how could anyone not notice tracks going behind the rock in snow that deep?

It really irked me that they filmed it in the Pacific northwest rather than somewhere that at least resembled the upper Missouri country where the incidents actually occurred. Damn Hollywood and their make-believe worlds.

Actually the book, although fiction, is not too bad of a read. There are not a lot of hard facts known about Hugh Glass but there are at least enough to know that the movie was pure Hollywood.

Also, around the time that the movie was out the American Rifleman did a small article on Hugh Glass and his rifle - it is interesting.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...t-the-revenant-hugh-glass-and-his-rifle/


drover

The movie was a fiction, like a novel. But an honest attempt to make a period film about mountain men in the wilderness, as best they could and I for one welcome the film, there is not enough of them.
Yes I noticed the pistol shooting twice. He must have had two pistols. Give them a break.

Which would you rather have, am accurate movie that is senselessly boring and ultimately meaningless (life itself) or a coherent story that communicates an imagined vision of what might have been.

I could not imagine spending the night inside the body cavity of a horse.

Had a friend who used to count the number of shots that would be fired from a six-shooter in the movies. I think he said Roy Rogers held the record with 17.

Another guy that wishes more of this genre were being offered. Clearly understand that it is entertainment and not a historical documentary.
Would rather see something loosely based on the Glass era than Harvey Milk or wildlife through a Disney lens.
If you guys want to see some fiction, review the history text books being used in your local high school. The "dumbing down" over the last couple of decades is astounding. The revisionists won.

Only thing to do if watching that is (don't expect much you won't be dissapointed) mentallity

http://www.recreatinghistory.com/?page_id=1132

That movie sucked.




Dave

Yes it did. I have no idea why people fell over themselves for that movie

Delfarve: SO... "The Revenant" which is a multiple Oscar winning movie (plus dozens of other Golden Globe and etc type awards!) and made OVER $400,000,000.00 (four hundred MILLION dollars) in PROFIT for the producers "sucks"?
You wish you could suck $400,000,000.00 (four hundred MILLION dollars!) in PROFIT!
Sheesh!
I am not talking GROSSING $400,000,000.00 (four hundred MILLION dollars!) that is how much PROFIT that movie (that you think "sucks"!) has made, SO FAR!
Sheesh!
In my large circle of friends, relatives and acquaintances I have yet to find one person who saw the movie and was not greatly entertained by it.
I know lots of people in fact who have watched the movie several times - including myself.
No the movie is NOT perfect in its depictions and factuality but it stands on its own merits, entertainment value and successes quite easily!
Sheesh.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Following your 'logic', Obama was a great president, since he received more votes than any president in history.

PS: You're a [bleep] retard

Way too much in special effects and a mere mortal could not have endured those beatings. Entertaining, but not a monumental endeavor.

I damn near died of exposure watching it.

Kanye West makes a lot of money too.



Clark

Agreed. I never could figure out what was so great about this make believe story. There was so much wrong with the film that it was hard for me to even suspend disbelief in order to be entertained.

Pretty good movie. Lots of six shooters will shoot ten times, but I've never seen one in person.

It didn't suck.

Strictly for entertainment nothing historical at all !!!!!!!!!!

I find it hard to be entertained by a movie that has as much wrong with it as that one.

drover

Yeah for sure, entertaining for maybe 30 seconds, then realized W T F??

I watched this movie but could not sit through it all. Different strokes I guess, I just did not get the hype with this movie. A great movie it was not!

Guys shot with arrows sure died quick.




P

Now if someone would only make a historical movie on Canada's past, ......maybe Sir John Franklin's cross country expeditions in the North? Murder, cannabillism?

BBC or someone would have to make it,to be good and accurate , if hollyweird did it , it would be $hit as always!!!

Who would GAF about Canaduh?



Dave

Early scene, glass and his son shoot a moose in hostile Indian country. They are in the process of dressing it out when the shooting starts, yet Glass had not reloaded his rifle, dressing the moose leaving his gun empty. As he runs towards the action Glass dumps loose powder and spits a ball down the barrel, a mode of loading guaranteed to give atrocious accuracy and used only at point blank range and in the direst emergenc.

Early scene; Glass is sitting down and cleaning his gun when he turns to talk to his son about how folks wont like him because he's an Indian. In that shot you can clearly see Glass's pan brush hanging from the strap of his shooting bag - it is brand-spanking-out-the-wrapper new, never been used.

Then there's their choice of trade guns, Pedersoli makes a fine trade gun replica correct for the period....

http://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_info.php?products_id=2022&osCsid=14pltgvqi7g3kkrl03t01cnhu0

Instead they gave 'em all "Brown Bess Indian trade guns", a bogus reenactorism that isn't found, Pedersoli merely blued their Pattern 1793 Brown Bess Cavalry Carbines and hung a trade gun-style sideplate on 'em.

http://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_info.php?products_id=3474

I've only been able to watch the movie once, avoided it since. While we all know the "burn your open throat wound closed with gunpowder" stunt was totally bogus, I'm trying to recall if DeCaprio actually sprinkled powder from his horn onto an open flame in that same scene

and finally, someone explained to me why DeCaprio never gets hypothermia in that movie....

...because he became immune filming Titanic

You gotta be $hittin'... do you have a rat running across your keyboard or are you that anxious to get into the high post count? You need to read before you post 40+ times/day.

You obviously want to post more than pay attention to what is going on. It is a $hitty movie and there were no revolvers.

Saw about 45 minutes of it on a flight to Montana last summer. Turned it off and was glad i did not pay to see it.

Yep sure would have never spent money to see it!! would have been a waste

It was an ELK.

Sweet Jesus, if you're gonna try to display your assume smarts, get your facts straight.

The not reloading after shooting the elk was almost as bad as Tom Hardy's character thumbing his nose at the Captain whenever he felt like it.

I think discipline was a bit tighter than that...

Reminds me of my Mother in law..?? What is the difference between and elk and a moose? " She is 60 yo and totally clueless

She is a teacher in the CA "education" system... [bleep] me

I found it painful to watch. My wife and daughter knew none of the history, so they liked it.

It sucked. Surprised they didnt have the mandatory gay couple in it as well, like every other movie the last 10 years.

Including the new Beauty and the Beast.

i haven't seen it yet.
when one of the local pawn shops has
the disc for $1.50 i'll buy it and watch
it then.

hopefully, they didn't use dolled up trapdoor
springfields with a frizzen welded on like they
used to in the old movies. i remember poor ol'
john wayne talking about "kentucky longrifles"
in one show where they all had altered trapdoors