Explain why you don't like this movie. The only thing you can bitch about is that 10 second scene of an indian crying about muh land muh aminals, and I guess the fact that the most racist guy was the antagonist. Other than that, solid cinema.
Dat scenery
Hudson Jackson
Wyatt Moore
...
Logan Rogers
The only good thing about this movie is that is beautiful to look at. Leo sucks, his half breed son sucks, the constant "racism is evil lel" was annoying, the SJW Captain is gay. The only good person in the whole movie is Shinzon because he has motivations and is somewhat developed.
Evan Cox
you forgot "dat" white guilt
Brandon Evans
It's a movie where nothing fucking happens.
Boring as shit and preachy, too. Fuck it and fuck your shit taste.
Andrew Carter
...
Hunter Ross
This movie really is great. Great action, scenery and acting, especially Tom Hardy. better than the Farts Awakens.
And people are still calling it a "white guilt" film? Indians and Americans fought. That happens. It's history. Plus, the opening is Indians killing Americans over furs and some missing chick, which doesn't exactly make them look good.
Chase Flores
Tom Hardy's character wasn't the main character.
Ryan Johnson
yeah, people are still calling it that, because all we see for 3 hours is Dicaprio's mewling, whiny face bitching about his mongrel son and how bad white people are towards him
its justified because obviously white men stole the chick and use her as fuck meat, something Indians would of course NEVER do, its just more evil white men
its a fucking white guilt trip, Hardy is a great actor, yes, the rest is fucking 2016 all the way
Liam Long
Inarritu is a pretentious hack.
Birdman was like watching a guy shit in a box, talk about how egotistical people are for shitting in boxes, and point out that anyone can shit in a box and claim themselves as a great artist, without once realizing that it doesn't change the fact that they still shat in a box and cited it for a reason why they are such a great artist.
I've never seen babel, but it looks like absolute garbage.
There's only one thing Inarritu is good at; cinematography, in that every scene that wasn't a retarded sdream sequence or had Leonardo DiCaprio chewing the scenery with his girly screams or any other character for that matter looked decent, though even 95% of that is due to the sheer beauty of nature.
The soundtrack was amazing, because inarritu had no input and instead differed to the wonderful, if not familiar piano melodies of Ryuichi Sakamoto. The story that he had based it on was incredibly interesting and inspiring, and the fact he didn't bother to pursue the Christian theme of forgiveness shows both a lack of respect to American folklore, and a post-modern disgust of Christian ideas in addition to the post-modern ideas of equality, race, and justice.
This leads me to the main motif; nature as a force of poetic justice and/or raw power. Throughout the movie, we are exposed to incidences of nature exerting furious power over the helpers humans through bear attack, avalanche, rapids, snow, and even a fucking meteor. which begs the question; if you are using the meteor to represent God's divine judgement, why in the fuck would you twist the story away from its forgiveness theme?. Ultimately, the Indians should not have been characterized, and their motives left a mystery. Why? So that they could act as a force of nature. The ending would've been better served if Hardy ran down that hill, followed by Dicaprio, then a few moments later an Indian troop.
Fuck that stupid dream sequence where his dead squaw of a wife was LITERALLY FLOATING ABOVE HIM HOLY SHOT THAT WAS THE DUMBEST VISUAL I'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME BRAVO INARRITU YOU OVERRATED JEW MONGREL FATFUCK.