I'm confused by the hate for this film.

I don't hate it.

My problem was that the bear attack and the miraculous (nigh-instantaneous) recovery afterwards were far too unrealistic as portrayed, for the type of film it was intended to be. (If those events actually happened, I'm quite certain they didn't happen anything like they were portrayed in the film.) So much so that it was completely impossible for me to overlook it and enjoy any of it. I stopped watching less than a third of the way through because of it.

I gave it a 3/10, which was actually pretty generous because for me, it completely failed at achieving what it was meant to.

It was a really beautiful film, no doubt. The natural lighting was wonderful...I think technically speaking, the movie was a real achievement.

But I didn't like the movie. I honestly thought the plot was a bit thin, and the characters were a bit underdeveloped. There have been other "artsy" films that I've really enjoyed, but I felt like this one took itself to seriously and tried to be "deep"...when it really wasn't as profound as it thought it was. I thought the acting was good, but I wasn't riveted. I also wasn't emotionally moved, and for a movie as tragic as this one, that doesn't say great things about how they are telling the story. I think, despite the length of the movie, I never really got attached to any of the characters. They just felt...flat. If the characters don't resonate, and neither does the plot..what am I watching for?

There were also some details that took me out of the movie - for instance, the multiple scenes of people being in rivers, etc., but especially the one where Glass floats down the river. He would have been non-functioning within minutes, and I certainly don't see how he survived after he managed to get out. It was just silly to me.

And finally - and this is obviously just a personal preference thing - I didn't enjoy, at all, the unrelentingly bleak picture the movie painted. I was disappointed that it was all about revenge, and how that can drive survival, and how in the end, he DID get his revenge. It was totally depressing. And I know that floats some peoples boats, and people think that makes it "real" or something, but I like watching movies that either move me, or educate me, or inspire me, or make me think. This didn't do any of those things for me. It wasn't a bad movie...but I have no interest in sitting through it again, as visually beautiful as it may have been.

What's not hard to understand? This movie is nothing but the latest of Leo's "look at me, look at me" scenery chewing roles. Oh he's acting really intense and yelling lines in a movie...again. And he won an oscar for it, what a joke.

[deleted]

I saw your edit and completely agree, which is why I won't post my own comment.

I think for me, seeing every film that obviously influenced the making of this, it felt like nothing more than a collage of great scenes from greater movies. As whole, it never felt like a movie to me, but a slideshow of scenery, some grunts and a very boring story. Much like Andrei Rublev (and other Tarkovsky films), the pace is to show time, but unlike those, the payoff is simply not there. All of his films end with a near epiphany for the characters and the viewers. This ended exactly as you knew it would from the very first scene.

Also, Malick's influence isn't only apparent, it's beaten to death. The difference is, Malick's use of nature is symbolic, whereas Inarritu's is merely for show. To show how far he's come and how much money he commands. It's sad, because his ego shows in his last two films and it caters to those who haven't seen all the films he's ripping off.

I don't deny the reasoning behind those who like it, but had they seen all of the other films first, it would be very obvious how unoriginal and uninspired this film is.

I rewatched and still loved every second of it.

Not everyone's cup of tea and that's perfectly fine.

Wow. I could barely sit through it once. How could you watch it four times.