Now that the mainstream hype is completely dead, what are Veeky Forums's thoughts?
How good of an 1820's film is it?
Now that the mainstream hype is completely dead, what are Veeky Forums's thoughts?
How good of an 1820's film is it?
Wow I didn't know films from the 1820s had such quality.
dank
Tom Hardy is the best in it. The first Indian attack is fantastic. It's a pretty good movie overall, Leo's ok in it, but not Oscar worthy.
first half-hour is great...the rest, meh.
somewhat mediocre movie to be honest
/tv/ thread though
This
Could've been an hour shorter and it would have benefited from it.
>tom hardy movie without a For You
shit desu
this
Leo should have won for wolf of wallstreet. Reverant was a pity oscar.
He never had a good performance in his entire career.
Same with Denzel Washington in Training Day desu. He should have gotten one for The Hurricane 2 years prior.
>art movie goes mainstream
>plebs complain it's too long, boring, not enough substance, etc
every time
Good entertainment film in art film's clothing. I liked it a lot but DiCaprio definitely shouldn't have gotten an oscar for grunting and foaming at the mouth, Tom Hardy was honestly better
>If I just claim a mediocre movie is an art movie, that will make it ok!
mmmmmm Taboo is better
>I have use for you
The part where invisible indians were arrow-sniping running men from hundreds of yards away was silly as fuck.
Its pretty good if you go in realizing its just scenery porn
I liked it
how to spot a pleb hint #67
When they literally have nothing to talk about the movie but the actors' performances
Honestly, who watched the movie for anything else but the scenery and atmosphere?
And fuck were they good.
>implying this didn't happen irl.