I see that Leonardo DiCaprio is going to play the mountain man, Hugh Glass in this new western movie. Is Leo the modern day John Wayne or Tom Selick?

__________________
Can my S&W Mdl 10 shoot +P

Not now, not ever!

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

I think he's every bit as good. He's just different. No two people, no matter how good, will play the same role the same way.

I can't really compare him to Selleck since I haven't seen a lot of his movies. I remember seeing Magnum on reruns as a little kid bug that doesn't count. Saw a few Jesse Stone movies and Blue Bloods.

As for John Wayne. ....I'm gonna catch hell for this.....I never liked him as an actor. It didn't matter what you put him in he was always the same.

Ugh....NO!

Leo can do this. It is an amazing story. Here is a pretty concise account:
Hugh Glass: Legendary Trapper in America’s Western Frontier | History Net: Where History Comes Alive – World & US History Online | From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher

__________________
Not in jail.

Have written and deleted 3 posts.
If I really say what I want to say, big trouble ahead!
To the Original Poster- that would be a NO!

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

Leonardo DiCaprio= An OK actor, but otherwise is another spoiled, misinformed, misguided, Hollywood Liberal that I have "zero" respect for.


Don

__________________
Laus Deo! <><

I plan on seeing this film. DeCaprio, in my opinion, is an outstanding actor who is fully capable of playing widely differing type characters, and doing all of them well. If you saw him in "Blood Diamond" you'd know that he is going to do a great job in this film. John Wayne was, well, John Wayne. He always played "The Duke" and that was fine in its way but I don't think his acting skills hold a candle to some of the better actors today (but some of this is just the more realistic style of acting that we expect in modern movies rather than the very stylized acting of years ago). Watch both the old and new "True Grit" and I challenge you to not agree that Jeff Bridges did a much better ACTING job than did John Wayne in the earlier version of the film.

More like the modern day Richard Harris ...

Vito said it much better then I could have.

The first True Grit I saw was with Jeff Bridges. Great movie, great acting. A few months later, while channel surfing, I saw noticed that the original was on so I jumped on the chance to see it even though it was probably 1/3 of the way in. After the first 5 min I was getting bored. Forced myself to watch 30 min and couldn't take any more. Very flat.

John Wayne played himself, how great that was. He was an American and a man.
Leo, would feel most comfortable in a room with Hanoi Jane.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

Leo may be a decent actor. Although I think a limited one,I just wish he would stick to acting and refrain from voicing his opinions on things of which he knows nothing.
He's an actor, not a mentor.

"Watch both the old and new "True Grit" and I challenge you to not agree that Jeff Bridges did a much better ACTING job than did John Wayne in the earlier version of the film."

I'll accept that challenge since Bridges did nothing but copy Wayne in every detail: mannerisms, vocal tone, etc. It was Bridges portraying John Wayne portraying Cogburn.

And he did a better job at it

__________________
Forum consigliere

The movie trailer looks pretty good. I'm sure I'll see it.

DiCaprio is a decent actor - certainly better at acting than Wayne was. Leonardo can play a wider variety of roles, because he is a phony. That's what acting is. Being able to do a convincing job of pretending to be something you're not.

John Wayne played nearly the same character in every film, because he wasn't acting per se. He portrayed people that were similar to him in terms of what they stood for and what they believed in and whose general character matched his. He was genuinely what you saw on the screen.

Less of a "great actor" and more of a "great American".

I thought Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent in The Departed, but aside from that he's an okay actor. I find him to be "overly dramatic" to the point it's not 100% believable.

If you want to see another good Leonardo DiCaprio movie then watch Basketball Diaries. It's based on a true story.

Not a Leo fan. Yes I've watched a few movies he was in.

All my life I read all I could on the fur trapping era. I know who Hugh Glass is and what he did. He eventually cornered Jim Bridger who had been evading him for some years and let him live. Tells you a lot about his character.

Fyi Bridger and another greenhorn kid were ordered to stay with Hugh until he expired after the bear attack as the main group moved on. They got cold feet and skeered. They decided he would die, took his stuff and caught up with the rest. Herein lies his story, crawling, surviving with out weapons and making it back. I might have been a little harder on Bridger.

Heck yea I'll watch it trying not to compare Leo to a real mountain man.

P.S. I read today he is a close friend of ole Al Gore.

I am reading Lord Grizzly right now--amazing account of the Hugh Glass situation. Can't recommend it more highly.

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

A lot of the original True Grit was filmed in the small town of Ridgeway, Colorado. Of course many photo's were taken by locals. In a frame in a local restaurant is a side by side photo of John in full western costume. The other photo was taken of him leaving the café wearing Bermuda shorts, Hawaiian shirt, straw hat, and sandals, drinking a large soda from a straw.

I like LDC, and I don't care what his politics are. The trailer for this movie looks good, enough so that I bought the 2002 book of the same name. The movie was shot with all natural light - no filters to make day look like night or big floods to help when clouds rolled in. It gives it a very forbidding look. I can't wait.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I'd never heard the word "revenant" before.

From Wikipedia: "A revenant is a visible ghost or animated corpse that was believed to return from the grave to terrorize the living."

It's from medieval times.

Cool. Can't wait to see the movie too.

__________________
Ukraine -- now more than ever

Yes, from the trailers I've seen, it looks like a remake to me. I believe the original was directed by John Huston, good movie... I always liked those Richard Harris movies, including the 'A Man Named Horse' movies.

My favorite of this genre is Jeremiah Johnson, with Robert Redford. Still enjoy watching that movie.

Not sure about casting Leo in the lead of this movie. I think he's a good actor, but I would have preferred a different actor in this type of role. I am going to try to see Revenant, as we don't get many 'real man movies' coming out of Hollywood these days.

As for John Wayne, and his acting, it's been covered here a lot, and always a spirited conversation! IMO, he was definitely a characterization of himself. I really enjoy most of his movies, but many don't hold up very well, and his acting is one of the reasons. That said, I think he was great in the Shootist; great movie. I also liked him in The Searchers (another John Huston directed movie, I believe...).

As much as I like John Wayne, IMO the Jeff Bridges version is head and shoulders above the original. Much better acting and overall movie.

__________________
NRA Life Member

"Zombie" is pretty much he same thing, but carries a lot of baggage with it.


I wonder if Glass would have survived if Bridger and Fitzgerald had stayed by him, waiting for him to die, or tried to carry him back to civilization. To what extent did his abandonment give Glass the fierce determination to survive and take revenge?

__________________
Not in jail.

I was never a big DiCaprio fan until I saw "Blood Diamond". "The Departed" the same year and I was sold. It gave me a whole new appreciation for the work he did in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" years earlier. "Shutter Island", "Inception", "J. Edgar", as he has gotten older he has taken on some great roles and nailed them. This movie has promise, and I read that DiCaprio almost died making it. He does go to great lengths to become the character, politics aside. He isn't as big a douche as some...

I'm excited to see the movie as well. I for one think DiCaprio is one of the best actors today.

For those who think someone else would have been a better fit for this role, who do you have in mind?

__________________
SWCA #2922

I plan on seeing it.
As far as Leonardo D goes..........I wish they would have casted a man to act this part.

He is as boring as Tom Cruise. Monotone and "look at me, I'm pretty"

That's exactly why Wayne was a great actor. He didnt change his acting style to suit others. He didn't have to.

Dicaprio is overrated.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

IMHO the Duke was much more than just an actor... During the depression he did horse operas that represented our ancestors and not distant ancestors either were talking gramps and for some people dad or an uncle who helped to pioneer the country..then during ww2 he played Sgt Stryker who died on the sands of I wo Jima... everyone during ww2 knew someone who was sacrificing for their country and a lot who made the ultimate sacrifice like Sgt Stryker... John Wayne was more than an actor he was one of us. Leo is an actor, how good is debatable but he will never be one of us.

Sir Richard Harris did play the leading role in "Man in the Wilderness" which I believe is the basis for the new movie. Frank

He played John Wayne in most of his movies. His later ones were pretty good, though, I thought.

__________________
Bob

That'll be a must see for me. I just hope they didn't mess up and embellish the true story too much as Hollywood is apt to do.

Seems like, many times, I'm the only one to disagree with the majority opinion of the posters.

This time, however, there are several which disagree, so I will join them.

First of all, I don't care for LDC, based on his acting and his politics. I have some trouble separating the work an actor does from his personal life, or his politics or whatever he/she does to stay in the public eye.

After all, the actor must know, before launching into whatever, let's say politics for example, that people will either agree or disagree with their position.

And, obviously, they hope that most will agree with them because they are who they are-an actor.

Secondly, I liked John Wayne and there were very few of the movies he was in that I didn't care for. Jeff Bridges is a very talented actor and I have seen several, not a lot, of his movies and enjoyed all of the ones I have seen.

I do agree, however, that he simply copied John Wayne, adding some personal "style" in True Grit.

My wife and I watched both versions, back to back and both agreed (that was a genuine miracle-that we agreed on something) that the original was better.

I saw Richard Harris in the original version of the new movie-to-be and always liked him, especially in western movies even though "Someone left the cake out in the rain. I don't think that I can take it....."

If you didn't understand the last sentence above, you are waaaay younger than me.

So, since I liked the original and don't care for LDC, I see no reason to watch the movie unless/until it is on one of the bazillion cable channels we have with nothing on them, and there is nothing on them at that time which is a better way to waste a couple of hours than this new movie.

Bob

Leo's biggest problem is that he did "Titanic" and got the rep of just another pretty-boy actor. I'm guilty as charged on that one myself.

He's done some solid and even exceptional work since then, though.

There's no way anyone's gonna turn Hugh Glass into a pretty boy and get away with it. I'm looking forward to the movie. I think Leo will do a darn fine job with it.

As for others who say they don't like him because of his politics, well, to each his own.

__________________
Ukraine -- now more than ever

I remember seeing "Man in the Wilderness" in a movie theater many years ago. At the time I was already familiar with the Hugh Glass story.

The European wildlife species seemed out of place in the movie and somewhat disturbing; I would have preferred North American animal actors.

I'm looking forward to seeing a different attempt at portraying the story.

NOT a big fan of King Leo? But a great director, good set designer and great film editor can make a OK actor look GREAT!

But, I wouldn't pay the $50 bucks to go see it. It will be out in a Red Box in 3 months after it opens or on pay-for-veiw in 4.

I dont care for Him all that mutch,He's ok in the right part but I cant see Him in a Mountain Man role.

Saw this movie last night, and its quite a ride. DeCaprio is excellent, as always, and this movie is not for those who cannot watch violence on the big screen or have a weak stomach. I won't give away the plot, but suffice it to say that it is hard to imagine that a human body could survive what this character goes through, and that it is, in fact, based on a true story.

At one part of the movie, however, the main character is riding away from his Indian pursuers and firing a single shot muzzle loader pistol, but manages to fire several rounds.. Other than that, the parts of the film dealing with firearms seemed accurate to my less-than-expert eye.

Overall, certainly worth seeing and well might earn Leonardo an Academy Award nomination.

Must have been one of those muzzleloaders that uses a "clip"......

__________________
Wake me when it's over...

The stories of Hugh Glass' exploits are based on a true story. This movie is Hollywood's version of "based on a true story." My guess is all those old guys wearing leathers and pelts who showed up for the screening after the one I saw were disappointed.

__________________
Join the NRA today

Thanks for the review.

I used to think DiCaprio was just a pretty-boy type, but the man has serious acting chops. What little I saw of his portrayal of Howard Hughes was brilliant. I understand he was very good as J. Edgar Hoover too.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

The man who made the rifles for the movie. Two were made, one as a spare in case the first was damaged.
Recreating History

__________________
Wherever my mind isn't
Jim

I noticed the two shots from the one shot pistol.Why did they have to BASE it on the book.Why did they have to HOLLYWOOD it?? Just telling the real story would have been enough... his life was that incredibla!
He was one tough...guy!
Jim

Nobody would believe what Hugh Glass did was a true story. But, package it in a movie with the typical Hollywood treatment, and it becomes real.

He's a well rounded actor. He was good as J. Edgar and he was good in Wolf of Wall Street

I plan to see it, but I was disappointed to read the extent to which they tarted up the story for Hollywood. Hugh Glass's story was incredible enough, as was that of Jim Bridger, who was himself fortunate to survive and go on to make quite a name for himself.

There is a monument to Hugh Glass on the Grand River in central South Dakota, close to where his odyssey began. I have poked around in that country a bit. He had a long, tough crawl.

I wonder if Hollywood does justice to the grandeur of that area. The trailer makes it look like mountain country, which is not at all the case. It looks more like the steppes of Central Asia.

__________________
Not in jail.

From the trailers I've seen it looks like a remake of "Man In The Wilderness" (1971) starring Richard Harris. Man in the Wilderness (1971) - IMDb

I bet he had one of those black assault muzzle loader pistols.

I believe it is a remake of that film, one of my favorites from when I was a kid. I'm hoping I'll like this new one as much. Directed by John Huston, if I remember correctly, and he acted in it as the captain, as well.

With the way they can produce movies these days, it ought to be pretty awesome...

__________________
NRA Life Member

I believe they filmed it in the Canadian Rockies and also in South America. Maybe Argentinia? I'm looking forward to seeing it.

__________________
SWCA #2922

0k, I saw it.
1. movie was way too long.
2. very dark. Dark as in depressing, there was not a single moment it was not. Not a criticism though.
3. L D was okay in this. Partly because he is just okay as an actor.
4. the best part is that he did not speak much. I think he is monotone and boring, therefore most of his dialog is limited to grunts, moans and screams.

In summary the movie was not bad but not great