vtsaogames | 01 Feb 2016 3:11 p.m. PST |
Just saw this and liked it. Two minor quibbles: Leo's pistol seems to fire two shots. I didn't notice two barrels nor did I see him reload. Troops who sack a Pawnee camp wear Shakos. Did US troops out west ever wear such headgear in the 1802's or earlier? |
altfritz | 01 Feb 2016 3:24 p.m. PST |
The thread in the Plus Boards has covered the pistol…don't know about shakos. |
Norman D Landings | 01 Feb 2016 3:25 p.m. PST |
I noticed the two shots (from the French Trapper's pistol) and it was only after that I tried to get a good look at the weapon… which, of course, we never get a good view of from that point! I'd assume it's a double barrel, because he certainly doesn't reload. |
raylev3 | 01 Feb 2016 4:32 p.m. PST |
I assumed he had two pistols. |
jdpintex | 01 Feb 2016 4:48 p.m. PST |
Yeah noticed that one also. Biggest nit was that the incident happened in August, not the dead of winter. But winter is much prettier |
raylev3 | 01 Feb 2016 6:56 p.m. PST |
The movie isn't historical. In fact it was BASED on a fiction novel, that was BASED on the original survival story. ("Based on" twice removed!) In real life he didn't have a son, and when he finally caught up with Bridger and Fitzgerald, who had joined the army, he did not kill them. (Heck, my wife still reminds me that I ruined the love story part of Braveheart.) |
vtsaogames | 01 Feb 2016 8:53 p.m. PST |
I have less of a problem with the fiction than I do with the two shot flintlock pistol. |
Zephyr1 | 01 Feb 2016 10:30 p.m. PST |
I have a replica 18th century English 2-barrel flintlock pistol. It's a heavy beast, even for a non-firing museum gift shop piece… ;-) |
Raynman | 02 Feb 2016 8:28 a.m. PST |
What about it being the middle of the winter and he seems to be constantly drenched! Hello, hypothermia, he'd have been dead in the first 24 hours. |
tberry7403 | 02 Feb 2016 9:30 a.m. PST |
"Don't confuse the issue with facts." |
Phrodon | 02 Feb 2016 10:54 a.m. PST |
I was wondering about the uniforms and head gear as well. But I am by no means an expert on the period. I thought it was a great movie. Sure, he should have been dead from about 100 things (hypothermia, blood loss, shock, rotting flesh, open wounds, etc). And as Tim noted above, it is bloody cold in Canada. Especially since he was soaked almost the entire time. But, that did not ruin the movie for me. I just let it carry me along. The bear fight was awesome. When the paw was pressing on his head and you could see the bear's breath. Just terrifying.And when his shoulder was ripped open. Yikes! And the opening battle scene was just terrific. One thing that really stood out for me, was how cool looking and gritty the Natives were. They were tough, no nonsense dudes. And scary looking. Not your typical Hollywood Indians. They looked like they were part of the land. Chiseled from stone, dirty, hard and mean. Mike |
vtsaogames | 02 Feb 2016 2:17 p.m. PST |
Yes, a lot of Indian actors got work. |
Condotta | 02 Feb 2016 3:56 p.m. PST |
The natives did not have recurved bows, yet the self bows shot arrows that had amazing penetration through bodies wearing coats and animal skin clothing…accurate or Horrywood? |
Garryowen | 03 Feb 2016 8:35 a.m. PST |
Arrows would penetrate buffalo, so I don't see why that part was wrong. Lots of other parts were though as noted above. I have read of some Indians shooting an arrow clear through a buffalo. Also Fitzgerald did desert Glass (bad enough), but he didn't murder anybody else that I have read of. Tom |
Oh Bugger | 03 Feb 2016 12:38 p.m. PST |
The bow thing is accurate enough at short range. The Welsh used self bows and could penetrate mail armour giving the Normans a fright. I'm looking forward to seeing this film. |
Russ Lockwood | 06 Feb 2016 4:10 p.m. PST |
Warning: Some plot discussion below. If you haven't seen the movie, and intend to, you might want to skip this comment… Just saw this yesterday. I was wondering about the double shot scene and the shakos, but didn't particularly bother me. I did wonder how the bad guy got the safe open. Again, no biggee. I didn't read the book or know anything about the movie before going in. Scenery was spectacular, atmosphere was vivid, DiCaprio was suitably intense. I was bothered more by the clichés taken from old Westerns revolving around the plot. He gets an ankle injury (broken?) that heals in a couple days. He escapes via river swim…over a waterfall. He's found by the wandering Indian and healed with folk remedies (moss?). He's going to fall off a horse when too exhausted. He's going to cut open a horse and crawl in. (I refrained from saying…'And I thought it smelled bad on the outside.'). He's going to use the play dead trick. No gunfight at the end of the revenge trail…nope, it's knife vs. hatchet. On the plus side, I didn't see the bear attack coming. I didn't see the horse over cliff move -- I thought he would ride and jump back in the river again like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I'm still confused about the Indian chief trying to find his daughter and slaughtering everyone in his wake. He would pop up every so often. It got a little comical after a while, at least to me, but I thought the opening attack was quite well done. It's hard to come up with something original when studios are probably clamoring for safe plots. Overall, it meandered along for a couple hours, some good parts, some dull parts, some intense parts, some roll-your-eye parts, some superhero-movie parts, and so on. Overall, OK. |