Well that is the general critical and commercial census at least. Between Inarritu's second best director Oscar and long awaited internet meme sensation that is Leo DiCaprio winning Best Actor, the hype train on this beast of a film has been riding high and mighty for some time and probably will continue to do so and a lot of its success is completely earned by it being one of the most intense motion picture experiences of last year.
But does it deserve it?
Specifically do the two men of the hour deserve it?
Now before you disregard this as mere slander of a popular film just to grab attention hear me out as I still thoroughly enjoyed The Revenant for its spectacle, action, tension and being absolutely bloody gorgeous to look at.
However many seem to either overlook or flat out ignore multiple necessary faults the film has while the efforts of both Inarritu and Dicaprio have been glorified into something they are not.
Up until now Inarritu has been a completely overrated director with his previous films such as Babel being overly pretentious, boring and jarring to watch and Birdman being good but amounting to not much more than upper class-first world-white people problems. At least that is how they resonated with me.
When looking at his portfolio of work Inarritu strikes me as a hollywood director that is convinced of the fact that he is actually an independent art house darling, aiming to make all his movies have a pivotal point or relevant social commentary which in reality amounts to little more than a specific quirk to each of his films. In Birdman it was the continuous shot and in The Revenant it is the natural lighting. I gave up on watching Babel and I have not seen Biutiful yet so I cannot speak for those.
The attention is in the wrong place here. While I definitely admire him for having the stones to actually shove his entire cast and crew into some the most in-hospital places on the planet just to get the actual look and feel of what was actually happening to fur trappers back in the 1800's.
And that absolutely paid off. If even one scene had been shot in a studio and green screen the whole thing would have fallen apart and commend Inarritu pushing against it.
The problem is he is so obsessed with the shot that he doesn't ever let any of them end.
The Revenant drinking game; a shot for every drawn out wide shot of the sky that lasts several times longer than it should. Warning! Players maybe prone to liver failure!
Now this has been a common complaint of the film among the majority of critics and rightly so. While the scenery in these shot is absolutely breathtaking, its effect is immediately dulled when nothing is actually happening in it. Allowing time for the audience to breathe is necessary in all films but the same specific thing happens far too frequently to do anything other than bore those watching it.
This is because I think (I obviously don't know) that Inarritu does get what make the story of Hugh Glass interesting. For those who don't know Hugh Glass was an expert fur trapper in 1800's, famed for being left for dead after a near fatal attack from a grizzly bear. Glass clawed, gnawed and roared his way back health and set out to get the man who left him behind and took his gun, John Fitzgerald (which is easily one of Tom Hardy's best performances to date by the way). 
In the film Glass has a son whom is killed by Fitzgerald while in the process of leaving him, making avenging his son Glass's motivation for continuing to survive. This was not what actually happened. Glass's actual son in real life was Bridger, Will Pouters character which was altered for the film, and left willingly with Fitzgerald. When Glass returned he forgave Bridger but left soon after in search of Fitzgerald to 'get his gun back'. A trip of which he never returned.
I understand why the writers made this change to Glass to supposedly give 'more emotional' investment in the character but I honestly think this hurts the character more than it builds upon it.
Glass's motivation wasn't avenging his family it was born out of bitterness and anger and instead of giving us an intriguing character whose sheer will to survive from the brink death came entirely from spite.
Instead we get the less interesting 'hollywood' avenging hero, complete with the vengeance doesn't pay moral conclusion that has been done so many times before.
I wish that Inarritu word stop focusing about the point or the message of his films because here they really don't amount to much more than a standard action film.
And The Revenant as it is, is at its core an action film.
Remove the long takes, the flashbacks and the relatively uninspired imagery and what remains is an exceptional, gripping action film.
The crunching of tomahawk against bone, the thud of arrows thumping into chests, the boom of flintlock rifles and the BEAR SCENE.
When something is physically happening on screen, every sense goes into overload as the camera rocks back and forth with swinging violence onscreen and the sound of every slice, stab and bite feels a whisker away from your ear.
Seriously, once Inarritu gets it into his head that action is what is best at and should be the main focus of his future films he could create something mind-blowing.
The other notable problem with The Revenant is of course with Leo.
Poor old Leo. He has been waiting for his Oscar for nearly 20 years and after all that time he is awarded the golden statue for what might just be the more underwhelming performances of his career.
His performance isn't bad in this film he just isn't given enough to do to add any character to Glass other than 'he took my son from me' which really has nothing to with Glass's actual character. Yes Leo does repeatedly have the ever-living shit beaten so frequently I was amazed he was able to walk up to the podium and except his award.
Many are calling this a legacy award for his prolific career and his many memorable performances but honestly his performance in this film really isn't anything close to extraordinary or even among his best work. In fact the only time I think he was near deserving a best actor nom/win (bare in mind I haven't seen What's Eating Gilbert Grape, The Aviator or Blood Diamond) was for his portrayal of Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street (even though that year I would have given it to Chiwetel Ejiofor).
DiCaprio seems to almost be typecast as 'The Hollywood Leading Man', basically being a similar character that can be applied across many different genres with little nuance in between. Not to say this is bad, DiCaprio has proven himself a bankable, charismatic and clearly talented leading man many times but his best work is when he is far outside his comfort zone.
Unsurprisingly I feel that Leo's most formidable performance was when he became the character of Calvin J Candie for Django Unchained and was criminally not even nominated that year for what was easily some of the best acting that year, matched only by co-star Christolph Waltz for obvious reasons.
Looking back I feel like I have given both Inarritu and Dicaprio a real shit-kicking but it simply irritates me that almost everybody is praising both for the wrong things and reasons.
As for the film itself, it's good. Probably just one rewrite and a bit of editing away from being something truly great however given the way critics are praising Inarritu for his direction I don't feel we will ever see him come this close to another thoroughbred action film again which saddens me.
