In The Heart Of The Sea http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1390411/reference
here is my argument: HotS shows people being just as miserable, poor and hurt as The Revenant does, except it does so IN COLOR!
Would the revenant really be worse if they tried to inject some life into it?
The story of the Essex Nantucket, whaling ship commandeered by the incompetent Cpt. Pollard, gets wrecked by the sea, and finally sunk by Moby Dick. The few survivors make they slow way back with the experienced First Mate Chase at the lead, through starvation and cannibalism, to port and to reveal the truth about their expedition and their captain, Pollard.
I enjoyed this overtly long film (yet varied enough to keep my attention), due to the multitude of colorful characters, the gorgeous settings (the ship is beautiful), the fairly solid acting, and good production.
The revenant tries some more fancy camerawork, while HotS keeps it simple, and is far friendlier to the audience than Leo's Bear Butt-Rape* film. The various changes of pace in HotS are also welcome, and while Revenant's constant increasing of tension is an acceptable way to tell a story, i found HotS's two hours to go by faster and more pleasantly. I find both films lacking in content.
*joke
I would recommend In The Heart Of The Sea to anyone who think they're in the mood for a "serious" film, but do not want to commit to something too intense, say, "Nightcrawler". It's also a fairly good documentary, and imho that's its biggest audience draw.
7/10, same as revenant, more fun, but less pain.