Martin Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon

Is there a thread where we can shit on The Whale? Or can we just do that here now?


Personally I think we should be able to use this thread for everything from dunking on Martin Scorseses new movie to how Brendan Fraser should just go back to where he came from to The Whale being a total piece of shit, not to mention the terror of minority representation in film and all of the ideas that is repressing.


Let this thread be a place for everyone!

I liked Whale

Oh good. I can use this thread to post my essay, Oskar Schindler: Got Woke, Went Broke

Those RT rotten reviews kind of summarize my thoughts "right now" having let this digest for a few hours.

i bet it will get few oscars cause it looks so good

So apparently the film is getting backlash because it's not woke enough. Which was no surprise to me when you make films like this you are always going to have an audience that are mad at the story being told.

Anyways I saw it...it was fine but had a number of glaring narrative flaws. Scorsese was clearly more interested in showing the native america ceremonies and customs then telling a cohesive story.

I had no problem with Brendan Fraser's performance. The Whale is a tough act to follow, and for the little screentime he had in this movie I thought he did good. You can't expect someone to turn out Oscar-caliber work every single time.

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

This is a terrible film...elevated into greatness by a master director in Martin Scorsese. This is the story of the Osage County murders over the course of a decade in the 1920's. The Native American's are on the verge of collapse and starvation at the beginning of the film until they strike oil and the 25 surviving families are given portions of oil money every month so the government can use it.

With great wealth comes a group of thieving cowboys who are looking to take advantage of the Native people. King Hale brings in his nephew to work a cab service and basically seduce a diabetic named Mollie. Mollie is one of several sisters who all intermarry with the white men in the story. The bodies slowly pile up and Ernst is stuck between his uncle and his wife/children.

The film is shot beautifully on the actual lands of Osage County. During the course of the film we got from the western era to the start suburban life. It's an interesting contrast between those that own homes and others who live in the woods and prey on the victims. But the film has several serious narrative and tonal issues which makes it a good film but not a great one.

To start off the biggest issue is POV character of Ernst. Now in real life, Ernst was a handsome 20 something man and Mollie was a dour fat woman. Scorsese and Dicaprio decided to age up all the characters 20 years which causes major contradictions with the denouncement/epilogue. We aren't given a love story between Mollie and Ernst rather we get more of a crime story with King and Ernst. But while King is great (and Deniro might get an Oscar) the criminal aspect of the story always takes a back seat.

New and important characters are introduced throughout the 3 hour run time and are given very little payoff. The central investigator is a character who could be at the center of the story is pushed into the background. A deus ex machina type figure if you will. The last half hour of the film could have used another half hour to get all the pieces of the trial together. The story has a perfect ending with a question in a room...but it's end thrown away and wasted by a radio play at the end.

While I haven't seen ten films this year that were better than this...I'm pretty sure I will. This is a solid four star film and a real missed opportunity for a five star miniseries.

Re: Fraser's acting.
The character was a lawyer playing vaudeville dance to the court of public opinion. With Lithgow playing it straight for the court of law, the contrast was high. IMO. It made sense to me.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

Yeah I've not seen it but this comes as no surprise, I read or heard somewhere this was DiCaprio's idea.. Leo felt the original script wasn't centered enough from the native American point of view. Make your own damn movie Leo! And have a ****ing backbone Scorsese!why would you let an actor tell you how to make your movie, just weird, as soon as I heard that I knew this was going to be nothing more than "fine"


Although saying that "The Irishman" was laughably bad, "Silence" failed to live up to the hype in a big way, I think he's been on a downward trend.The last really good movie he made back in 2010 with "Shutter Island"

I saw this last night. I would have much rather seen this story depicted within a documentary for my learning purposes rather than as a feature length film. It is also a good example of what I was talking about in my other thread. This is a very well made film. I can see the technical artistry on display. Scorsese was very effective in showing the pain and suffering of the Osage, dread permeates the film and their fear is palpable, but for me, it just was not enjoyable to watch. I found it excruciatingly painful to watch a 3.5 hour movie about the suffering of the Osage as they were systematically and callously murdered. There was an inordinate amount of focus on that, to the exclusion of many other aspects of the story, that I would have been more interested in, like how they uncovered the plot, investigated, and held the murderers accountable. The FBI guy, who Leonardo DiCaprio was originally supposed to play, does not even show up until 2 hours into the movie, which demonstrates how far this film traveled from the original concept to tell the story. To me, Robert De Neniro gave the best performance. Unfortunately, the only scenes I really enjoyed were the ones towards the end of the film in the court room.

Very sad to hear all that. I'm probably seeing this soon but it does sure have the feeling of a slog, which is certainly something that happens with Scorsese sometimes. There are things about him I trust, and beauty and profundity are among them, but enjoyability, an admittedly broad word, is not one of them. There are several of his films I've watched over and over and seem to never tire of, but there are several I saw once and have never wanted to revisit.

But, it'll get a fair shake, of course.

I didn't find it a slog at all, and I saw it theatrically. It is a depressing subject, of course. But that didn't make it a chore to sit through.

I rather like how Scorsese and company shifted the focus of the story to the Osage rather than just which white men were perpetrating the crimes, and thank goodness it wasn't a procedural about how the white authorities uncovered and prosecuted the crimes. Why the whites wanted the land is clear and needs no deep dive. How they achieved it is also clear and much more emotionally resonant seeing its effect on the people they are brutalizing and murdering than to see a series of backroom deals and schemes, of which we get several. To see that side of it mostly from the perspective of DiCaprio's rather dim and conflicted Ernest Burkhart reveals both how it was done in detail and why eventually it all unraveled to authorities. Jesse Plemons Agent Thomas Bruce White doesn't have to do a whole lot of super sleuthing to figure out what happened. The perpetrators had been so brazen and used to literally getting away with murder they barely covered up what they were doing.

In this case the value of the agency that was about to become the F.B.I. was not in their amazing detective skills but showing exactly why a Federal crime agency is needed. Like many such crimes the local authorities were either complicit or at least willing to turn a blind eye, thus justice in the courts was never going to happen without impartial enforcement. Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon illustrates the need for such an agency, not the procedures they follow to arrest and prosecute.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Well, what did you think about Gangs of New York and Silence? Or, put another way: do you think any of Marty's films to fit this description?

I didn't find Gangs of New York to be a slog, no. Silence is so focused on the interior struggle rather than plot points, as is Kundun, so yes, I can see how those can seem slow. To me plenty happens both in the main plots and peripherally in Gangs of New York and Killers of the Flower Moon that I find them engaging all the way through, despite their running times. Kundun's running time is only 134 minutes but I find it much "slower" than Killers of the Flower Moon's 200+ minutes.

Very close to my impression.

I've seen this film twice. The first viewing in a theater. The second, in the comfort of my couch. Neither of my views felt the actual length of the runtime. The only issue that I can note is my slight confusion on some of the side characters and who they were as they appeared. Oh, and the soundtrack seemed too loud at times, but I feel that was intentional given the context of scenes. I really enjoyed it.

This was just my perspective You may like it! I could be wrong, at least when it comes to your own perception of this. I did find it to be far too long. In my opinion, there is no reason that this story could not have been told in 2 hours.

I thought it had excellent performances from Leonardo DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone, and Robert De Niro. I don't think the film needed to be 3 hours and 26 minutes though. For me, it felt too long. Although this isn't top tier Scorsese, it is still a very good film. 8/10 would be my rating, but it doesn't make my top 10 films of the year.

I just rewatched this at home. Still too long. No movie needs to be 3,5 hours tbh. Then it should be a mini-series or something. 3+ hours of having to focus without any breaks is a lot. I’m not impatient. I’m not part of the tik tok generation. But it still demands a lot if you want to take every aspect in and pay absolute attention for every single minute of the 200+ minutes…

But I won’t call it being bored. I never was. I think it was excellently made, beautifully handled. It certainly has the feel of a movie made by a man who has dedicated his 80+ years of life to cinema. He feels so much in control. Is so patient yet persistent.

I could rewatch it without a problem. He creates a world and breathes life into characters like only Scorsese could do it. He handles his framing and his movement of the camera and tempo of the edits like only Scorsese could do it.

But to me, it should have been a mini-series. Or 2,5-3 hours tops. It’s not like I feel there’s entire segments that could be taken out. So that’s also why I prefer a mini-series. But alas, he didn’t make that, so I’ll gladly rewatch it again down the line. At least at home I’m able to pause it. Just once at least.

It’s a heavy and bleak film that takes its time and it might not be for everyone. But the way Scorsese almost demands your attention and the way he so effortlessly creates peak cinema… is mesmerizing just by itself. Just disappearing into that. Witnessing that. Is enough tbh.

Killers of the Flower Moon>>>>>>Oppenheimer. And it ain’t even a discussion…

-