Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[dkelly26666]

Killers of the Flower Moon has never received 'middling reviews', LOL.

It currently holds a 93 % on RT, EQUAL to Oppenheimer, and a Metacritic score of 89, compared to Oppenheimer's 88 percent.

Both are strongly acclaimed, and in fact, Killers may be slightly more acclaimed.

Don't care if it didn't burn up the box office, and don't know yet if it will win major awards.Not that that matters, either.

It's still a masterwork, and will have a very long shelf life.

It's simply of no further use to engage with a certain someone. I've rarely seen someone so obsessed over something they don't like. (Even though they've never seen it). He behaves as though it's literally a personal vendetta. And anytime I see someone in another thread complaining about movies 'virtue signaling', I've pretty well got their number, at that point. We're talking to brick wall. Or a brick troll.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

In order to interpret art you first have to, you know, actually experience said art. Maybe you should start a separate thread discussing the merits of the book and reserve your comments on the film until you've actually seen it.

You and others make me laugh. Since you are either incapable or unwilling to address the objective aspects of how Scorsese licensed a property that had the potential to equal Oppenheimer at the box office on the merits of the story as contained in the book, and instead flushed it down the drain to the cry of millions of Benjamin's weeping in pain, it's all about me.

Scorsese, not me, decided to speak at length in regard to his decision to marginalize one of the two major characters in the book and alter the gestalt of an incredibly written non-fiction story.

If you have an issue with my posts, take it up with him.

My advice to him would be different, and that he should take a page out of Nolan's blueprint for Oppenheimer.

When you find a great book, don't f*ck it up trying to please a specific audience or the Academy.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

So your argument is based upon accusing someone of not reading the book because their interpretation of the book may not align with your own, said interpretation completely ignoring the fact it was an award-winning, critically-lauded accomplishment as structured? Got it.

If your interpretation of the Grann's book is as basic as you have just stated, then let me suggest, in the kindest manner possible, that you consider giving the book another read.

As I shared in my earlier post, humans interpret art through the lens of their personal beliefs and biases, the practical outcome of which can sometimes result in blind spots.

My argument is based on the reality that Grann's book isn't as nearly impressed with Tom White and his merry band of feds as you are. Killers of the Flower Moon has a very clever structure. By the time you reach the end of part two--the portion of the book that focuses on the FBI investigation and trials of Burkhart, Blackie Thompson, and Hale--you think that Grann has more or less wrapped up his tale, with White pitched as the proverbial, white-hatted white guy with a badge, riding to the rescue and bringing justice to the Osage people. Part three, though, shrewdly undercuts any myth of FBI heroism that might be taken away from a superficial reading of part two.

[Show spoiler](Really, this is all foreshadowed early in part two, when Grann makes a point of emphasizing how the entire investigation into the Osage murders was motivated solely by Hoover's attempt to save his own ass after his operatives royally botched a different investigation around the same time and place.)

As you read part three, you witness Grann effectively dismantle the FBI investigation he had just finished detailing; revealing the leads they failed to follow up on; the obvious clues they glossed over; the larger conspiracy beyond easier "game" like Burkhart, Blackie Thompson, and Hale that they entirely missed in their urgency to take the heat off the Bureau and justify the whole operation with charges that promised to grab both convictions and headlines. (A tiny handful of legit villains went down, but justice was decidedly not brought to the Osage.) And while Grann reserves genuine admiration for White's personal integrity and competence as a lawman, he also doesn't have any illusions about his and the FBI's ultimate importance to the story of the Osage murders. Which is why, besides the mystery of the dozens of murders and robberies the feds failed to investigate, a greater enigma comes to the forefront in part three that eclipses all that has come before: the relationship between Ernest and Mollie Burkhart.

There is a recurring motif throughout the book that blossoms into an overarching theme by its final portion: "Who could have done something like this?", ask various Osage along the way. And while part two appears at first to answer this question with its procedural format, following along as White and his team ferret out perpetrators, the author then opts to pursue the greater implications of this query by trying to fathom the complex, paradoxical marriage between white, ne'er-do-well turned bandit, killer, and ostensibly devoted husband and father, Ernest; and Osage, family- and oil-rich, devoted wife, mother, and victim, Mollie. Scorsese rightly zeroes in on this riddle as the most central to and emblematic of Grann's themes as an outsider trying to make sense of the resounding damage done to a threatened culture by ruthless greed and prerogative. (There have been a million procedural films, but relatively few ambitious enough to approach a historical case like this one in terms of such a timelessly human quandary.)

And while, as an artist's interpretation of history, Scorsese's film can't help but be a botch to some extent--simply because it's not helmed by someone with the cultural insights to do full justice to the subject; something only an Osage filmmaker could provide--Grann's book was also written from this outsider's perspective. As an adaptation of that perspective, it's difficult for me to see how it could've been done better. Spiritually, it's a smashingly successful filmization of Grann's document.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

It's simply of no further use to engage with a certain someone. I've rarely seen someone so obsessed over something they don't like. (Even though they've never seen it). He behaves as though it's literally a personal vendetta. And anytime I see someone in another thread complaining about movies 'virtue signaling', I've pretty well got their number, at that point. We're talking to brick wall. Or a brick troll.

You're back. There's a big surprise. You're entitled to whatever opinions you choose, about this film, about my posts, about whatever, what difference does it make, the content in my posts remains the same.

After all, if you believe a film making a mockery of one of the best non-fiction reads in donkey's years or losing upwards of $200M+ in Hollywood is no big deal and not worthy of discussion, what do you believe your opinion is worth?

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

My argument is based on the reality that Grann's book isn't as nearly impressed with Tom White and his merry band of feds as you are.

What makes you believe that "I'm impressed with Tom White and his merry band of feds?"

That's your bias, not mine. Have you considered that you are so focused on the victimization of the Osage that perhaps you have missed the larger story? The problem with that story is simply it's not really all that interesting, just an endless cycle of violence, one of many such stories with very predictable endings.

The book is parable about human frailty and how certain frailties shaped this country, for better or worse, and how in spite of such fragility some find their way clear. If you are blinded by sides, you just might miss the lesson contained within its pages and the beautifully rendered truth which governs us all.

It's a real shame Scorsese missed it, or chose to overlook its truth for his own purpose.

[Stanis]

Killers of the Flower Moon, best film of the year

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Stanis

Killers of the Flower Moon, best film of the year

Better than the book?

[spanky87]

Couldn’t catch this in theatres but can’t wait to see the latest Scorsese/DiCaprio opus as soon as it hits streaming. Loved all their collabs so far (except Gangs which is just alright). Hopefully that rumoured date of next week is true.

Mastroianni has turned me off from ever reading the book, so this will have to serve as the definitive telling of the story for me. But I’m certain to be in good hands here.

[cgpublic]

Hope there's no hard feelings. I mean I get it. You're a Scorsese fan. Perfectly understood. And I'll always have the book to re-read, and it's okay you haven't read it, don't plan to, or do, suit yourself. And I do plan to screen the film once it appears on Apple TV. Might even share my thoughts right here in this thread. That will be something.

Right now I'm envisioning lots of 'Violence Ala Scorsese' with some hokey Americana playing in the background, DeNiro making his Ace Rothstein face, you know, the one where his mouth gets kinda scrunched up, and Leo is there too, channelling something, someone I've seen before but didn't like very much, and scores of white men with nefarious intentions surrounding the Osage, and Lily, yes Lily, with a halo.

And it goes on. And on. And on. Until we get it. For the umpteenth time.

Can't wait.

[Jay Mammoth]

Another Scorsese masterpiece, haters are dumb. Need to preorder the 4K.

[Stanis]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Better than the book?

Films are different than books, made for different reasons, made differently. This is a good film, best Ive seen this year. Probably would join a book forum to discuss the book's qualities myself. I will say its rare when a film is better than the book, but it has happened before. Different mediums are different.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

What makes you believe that "I'm impressed with Tom White and his merry band of feds?"

That's your bias, not mine. Have you considered that you are so focused on the victimization of the Osage that perhaps you have missed the larger story? The problem with that story is simply it's not really all that interesting, just an endless cycle of violence, one of many such stories with very predictable endings.

The book is parable about human frailty and how certain frailties shaped this country, for better or worse, and how in spite of such fragility some find their way clear. If you are blinded by sides, you just might miss the lesson contained within its pages and the beautifully rendered truth which governs us all.

It's a real shame Scorsese missed it, or chose to overlook its truth for his own purpose.

The way you only ever speak of the book's ostensible themes in vague, possibly meaningless generalities (i.e., "parable about human frailty", "beautifully rendered truth which governs us all", etc.) suggests to me that you aren't as certain of your reading of the book as you purport to be here. While I think I've demonstrated with my very specific analysis that I have at least a fairly solid grasp of the thrust of Grann's work; and, subsequently, Scorsese's, which does Grann's effort proud.

Of course, we're living in an era of alarmingly poor media literacy and terminally-online fanaticism, so if you choose to view Grann's work like a fundie views holy writ (hint: they tend to be positively vigorous at missing the bigger picture, as well), that's on you.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

You and others make me laugh. And if Matrix was here, he'd laugh too.

Scorsese, not me, decided to speak at length in regard to his decision to marginalize one of the two major characters in the book and alter the gestalt of an incredibly written non-fiction story.

If you have an issue with my posts, take it up with him.

Does that include the titles?

[dkelly26666]

Yes, I'm back.

And for the sake of clarity, I meant I was 'completely done' with the topic of this film's "Inferiority due to its box office failure", not discussing the film itself in any meaningful way. I meant I'm finished with reading a brick wall that reads endlessly and repititiously (akin to 'Makes Jack a dull boy') about losing 200 million, box office failure means it sucks, and it doesn't follow the book, etc.

It's one thing to have a difference of opinion. It's another altogether to be a deliberately obnoxious, repititious troll. I've seen people get banned on here for less.

[Cremildo]

Thread-crapping is often given a free pass here, despite being against forum rules. I don't understand why.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Thread-crapping is often given a free pass here, despite being against forum rules. I don't understand why.

This is literally the rule:

'Don't threadcrap. In other words don't go into a thread about golfing and post "golf sucks" etc. It's unconstructive and it insults people who like golf.
If you can't contribute anything positive to the thread don't respond at all - just report the post if you think it should be reported.'

[Lee A Stewart]

‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ – Apple’s big-screen gamble hits $200M-$250M

https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/11/kille...e-flower-moon/

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Stanis

Killers of the Flower Moon, best film of the year

Many film critics agree with you. And indeed it might win the Best Picture Oscar.
It's going to be a super fun evening on March 10, with all the usual suspects from all sides of the movie industry. May the best win ... it's a tough one.

* I think Oppenheimer will get the most Oscars, if The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) get all their stars aligned perfectly on that evening's sky.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ – Apple’s big-screen gamble hits $200M-$250M

https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/11/kille...e-flower-moon/

Apple's flying to the Moon ...

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Thread-crapping is often given a free pass here, despite being against forum rules. I don't understand why.

This is a terrible take. Threads about movies are not meant to be suck up threads or dick riding threads or toxic positivity threads.

This is a thread for a movie. It is absolutely perfectly legitimate for someone to come here and trash the movie as they want. That is the essense of film criticism - it is the discussion of a film's merits. Cinema is also a business so it's fair game to discuss commercial aspects of a film.

I would say this is about my favorite film of the year too. It is perfectly legitimate for anyone to go in there and tear it to pieces.

I see this zeal to get dissenting voices banned as troubling and indicative of infantalization. Tough luck kids - different human beings think differently from you. Grow up and accept that. You don't need to have soul shattering trauma every time someone disagrees with you.

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Thread-crapping is often given a free pass here, despite being against forum rules. I don't understand why.

Originally Posted by slumcat

This is a terrible take. Threads about movies are not meant to be suck up threads or dick riding threads or toxic positivity threads.

This is a thread for a movie. It is absolutely perfectly legitimate for someone to come here and trash the movie as they want. That is the essense of film criticism - it is the discussion of a film's merits. Cinema is also a business so it's fair game to discuss commercial aspects of a film.

I would say this is about my favorite film of the year too. It is perfectly legitimate for anyone to go in there and tear it to pieces.

I see this zeal to get dissenting voices banned as troubling and indicative of infantalization. Tough luck kids - different human beings think differently from you. Grow up and accept that. You don't need to have soul shattering trauma every time someone disagrees with you.

This is a rule that Blu-ray.com has established. Too often members come in and crap on a film over and over and over which gets quite tiring. You've got a member here now that hasn't even bothered to watch the film but has crapped all over it in numerous threads. What's the point of that?