This is a hilarious statement in a universe where Zack Snyder exists, among others
No THIS is a ridiculous statement. It's like saying 50 Shades novels are overrated.
To be over-rated, you need to be rated - as in even be remotely acclaimed.
Critics takes turns tearing apart Snyder films limb to limb, then stomp on the corpse of his films while they take a smoke break. In what multiverse is Zack Snyder even capable of being called overrated. He'd happily take the rare positive review at this point - that he gets once every millennium.
Approximately an hour deep in the proceedings of Killers of the Flower Moon, a film set in early 1920s Osage Nation (Oklahoma), an Osage tribal leader references the word ‘genocide’ to describe the treatment of the Osage by the United States. As the word ‘genocide’ was not created until 1944, a momentarily distraction occurred during my screening as I wondered if this gaffe was an oversight or by design?
Perhaps we can only assume that $200M+ doesn’t necessarily guarantee a historical fact checker, or a straight forward representation of the non-fiction source material, take your pick.
For this viewer, it all adds up to a chore of an unfocused and unconvincing film that is based on a non-fiction book that is, if nothing else, a taut and persuasive read. A film that sets aside the compelling argument that the story of the Osage murders is a parable for our county, setting aside the narrative of a nation in turmoil and transition to instead provide a heavily fictionalized story of a husband and wife set within a limitless white prairie of greed, avarice and murder.
That’s Hollywood, or as once said with frequency on the lot, that’s entertainment! Or is it?
A staggering three and half hours in total, the biggest question remaining is which group of actors will win the bigger booby prize, those responsible for the caricatures of white country bumpkins and red Osage boozers populating nearly every aspect of this film, or those pretending to be film critics who have voted this film not only one of the year’s best, or better yet, a masterpiece, standing head and shoulders with Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas.
Having seen every film directed by Scorsese, I can’t think of one which left me so completely disappointed as KOTFM, and that was after reducing my expectations to nearly nil after learning of the film’s well-publicized budget, length, casting and script decisions.
Even more troubling is how KOTFM is so completely non-representative of Scorsese’s considerable talent and well-deserved reputation as cinema’s greatest living director, and instead offers only a weak copy of his cinematic hallmarks as if orchestrated by an amateur. Granted, there were significant signs of his diminishment to be found in his most recent works, e.g., Silence and The Irishman, combined with an opinion that it has been decades since his last masterpiece. But nothing prepared me for the level of decline found here, which it pains me to say, borders on embarrassment, and given the runtime, repetitively so.
Nearly every exchange intended to add a small measure of lightness to the overwhelmingly grim proceedings, a Scorsese hallmark, here simply falls flat without the jovial camaraderie to be found in his best work.
These attempts are often haphazardly juxtaposed with scenes of graphic violence which are wholly inappropriate, narratively unnecessary and ultimately disrespectful to the memory of the Osage who were murdered.
As the film lurches to its final death throes, we have an entire scene which is lifted from Days of Heaven, once again without narrative purpose, and certainly without the majesty of Malick’s masterpiece.
But these are just minor complaints in the grand scheme of things, as is the pain of watching Leo playing a one-note simpleton with the same stolen Sling Blade expression for hour After Hours, hand in hand with De Niro wonderfully channeling Jimmy 'The Gent' Burke to almost a comedic effect when he states who was responsible for a crime ala Goodfellas post-hijack diner scene.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the world of these two fine actors, but miscast isn’t the word. The word I’m looking for is mistake, as there’s not a single moment in this film where you are not acutely aware they are actors playing a role, and not the characters themselves.
Lily Gladstone? Supposedly a lead role, yet scripted and related screen time reflects a supporting turn, and never really delivers her story. Well played? Sure, yet much like Leo and Bob, her character lacks a clearly defined narrative arc and is more or less a one-note performance. After all is said and done, her character is left at the end of the film as she began, her final scene asking a question that is redundant given the proceedings of the preceding act.
I’m not even going to get into the coda, as if the audience needed a reminder that after close to four hours, that this film completely fails to deliver anything other than some people are capable of anything when it comes to serving their self-interest. No, it required Scorsese himself to take the stage and somehow try to remind us and salvage the proceedings in what must of been a devastating acknowledgement of its misguided purpose.
I’ve seen that film many times before, but rarely with such a grim and less entertaining effect.
In fact, more than a few with the Scorsese imprint. All eminently enjoyable, with a few bona fide masterpieces for good measure. Like I said, the world's greatest living director, not to mention our greatest champion of cinema.
As the word ‘genocide’ was not created until 1944, a momentarily distraction occurred during my screening as I wondered if this gaffe was an oversight or by design?
That particular word may date back to 1944, but there were other words used before it to describe such an act. In using the modern-day word, they may have decided that the slight anachronism could be excused if it meant that the audience would understand what is being described with that word.
That particular word may date back to 1944, but there were other words used before it to describe such an act. In using the modern-day word, they may have decided that the slight anachronism could be excused if it meant that the audience would understand what is being described with that word.
The word did not exist in the 1920s, so would not have been spoken by an Osage council member.
Understood, but let me expand on that point. If you are going to use that word, and by extension introduce that idea to the audience, well, deliver a film which provides a compelling argument to that end.
Which to be clear, is not the gestalt of the book, but that's a decision for the filmmaker.
As an additional point of clarification, there’s no denying there was a methodical attempt to murder many of the Osage who were benefiting from oil royalties, at least a few dozen and perhaps upwards of 100 out of a tribe of two or three thousand. But it should also be understood that in spite of whatever acts of violence or biases the US government and the American people may have conducted or held against the Osage, and all indigenous peoples for that matter, ultimately they did bring those guilty of crimes against the Osage to justice which in turn led to the creation of the FBI.
All of the above is an aspect of the book that is severely minimized in the film, as noted by Scorsese, to reduce the impression of a 'white savior' and to tell a different story, one can only assume that would play far better on the awards circuit and not engender a backlash by elevating the story of Tom White.
Not mentioned in the film, the US government changed the law so that non-Osage could not inherit mineral rights, and compensated the Osage People for their losses from a monetary perspective.
Heinous crimes against the Osage? Absolutely.
Government sponsored genocide, in any expression? Not based on the story told in the film, in spite of every attempt to diminish the content of the book.
To be over-rated, you need to be rated - as in even be remotely acclaimed.
I see your point, but...
Someone else had already mentioned Chris Nolan, which I 100% agree with. So I was going for a different target, not critically over rated, but over rated by legions of fans instead. Then continually commissioned by the studios to make mediocre films. perhaps I should have said Joss Whedon instead? Or David Gordon Green? Or Ti West? Lars Von Trier can eff off personally. Pick whoever you like but the condistency of Scorsese's filmography beginning to end will probably stand alongside that of Hawks, Hitchcock or Welles etc and imo equals properly rated, not over.
I see your point, but...
Someone else had already mentioned Chris Nolan, which I 100% agree with. So I was going for a different target, not critically over rated, but over rated by legions of fans instead. Then continually commissioned by the studios to make mediocre films. perhaps I should have said Joss Whedon instead? Or David Gordon Green? Or Ti West? Lars Von Trier can eff off personally. Pick whoever you like but the condistency of Scorsese's filmography beginning to end will probably stand alongside that of Hawks, Hitchcock or Welles etc and imo equals properly rated, not over.
But you do you slumkitty
I feel Hitchcock, Welles and Hawks are humiliated to be compared to Scorsese. Well not humiliated, Scorsese has made some very good films, but he's not the second coming of jesus christ.
Lars on the other hand is I think UNDERrated. To me he's one of the most extraordinary artists of the past 3 decades or so. Stunningly original, provocative and legitimately advancing cinema as a medium. He should have the stature and acclaim that Scorsese has. And then some.
Approximately an hour deep in the proceedings of Killers of the Flower Moon, a film set in early 1920s Osage Nation (Oklahoma), an Osage tribal leader references the word ‘genocide’ to describe the treatment of the Osage by the United States. As the word ‘genocide’ was not created until 1944, a momentarily distraction occurred during my screening as I wondered if this gaffe was an oversight or by design?
Perhaps we can only assume that $200M+ doesn’t necessarily guarantee a historical fact checker, or a straight forward representation of the non-fiction source material, take your pick.
For this viewer, it all adds up to a chore of an unfocused and unconvincing film that is based on a non-fiction book that is, if nothing else, a taut and persuasive read. A film that sets aside the compelling argument that the story of the Osage murders is a parable for our county, setting aside the narrative of a nation in turmoil and transition to instead provide a heavily fictionalized story of a husband and wife set within a limitless white prairie of greed, avarice and murder.
That’s Hollywood, or as once said with frequency on the lot, that’s entertainment! Or is it?
A staggering three and half hours in total, the biggest question remaining is which group of actors will win the bigger booby prize, those responsible for the caricatures of white country bumpkins and red Osage boozers populating nearly every aspect of this film, or those pretending to be film critics who have voted this film not only one of the year’s best, or better yet, a masterpiece, standing head and shoulders with Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas.
Having seen every film directed by Scorsese, I can’t think of one which left me so completely disappointed as KOTFM, and that was after reducing my expectations to nearly nil after learning of the film’s well-publicized budget, length, casting and script decisions.
Even more troubling is how KOTFM is so completely non-representative of Scorsese’s considerable talent and well-deserved reputation as cinema’s greatest living director, and instead offers only a weak copy of his cinematic hallmarks as if orchestrated by an amateur. Granted, there were significant signs of his diminishment to be found in his most recent works, e.g., Silence and The Irishman, combined with an opinion that it has been decades since his last masterpiece. But nothing prepared me for the level of decline found here, which it pains me to say, borders on embarrassment, and given the runtime, repetitively so.
Nearly every exchange intended to add a small measure of lightness to the overwhelmingly grim proceedings, a Scorsese hallmark, here simply falls flat without the jovial camaraderie to be found in his best work.
These attempts are often haphazardly juxtaposed with scenes of graphic violence which are wholly inappropriate, narratively unnecessary and ultimately disrespectful to the memory of the Osage who were murdered.
As the film lurches to its final death throes, we have an entire scene which is lifted from Days of Heaven, once again without narrative purpose, and certainly without the majesty of Malick’s masterpiece.
But these are just minor complaints in the grand scheme of things, as is the pain of watching Leo playing a one-note simpleton with the same stolen Sling Blade expression for hour After Hours, hand in hand with De Niro wonderfully channeling Jimmy 'The Gent' Burke to almost a comedic effect when he states who was responsible for a crime ala Goodfellas post-hijack diner scene.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the world of these two fine actors, but miscast isn’t the word. The word I’m looking for is mistake, as there’s not a single moment in this film where you are not acutely aware they are actors playing a role, and not the characters themselves.
Lily Gladstone? Supposedly a lead role, yet scripted and related screen time reflects a supporting turn, and never really delivers her story. Well played? Sure, yet much like Leo and Bob, her character lacks a clearly defined narrative arc and is more or less a one-note performance. After all is said and done, her character is left at the end of the film as she began, her final scene asking a question that is redundant given the proceedings of the preceding act.
I’m not even going to get into the coda, as if the audience needed a reminder that after close to four hours, that this film completely fails to deliver anything other than some people are capable of anything when it comes to serving their self-interest. No, it required Scorsese himself to take the stage and somehow try to remind us and salvage the proceedings in what must of been a devastating acknowledgement of its misguided purpose.
I’ve seen that film many times before, but rarely with such a grim and less entertaining effect.
In fact, more than a few with the Scorsese imprint. All eminently enjoyable, with a few bona fide masterpieces for good measure. Like I said, the world's greatest living director, not to mention our greatest champion of cinema.
Not this time. Not this film.
That is perhaps why it's so sporadic in winning awards. It wasn't meant to be that way.
Oh well, the next one should be better ... or will it.
Understood, but let me expand on that point. If you are going to use that word, and by extension introduce that idea to the audience, well, deliver a film which provides a compelling argument to that end.
Which to be clear, is not the gestalt of the book, but that's a decision for the filmmaker.
As an additional point of clarification, there’s no denying there was a methodical attempt to murder many of the Osage who were benefiting from oil royalties, at least a few dozen and perhaps upwards of 100 out of a tribe of two or three thousand. But it should also be understood that in spite of whatever acts of violence or biases the US government and the American people may have conducted or held against the Osage, and all indigenous peoples for that matter, ultimately they did bring those guilty of crimes against the Osage to justice which in turn led to the creation of the FBI.
All of the above is an aspect of the book that is severely minimized in the film, as noted by Scorsese, to reduce the impression of a 'white savior' and to tell a different story, one can only assume that would play far better on the awards circuit and not engender a backlash by elevating the story of Tom White.
Not mentioned in the film, the US government changed the law so that non-Osage could not inherit mineral rights, and compensated the Osage People for their losses from a monetary perspective.
Heinous crimes against the Osage? Absolutely.
Government sponsored genocide, in any expression? Not based on the story told in the film, in spite of every attempt to diminish the content of the book.
What happened to the Osage during the “Reign of Terror” was absolutely genocide, directly sponsored by the US government or not. Washington had already conducted plenty of that against them and other native tribes by that point, so their skirts were hardly clean. Which I’m sure is an important point the Osage people wanted observed in this film. (Historical retellings given relevance for modern day audiences is about as fundamental an approach to the genre as there is. You want a dry, academic recounting of a historical event without artistic license, go read a history book aimed at academics.)
Speaking of reading books, although Grann’s work is a popular, not academic one, and is certainly not absent of interpretation for artistic purposes, if you’d read it as closely as you claim to have, you somehow wouldn’t have failed to notice the obvious pains he takes to illustrate that the FBI and American legal system did not, in fact, bring justice to the Osage people; not by a long shot. A mere three perps out of several dozen, if not hundreds, complicit in the genocide that was executed against the Osage being sent up the river for a time and subsequently paroled for “good behavior” hardly constitutes a compassionate view of “justice”. Neither Grann nor Scorsese are misled on this point, as you are.
Last edited by dancerslegs; 01-18-2024 at 11:44 AM.
What happened to the Osage during the “Reign of Terror” was absolutely genocide.
Let's just leave it with my opinion that we disagree on the definition of how the word 'genocide' is, or should be, defined.
I'll add that if we were to apply your definition of the word, then the Osage themselves, along with many other indigenous tribes, would be guilty of the same behaviors, which is historical fact.
Regardless of how we may differ in our in interpretation of the word, there should be no doubt that the film KOTFM does not make a very compelling case that the US government, and not a handful of individuals, adopted such a policy specifically to the events depicted in the film.
Unless, of course, you are already pre-disposed to hold such a belief, which is your right.
Lemme guess Costner deserved the Oscar over Scorsese too..
Has nothing to do with “young males” the fact is the movies you just named either inspired generations of filmmakers or transcended the genre. Dances did neither. Its not a bad film. Its a good one in fact but its no Goodfellas
As I have already explained multiple times, Costner was deserving of the award, and if Scorsese had won it he would have been equally deserving.
There was no "injustice" in Dances With Wolves winning over Goodfellas in any of those categories.
Trotting out how many click-bait lists Goodfellas has been on, or how many other filmmakers it has inspired is irrelevant. When the awards were handed out in 1991, it was recognized as being a well-deserved achievement for Dances With Wolves.
That's the word used once upon a time in the west ...
_____
Speaking of Killers; tough beating from the 2024 BAFTA nominations. ...No Director, no Screenplay, no leading Actress, no leading Actor. Just might as well go home.
Poor Marty; with great power comes great responsibility.
Speaking of Killers; tough beating from the 2024 BAFTA nominations. ...No Director, no Screenplay, no leading Actress, no leading Actor. Just might as well go home.
It will get everything and more at the oscars, don't worry.
As I have already explained multiple times, Costner was deserving of the award, and if Scorsese had won it he would have been equally deserving.
There was no "injustice" in Dances With Wolves winning over Goodfellas in any of those categories.
Trotting out how many click-bait lists Goodfellas has been on, or how many other filmmakers it has inspired is irrelevant. When the awards were handed out in 1991, it was recognized as being a well-deserved achievement for Dances With Wolves.
So many winners felt “deserved” the moment they won but over the years is when its realized that the wrong movie won. I’ll die on a Hill that Costner was undeserving of both awards that year. That’s almost as bad as Forrest Gump beating Shawshank and Pulp.
It will get everything and more at the oscars, don't worry.
I highly doubt it; perhaps one Oscar...and that's a maybe. Two would be Iike a miracle.
It's not me who decide or wish that; it's the sum of all expert moviegoers critics voters. I'm just a simple movie lover human living on planet Earth.
To me Oppenheimer is a much more important and very real film today.
Killers is also an important historic film that keeps repeating, but it won't incinerate humanity.
______
So many winners felt “deserved” the moment they won but over the years is when its realized that the wrong movie won. I’ll die on a Hill that Costner was undeserving of both awards that year. That’s almost as bad as Forrest Gump beating Shawshank and Pulp.
Yes, because that's how the Oscars work, it's a snapshot of what people in the film industry who are voting members of AMPAS think are most deserving at that time.
There was no outcry in 1991 over heavy campaigning for the award like there was for Shakespeare in Love, thus no "injustice". Just because other non-winning films emerge as more popular or influential over time means nothing.
Vertigo has been voted as one of the greatest movies of all time and is very influential but it received zero major nominations in 1959, nevermind actual Oscars. Does that mean now that Gigi was undeserving of all the awards it received? Absolutely not.
The technical skill and artistry that Costner employed (as a first-time director no less) in helming Dances With Wolves was most impressive and he was a well-deserved winner of that Oscar (as was Forrest Gump for that matter).
Funny how easily most people forget the Academy Awards are largely a popularity contest for the industry. And how easily swayed academy members can be, depending on the publicity $pend on Oscar "for your consideration" campaigns.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
I’m not going to finish it cause I wasn’t digging it.
Linear Mode
