Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by biglou114

This one didn’t work for me, and on the train ride home I realized that what really bothered me (outside the languished pacing) was I think Leo was very miscast, and he and Jesse Plemons should have swapped roles.

But I agree with everyone else, Lily Gladstone was terrific. A movie from her POV would have been great.

Now that you mention it - I think that is the word I was looking for - miscast.

What's funny is - Dicaprio WAS actually cast in the Plemmons role. And the Plemmons role was the lead role. Then they rewrote the script because apparently Dicaprio didn't want to play that role. So the FBI role was made a side role and the Ernest role was beefed up to the leading role so that Dicaprio could play it.

[thelittleprince]

Only 5 of us at a 10pm showing. A disjointed snoozer 3/5

[Show spoiler]Brendan Fraser’s first lines in the latter part of the film shouting at the top of his lungs in court cracked me up

[captveg]

Maybe it was because of the owl visions, but my mind kept going to Poe's The Raven with regard to the sinister and persistent torment and grief inflicted upon Mollie and the Osage throughout the film. The strangeness of being with Ernest as he contributes to these horrors was quite unsettling, as was his unadmitted self-loathing. Then there's the matter-of-fact coldness of Hale, with his odious "their time has passed, and it can't be helped" justifying philosophy.

The concluding sequence was fascinating. Here we have a naked acknowledgement that this story is yet again being filtered through those of white European ancestry. It was benevolent yet stylized for a particular audience, and as the final speaker reads what is in essence Mollie's biographical obituary it seemed to contain almost endless levels of self-referential commentary. It is both a criticism of how the story had been once told as well as an apology in capping this film's telling.

The final shot as it pulled out was pure poetry.

9/10

[RevolverOcelScott]

6 people incliding myself in my 4pm showing last night.

Used my free birthday large popcorn and soda at my Regal. The popcorn was stale and the "sprite" was straight seltzer, if they weren't free I would probably have complained. Also, I was in the second largest theater aside from their IMAX theater and my seat was unbearable, thankfully no one was there so I could move and find a better seat about 30minutes in, but damn they need a revamp.

The above is just to point out the sorry state of some theaters/theater experience. I usually avoid this particular Regal, but they were the only one with a good showtime that worked for me.


Onto the movie itself...

I enjoyed it, but I indeed felt it was too long. I love long films non-action oriented movies, Seven Samurai, Beau is Afriad, Inland Empire, Godfather, etc. But this one definitely felt it's length. The worst part for me about the length is, there are parts in the beginning that I felt could have been longer (The courting, establishing himself/his home, starting the family) where in the last half, I felt some scenes were not as useful/interesting (personally).

I will also echo what others have said. Great performances all around, but Leo was definitely outshined by Gladstone, but everyone was great in the film. I wish we had a slightly more toned down Fraser, was hoping for more of a role for him too after his return in The Whale.

I set it about a 7/10. Definitely worth seeing, especially on the big screen.

[slip220]

There's an anti-Leo campaign in this thread and i don't understand why

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by slip220

There's an anti-Leo campaign in this thread and i don't understand why

Definitely. It seems that mostly the only people posting in here so far are the ones who wanted to be critical of it in the first place, and seem to have a genuine dislike for DiCaprio.

It is not all over the place, every element is connected. It is simply a wide, complex story of this web of criminals and crimes involved.

I thought the runtime was just fine.

I'm waiting for the people to see it and start posting that will actually get it.

The production design is exemplery, the camera work roves and moves like any Scorsese film. That first drop of Robertson's music early in the film pulled me right in. The performances (yes, even Leo) were terrific.

The first section gives a lot of context into the Osage and their wealth. (The intolerable Grace Randolph strikes again, slamming the film and claiming she couldn't understand it because there wasn't enough context given. Surely she was texting and taking selfies through the first half hour, I suppose).

The final third is pure vintage 'GoodFellas' Scorsese, with De Niro becoming Jimmy Conway all over again (ahem, 'seperating' himself from any connection to the crimes, a la Lufthansa), and Leo being Henry Hill.

Most Scorsese films take some beating with they first get released (like many Kubrick films did; they're never 'as good as his prior work'). There's always a hype, then all these people expressing disappointment, and then the films eventually find their audience and appreciation a bit later ("Casino" was largely despised when first released, now is a classic for the ages).

This one will have a long shelf life.

[eightslicesofpie]

Fantastic movie, and my 3pm Dolby showing yesterday was surprisingly about 1/4th full; I looked at the 7pm Dolby and it was over half full, so hopefully the movie does well this weekend

Need Criterion to release this next year...

[Blu Myers]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Definitely. It seems that mostly the only people posting in here so far are the ones who wanted to be critical of it in the first place, and seem to have a genuine dislike for DiCaprio.

It is not all over the place, every element is connected. It is simply a wide, complex story of this web of criminals and crimes involved.

I thought the runtime was just fine.

I'm waiting for the people to see it and start posting that will actually get it.

The production design is exemplery, the camera work roves and moves like any Scorsese film. That first drop of Robertson's music early in the film pulled me right in. The performances (yes, even Leo) were terrific.

The final third is pure vintage 'GoodFellas' Scorsese, with De Niro becoming Jimmy Conway all over again (ahem, 'seperating' himself from any connection to the crimes, a la Lufthansa), and Leo being Henry Hill.

Most Scorsese films take some beating with they first get released (like many Kubrick films did; they're never 'as good as his prior work'). There's always a hype, then all these people expressing disappointment, and then the films eventually find their audience and appreciation a bit later ("Casino" was largely despised when first released, now is a classic for the ages).

This one will have a long shelf life.

I hear this argument all the time from those that like any movie. You don't have to "get" a movie to like it. We all just have different experiences with movies, and that's fine.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Blu Myers

I hear this argument all the time from those that like any movie. You don't have to "get" a movie to like it. We all just have different experiences with movies, and that's fine.

Not when they're saying things that are actually untrue, like Grace Randolph saying it gives no context, when it does aplenty, and people saying it's all over the place when everything is connected. They obviously didn't 'get it', NO.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by slip220

There's an anti-Leo campaign in this thread and i don't understand why

What a bizarre thing to say. There was literally a discussion a few pages easier whether there were fanboys of Dicaprio in this thread. This post is exhbhit 4654.

This is genuinely an extremely unhelpful thing to say and only something a fanatic would utter. People are allowed to see a film and freely express their opinion without being branded as part of some kind of smear campaign.

It is also always bizzare to me that people refer to an actor by their pet name, not even the full first name, as if they are on some intimate terms with this person.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Not when they're saying things that are actually untrue, like Grace Randolph saying it gives no context, when it does aplenty, and people saying it's all over the place when everything is connected. They obviously didn't 'get it', NO.

I'll address this comment since you are quoting me. Yes, i do believe that at 3 hrs 26 mins the film is all over the place. Do you have a problem with my opinion? Are you going to gate keep and attack every single person who likes the film less than you?

And saying people who don't like the movie don't get it - is such a laughable thing to say - especially when the film, besides it's length, is completely undemanding, unchallenging, linear, obvious, unmysterious. There's nothing to not get, this is a simple straightforward movie.

See - you loved the movie. No one had any issues with you expressing your opinion right? It's perfectly legitimate for you to love the film. I'm glad you loved it. But why attack people who were slightly cooler on the movie and liked it but less than you? Aren't they entitled to their opinions too!

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by slumcat

What a bizarre thing to say. There was literally a discussion a few pages easier whether there were fanboys of Dicaprio in this thread. This post is exhbhit 4654.

This is genuinely an extremely unhelpful thing to say and only something a fanatic would utter. People are allowed to see a film and freely express their opinion without being branded as part of some kind of smear campaign.

It is also always bizzare to me that people refer to an actor by their pet name, not even the full first name, as if they are on some intimate terms with this person.

Yeah, all those people who were freely expressing their opinion of the film without having even seen it at that time, and focusing solely on how bad an actor DiCaprio is supposed to be. Then, a few see it, and well what do ya know? Yep, they say, he's terrible in this alright! LOL

Such nonsense.

I'm surprised we haven't heard from the anti-De Niro camp, yet. You know, 'those' people, who 'I used to like him, but I will never spend another dime on this moron's movies'.... LOL. They're abundant on trailers for the film on Facebook.

[dkelly26666]

slumcat: This movie is all over the place

slumcat: This is a simple, straightforward movie.

LOL!

EDIT: Enough of this. Another one for the ignore list, and I'm sure I'll be a happier person moving forward in life.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Yeah, all those people who were freely expressing their opinion of the film without having even seen it at that time, and focusing solely on how bad an actor DiCaprio is supossed to be. Then, a few see it, and well what do ya know? Yep, they say, he's terrible in this alright! LOL

Such nonsense.

I'm surprised we haven't heard from the anti-De Niro camp, yet. You know, 'those' people, who 'I used to like him, but after what he said, I will never spend another dime on this moron's movies'.... LOL. They're abundant on trailers for the film on Facebook.

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

slumcat: This movie is all over the place

slumcat: This is a simple, straightforward movie.

LOL!

These posts are not painting you in a good light. You are coming off as an obsessed fanatic viciously lashing out at others users who do not worship Dicaprio or his this film.

I'd recommend reigning it in. You endanger painting the entire fandom as fanatics.

There are plenty of people who love Dicaprio and this film but not in any obsessed kind of way. And are perfectly comfortable with people having a mixed reaction.

Scorsese fans are not Snyder fans. We expect greater openness and circumspection from them. Please let's try to bring up the level of discourse here.

[spf781]

Originally Posted by Blu Myers

So my question is....do you guys have a threshold for runtimes in the theater?

I saw the 288-minute cut of "Until the End of the World" in the theater. It was a great experience, but even with a 15-minute intermission I was still getting pretty antsy toward the end.

So I guess just under five hours for me.

[Dave Bannion]

So disappointing. Maybe the worst Scorsese feature in 30+ years.

Raves won’t age well; rewatches will be near zero for most people. Bad writing for DiCaprio’s character. Point of the film seems muddled, like it morphed into something other than what Scorsese originally intended. Which is what happened apparently.

Unfortunate that he spent precious years near the end of his career on this. Just bewildering.

[Dave Bannion]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Kermode liked it. Thinks DiCaprio was great but Lily Gladstone steals the show. And he thinks the visuals demand to be seen on the big screen but that the sprawling nature of the storytelling lends itself more to home viewing and doesn’t think it should've been this long as a theatrical release.

Mark Kermode reviews Killers of the Flower Moon - Kermode and Mayo's Take - YouTube

An intermission would’ve helped enormously. General audience reaction to this is going to be brutal on runtime.

[slip220]

Originally Posted by slumcat

What a bizarre thing to say. There was literally a discussion a few pages easier whether there were fanboys of Dicaprio in this thread. This post is exhbhit 4654.

This is genuinely an extremely unhelpful thing to say and only something a fanatic would utter. People are allowed to see a film and freely express their opinion without being branded as part of some kind of smear campaign.

It is also always bizzare to me that people refer to an actor by their pet name, not even the full first name, as if they are on some intimate terms with this person.

no need to go full Klaus Kinski, just chill man

[cgpublic]

Me, three years ago:

Originally Posted by cgpublic

The thing is, I'm finding it hard to accept De Niro as Hale, and just a little bit less difficult to envision DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, and while there is no question Scorsese has the ability and credentials, my preference would have been for another director to tackle the book. The problem with Scorsese, De Niro and DiCaprio is the emphasis is on them in place of the story. The story, and related book, is so phenomenal, the above becomes a distraction, not an asset.

Me, two years ago:

Originally Posted by cgpublic

I guess you haven't read the book, but basically DiCaprio is suggesting that Apple spend $200M for a $60M-$75M concept and rewrite the screenplay to result in a $25M film. Looks as if Paramount and the rest of the Hollywood agrees Scorsese and DiCaprio are taking a dump all over a phenomenal book. When I tell you there's trouble in Osage County, be ready for a train wreck.

Me, a year or so ago:

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Who is going to walk into a theater or stream KOTFM with the perception that Plemons and Gladstone are the leads?

Nobody.

Which is why I stated earlier, Scorsese is certainly entitled to make the film as he chooses, which may or may not reflect how DiCaprio has determined which role he wants to play, but for those who have have read the book, a not so insignificant number, it's a clown show.

Just an opinion, and in the context of DeNiro and DiCaprio as (mis-)casted, Scorsese could have pivoted to another A-list actor for the FBI agent role to go head-to-head with DiCaprio. And I say that with no disrespect to Plemons, who's a fine actor and would have been a great fit for one of the supporting roles. After all, Scorsese has been given $200M to shoot a $60M concept, but I guess the appeal for the trifecta was apparently too much to pass up.

Based on the respective actors work to date, it's going to be an uphill slog for audiences and does the book an injustice, and I say that assuming Scorsese will direct to create mis-direction regarding DiCaprio, his star power and the nature of his character. What a shame.

Sure enough:

Originally Posted by biglou114

This one didn’t work for me, and on the train ride home I realized that what really bothered me (outside the languished pacing) was I think Leo was very miscast, and he and Jesse Plemons should have swapped roles. But I agree with everyone else, Lily Gladstone was terrific. A movie from her POV would have been great.

Originally Posted by slumcat

Now that you mention it - I think that is the word I was looking for - miscast. What's funny is - Dicaprio WAS actually cast in the Plemmons role. And the Plemmons role was the lead role. Then they rewrote the script because apparently Dicaprio didn't want to play that role. So the FBI role was made a side role and the Ernest role was beefed up to the leading role so that Dicaprio could play it.

Earlier this year:

Originally Posted by cgpublic

That was my post two years ago, and we're apparently getting The Irishman version of Scorsese according to David Erich at IndieWire as well as others.

Given the usual usual, this is bound to be an unpopular post but given how much I respect Grann's book, for me the early reviews are a bit of a disappointment.

While I'm a big Marty, Bobby & Leo Show fan and the trailer is phenomenal, the hard truth is it's going to be difficult to screen KOTFM and not keep referencing the book and questioning if it was really worth setting aside the material to put themselves, Scorsese, De Niro and DiCaprio, front and center.

I mean, he's basically taken the book, completely changed the writer's intent, and delivered another crime movie with the same old same 'ol opus take.

Entertaining? Sure. The right approach for the material? Not sure about that.

Hollywood is Hollywood, and let's face it, there's a long history of taking titles along with bits and pieces and making a film yours, but given Grann's outstanding accomplishment (reading his latest gem, The Wager, right now and also rumored for Scorsese film adaptation) for me it's a mixed bag at best.

Nailed it based on the reviews, and no, I don't give two nickels with the endless praise of the 'story.' It's not the 'story,' it's a fictional version of the story aligned with modern sensibilities that has picked a 'side.'

If you want an objective, phenomenally written non-fiction take on the 'story,' read the book.

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Yeah, all those people who were freely expressing their opinion of the film without having even seen it at that time, and focusing solely on how bad an actor DiCaprio is supposed to be. Then, a few see it, and well what do ya know? Yep, they say, he's terrible in this alright! LOL

Such nonsense.

I've enjoyed DiCaprio as an actor as much as most people do, which is fairly high given his popularity, and thought he absolutely nailed his role in OUATIH. But, I don't believe most people are going to be critical of Leo as an actor, but rather was he the right actor for the role.

That's not nonsense, it's the basically the movie. You don't cast an A-list star and create an expectation that the audience is going to get Leo and then deliver Ernest Burkhart. At least if you want to earn your money back and then some, as Paramount clearly must have believed when they passed on financing the film with the revised script.

With all of the above out of the way, can't say that I'm all that motivated to spend four hours in a theater now that we have moved beyond critics either kowtowing to Scorsese or praising the film for illuminating the story, but viewing the film as a cinematic achievement and the related entertainment value sans agenda, never mind the tremendous missed opportunity to film the book as written.

On point, for the not insignificant number of those who have read the book, one of the great, popular non-fiction titles of the century, how does one watch the film and not ask themselves why did Scorsese & Co. feel so compelled to basically take a dump all over it?

All the same, I'll definitely be giving this a watch when it hits Apple TV+ in a few weeks. Then again, maybe not until I have a few hours to waste. You know, if and when I get around to it, with nothing else to watch.

[Blu Myers]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Yeah, all those people who were freely expressing their opinion of the film without having even seen it at that time, and focusing solely on how bad an actor DiCaprio is supposed to be. Then, a few see it, and well what do ya know? Yep, they say, he's terrible in this alright! LOL

Such nonsense.

I'm surprised we haven't heard from the anti-De Niro camp, yet. You know, 'those' people, who 'I used to like him, but I will never spend another dime on this moron's movies'.... LOL. They're abundant on trailers for the film on Facebook.

Hey I was one of the Leo defenders on this page. Huge fan (not fanboy, I just appreciate great acting). I haven't seen the movie and I'll reserve judgment until I see it. But I just didn't care for the "you don't get it" argument for those that may not like it. Also, I don't look to Grace Randolph's opinion on anything.