Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Me, three years ago:



Me, two years ago:



Me, a year or so ago:



Sure enough:





Earlier this year:



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.

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.

This is a beautiful post and really got me thinking about my relationship with this film.

Now, mind me, I haven't read the book and only seen the movie.

But I agree with general sentiment. Scorses makes a concession at the end - I won't spoil what. BUT - I still think he was the wrong director for this story.

And what's more the emphasis of the story is completely wrong.

I think this story is definitely very important and worth telling. I wish it was from the Osage point of view. And I wish there were an Osage writer or director involved.

It is a movie made by white people that is extremely critical of white people. BUT - it still centers the white people in the story. It is still the perspective of white people in a story that is 100% about the Osage.

So that feels a little bit disappointing to me.

I think this film does raise questions about who is the right person to tell certain stories and what should be the focus of those stories. It shouldn't be driven by the whims of stars or star-directros, but by the needs of the story.

Overall, I feel I am missing the Osage perspective in this Osage story.

[BigPudge]

Hearing that the movie originally focused more on the investigation with the FBI character being the lead makes me wish we got that movie.

I still really enjoyed this, but I honestly felt that it really kicked in when Plemons character came in to the film.

The beginning did drag a bit for me. And once the trial kicked in, it just felt like rehashing what we had already seen. Had the investigation and trial been the main story, they could have trimmed alot from the run time by simply doing revelation flashbacks during the course of the investigation/ trial.

I was worried this movie would take the focus off from Oppenheimer when it came time for awards, but it definitely won't. Oppenheimer was a true masterpiece, this was just very good, which is still... very good!

Of course Scorsese is one of the best of all time and I'm posting on an internet message board, so what do I know?!

[sanriel]

I'm too tired after the movie, but I'll just say one thing. The real star here is not DiCaprio, but Lily Gladstone.

[Darth Marcus]

Tickets acquired for tomorrow morning! My body is ready for ANOTHER Scorsese masterpiece!

[DukeTogo84]

I'm very excited for this. I can't remember the last time I watched one of his films and felt disappointed. Reviews have been really good so far, so my expectations are high.

[Gacivory]

Dolby Cinema tickets booked for tomorrow! Excited to finally get to see this!

Gonna download the Robbie Robertson (RIP) soundtrack first!

[spf781]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Dolby Cinema tickets booked for tomorrow! Excited to finally get to see this!

Gonna download the Robbie Robertson (RIP) soundtrack first!

The soundtrack is superb.

[Hindustani]

Originally Posted by Darth Marcus

Tickets acquired for tomorrow morning! My body is ready for ANOTHER Scorsese masterpiece!

Please dont walk into this movie thinking its already a masterpiece

This film demands patience as it gets stretched and even thin at times. It already takes time to get going initially.

I dont mean it in a bad way. Its a very good film. Its a very interesting film and does pulls you in right away.

The lead actor dropped ball multiple times despite good performance. And this is the problem besides pacing the screenplay like a streaming platform series.

[Hindustani]

Originally Posted by sanriel

I'm too tired after the movie, but I'll just say one thing. The real star here is not DiCaprio, but Lily Gladstone.

I was completely floored by her performance too.

It was so measured, underplayed and calculated. I dont think she missed a note. This has to go down as one of the best female LEAD performances ever imo.

I hate to see her get nominated for best Supporting actress.

Gladstone can win it as Best Performance in the Lead category. its that great.

if nothing else, Osage nation deserves this redemption win for her.

[xbs2034]

What a great movie, it’s close between this and Oppenheimer for movie of the year so far. With any movie three and a half hours, it is of course long, but feels well paced still (just wish there was an intermission right after the bombing, would have been well placed IMO).

Saw it in IMAX, doesn’t really need that format, but looks and sounds nice there, and since A List covered mine and T Mobile my nephew’s ticket for $5- why not. Seats were comfy too unlike The Irishman at NYFF where my back was a bit sore after.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Hindustani

I was completely floored by her performance too.

It was so measured, underplayed and calculated. I dont think she missed a note. This has to go down as one of the best female LEAD performances ever imo.

I hate to see her get nominated for best Supporting actress.

Gladstone can win it as Best Performance in the Lead category. its that great.

if nothing else, Osage nation deserves this redemption win for her.

I believe Gladstone is campaigning lead. I think it could fit either category, but given the message/theme of the movie, makes sense to push her lead.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by Hindustani

Please dont walk into this movie thinking its already a masterpiece.

[fellinivettes]

Originally Posted by BigPudge

Hearing that the movie originally focused more on the investigation with the FBI character being the lead makes me wish we got that movie.

I still really enjoyed this, but I honestly felt that it really kicked in when Plemons character came in to the film.

The beginning did drag a bit for me. And once the trial kicked in, it just felt like rehashing what we had already seen. Had the investigation and trial been the main story, they could have trimmed alot from the run time by simply doing revelation flashbacks during the course of the investigation/ trial.

I was worried this movie would take the focus off from Oppenheimer when it came time for awards, but it definitely won't. Oppenheimer was a true masterpiece, this was just very good, which is still... very good!

Of course Scorsese is one of the best of all time and I'm posting on an internet message board, so what do I know?!

i think avoiding a white savior narrative and centering it more on the actual victims was marty’s point though

[Hindustani]

Originally Posted by Tony208

Very good, it's just too damn long.

4/5

exactly what I thought. 4 on a 5 stars. Its a very good movie on a very difficult subject.

wonder Scorsese writers re-writing the original locked screenplay made the film better or worst.

Media said they got lots of Osage people input in re-writes. wonder if that helped or hurted.

If I have to take a wild guess, it would've gone the GONY way without those Osage Nation inputs because it was told from white men point-of-view.

[Dave Bannion]

Originally Posted by Hindustani

exactly what I thought. 4 on a 5 stars. Its a very good movie on a very difficult subject.

wonder Scorsese writers re-writing the original locked screenplay made the film better or worst.

Media said they got lots of Osage people input in re-writes. wonder if that helped or hurted.

If I have to take a wild guess, it would've gone the GONY way without those Osage Nation inputs because it was told from white men point-of-view.

Even in revised form it’s still told from the white POV.

[Hindustani]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

I believe Gladstone is campaigning lead. I think it could fit either category, but given the message/theme of the movie, makes sense to push her lead.

Dunno how the academy takes the final decision.

Length here is 3 hrs 26 mins. She has gotten good chunk of mins in there.

And she is the only true female "lead."

I seriously hope she doesnt gets swindled by some other lead actress from 1 hr 59 mins run time film.

[Hindustani]

Originally Posted by Dave Bannion

Even in revised form it’s still told from the white POV.

that what I meant.

Because the film was always gonna be told from White men p-o-v. FBI as main or FBI as supporting story (the latter succeeded).

Indians would've gotten even much less on-screen time to explain what really happened to them had original screenplay was green-lighted.

Osage Nation inputs might have made this movie much more involving than just another above average GONY kind.

Do remember, the subject matter is very difficult, too dark to do proper justice.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Blu Myers

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.

OK, consider it a misspoke on my part. I meant I'm waiting for the people who like and feel the film. Not, who understand it.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Dolby Cinema tickets booked for tomorrow! Excited to finally get to see this!

Gonna download the Robbie Robertson (RIP) soundtrack first!

When Robertson's track drops about 2 or 3 minutes in, it's so powerful. I've been listening to that one on and off all day.

[Dave Bannion]

Originally Posted by Hindustani

that what I meant.

Because the film was always gonna be told from White men p-o-v. FBI as main or FBI as supporting story (the latter succeeded).

Indians would've gotten even much less on-screen time to explain what really happened to them had original screenplay was green-lighted.

Osage Nation inputs might have made this movie much more involving than just another above average GONY kind.

Do remember, the subject matter is very difficult, too dark to do proper justice.

Could’ve juggled FBI and Osage POVs; the revision was more about placating DiCaprio than telling the Osage side of the story imo.