Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[Darth Marcus]

Another crown jewel in Scorsese’s filmography in my book. The 3 1/2 hours seemed to fly by I was so engrossed. Even my wife remarked as we left the theater that it was one of the best films she’d seen in a while.

[stvn1974]

Speaking of Dances With Wolves, Goodfellas came out the same year and actually cost a bit more to make and it only made $47 million. Scorsese has never been a big box office draw. I'm not sure what Apple is expecting here but I am also not one of their accountants so...

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by Captain Keen

It’s one of the good things about streaming (and there are many, many bad things about it too), movies like this couldn’t be made at this scope or runtime if they needed to break even at the box office. This movie does not have to make money.

Not really. How many films like this have Netflix made after the Irishman? Seems like they are spending massive sums on slop like The Gray Man instead. Irishman was more of a one-off than some kind of trend, so I can imagine the same will be true for Apple. They make this to shine a focus on their streaming service and when they've achieved that they stop making them.

I'm not sure if a movie with this budget could be made before streaming, but streaming has also killed the chance for at least lower budget films of this type being made. First with DVD sales and now with theatres in general. I would also not compare the budgets for films intended primarily for streaming vs films intended theatrically. The former seem to have higher budgets regardless as they have to compensate for back-end deals and such. That's why The Gray Man can also cost $200m and look like trash apparently (didn't watch it to confirm). This wasn't originally intended for a wide theatrical release as far as I know.

For those comparing to Oppenheimer, that also had some benefits. One is the actors took huge pay cuts to just work with Nolan alone. That's what clout gives you I suppose, but I'm surprised Scorsese doesn't get the same. Also, Nolan reduced the filming time from 85 days to 55 days to spend more on the pre production.

Anyway, it flew by for me. I haven't read the book because these days I think film first then book prevents disappointment, but I definitely intend to. I'm not how useful it is to criticise which perspectives the film takes or who the focus was. Better to judge it on its own terms.

Scorsese isn't required to make something he would be less comfortable or sure of, but that's why Hollywood needs a wide range of voices to be able to tell all these stories, which he of course champions. Judging the state of streaming, we are going to see less of that in the future as that's what tends to happen when spending is constricted.

[vertigop1ayer]

Absolutely excellent film. Tragic piece of history, but a story hopefully many more people will know about. I wonder if we'll get physical media for this. Not exactly common for AppleTV+ content yet, but we'll see.

How this plays in theaters will be interesting. It's easy to see why a conventional studio would have a concern about the commercial viability of this. It's an expensive film that is grim from beginning to end, is exceptionally long, has no built in audience (even Scorsese himself isn't one to attract crowds, unfortunately), and so on. I wouldn't be surprised if even Apple would've preferred this as a mini-series or something, but like The Irishman for Netflix, this gives the streaming service a prestige film to build credibility. And clearly the intention here is not for the movie to generate profit from a theatrical run.

Now someone throw that $150M to del Toro to get his At the Mountains of Madness made.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Speaking of Dances With Wolves, Goodfellas came out the same year and actually cost a bit more to make and it only made $47 million. Scorsese has never been a big box office draw. I'm not sure what Apple is expecting here but I am also not one of their accountants so...

Prestige. In negotiations to buy new movies they can say they produced the newest Scorsese film. A lot of this is optics and then streaming rights to it. Also, movie making isn’t their main source of income. So this maybe doesn’t do well, fine they make it up somewhere else.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Prestige. In negotiations to buy new movies they can say they produced the newest Scorsese film. A lot of this is optics and then streaming rights to it. Also, movie making isn’t their main source of income. So this maybe doesn’t do well, fine they make it up somewhere else.

Did you see it, yet?

[DukeTogo84]

Watched it and thought it was really good. Slightly better than the Irishman, but very similar in tone. It's a much more reserved Scorsese which seems to have become his style since Silence. I actually didn't want to get up to use the restroom, so that's a really telling sign for myself.

So what did I like and not like?

Liked: Lily Gladstone steals the show. Best De Niro performance in over a decade.

What I didn't like: The score and Brendan Fraser's overacting. Fraser went from The Whale to this, and the Score was very dull which was also my main complaint of the Irishman.

Still, overall, a very good film and an important one. Scorsese might have one or two movies left, but if he ends with this one, it will be a good one.

[Poya]

The best part of Leo's acting is him not mentioning he likes his women young.

[Daunty]

Originally Posted by BigPudge

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 agree. While I loved the first part, it started to drag after a while. When the FBI got involved it was a more than welcomed change as it started to push the story forward again. Marty could've easily cut a half to a complete hour out for much better pacing.

[sandman slim]

Originally Posted by russweiss1

The 3 1/2 hour runtime is a huge detriment to getting people to the theater. Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro don't change that.

Sorry, but this is just complete BS when the past 12 months have seen John Wick 4, Oppenheimer & Avatar 2 all become massive hits while respectively pushing, hitting & blowing past the three hour mark. People absolutely will go out to see epic length films if they're interested in them.

[Jumpman]

About as good as motion pictures get. And here I thought Nolan and Oppenheimer had everything wrapped up at next year’s Academy Awards. Not so sure anymore…

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

About as good as motion pictures get. And here I thought Nolan and Oppenheimer had everything wrapped up at next year’s Academy Awards. Not so sure anymore…

I still think they do, mostly because Oppenheimer is a more accessible and entertaining watch for most people.

In a recent IndieWire Screen Talk podcast, one of the members called KOTFM as having "11-nominations-and-one-win" energy and I can totally see that happening (with the one win being either screenplay or actress). The buzz for Irishman was similar and it ended up with 10 nominations and 0 wins.

I think the movie is too much of a downer for the Academy, and it won't have strong boxoffice numbers to support it either.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

I still think they do, mostly because Oppenheimer is a more accessible and entertaining watch for most people.

In a recent IndieWire Screen Talk podcast, one of the members called KOTFM as having "11-nominations-and-one-win" energy and I can totally see that happening (with the one win being either screenplay or actress). The buzz for Irishman was similar and it ended up with 10 nominations and 0 wins.

I think the movie is too much of a downer for the Academy, and it won't have strong boxoffice numbers to support it either.

Oppenheimer is a downer as well.

I think KILLERS is a much better film than IRISHMAN, which I dig a lot. The “11 nominations and one win” energy comment…I don’t know, man. This feels different. I walked out of that theatre with that audience and it felt like the Earth shifted. I would love to be wrong because I think it would be especially cruel if Nolan and his cast and crew don’t win for OPPENHEIMER but I also think KILLERS and BARBIE are equally deserving.

I haven’t followed the Academy Awards that much since they really screwed the pooch in ‘08 with THE DARK KNIGHT. But, this year, I really might have to pay attention because when I look at those 3 films, and I’m not saying other films can’t come along and upset the applecart, I just can’t fathom choosing between those 3 uniquely and extraordinary cinematic visions this year. I can’t. Some will say that BARBIE got hers because of the box office. Yeah, I can see that but I can’t dismiss what Gerwig did with that thing. That thing could’ve been one note, middle of the road, IP entertainment. And it absolutely wasn’t.

And then Nolan and Scorsese come along and do what they do.

Straight up, I know the list for Best Pictures can be up to 10 films. 4-10 don’t matter this year. I’m being dead ass serious. You could list those 3 films, not list another film, and I’m not entirely sure anyone would be upset that it was just those 3 films nominated and nothing more.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Oppenheimer is a downer as well.

I think KILLERS is a much better film than IRISHMAN, which I dig a lot. The “11 nominations and one win” energy comment…I don’t know, man. This feels different. I walked out of that theatre with that audience and it felt like the Earth shifted. I would love to be wrong because I think it would be especially cruel if Nolan and his cast and crew don’t win for OPPENHEIMER but I also think KILLERS and BARBIE are equally deserving.

I haven’t followed the Academy Awards that much since they really screwed the pooch in ‘08 with THE DARK KNIGHT. But, this year, I really might have to pay attention because when I look at those 3 films, and I’m not saying other films can’t come along and upset the applecart, I just can’t fathom choosing between those 3 uniquely and extraordinary cinematic visions this year. I can’t. Some will say that BARBIE got hers because of the box office. Yeah, I can see that but I can’t dismiss what Gerwig did with that thing. That thing could’ve been one note, middle of the road, IP entertainment. And it absolutely wasn’t.

And then Nolan and Scorsese come along and do what they do.

Straight up, I know the list for Best Pictures can be up to 10 films. 4-10 don’t matter this year. I’m being dead ass serious. You could list those 3 films, not list another film, and I’m not entirely sure anyone would be upset that it was just those 3 films nominated and nothing more.

Right now Barbie has no shot at any of the big categories (not even original screenplay, where I think Past Lives, The Holdovers and Anatomy of a Fall are ahead of it), the only movie that could challenge Oppenheimer and Killers is Poor Things, but due to its extreme nature it needs a very positive audience response to gain momentum. So in a way it's in a similar boat as Killers, except it's waaaay less accessible.

We'll see how things shift or solidify once the actual awards season starts.

[Andyh335]

Originally Posted by Poya

2 hours in, one guy walked out, struck his middle fingers out and said "f this movie!". It's a damn shame.

I had 6 people walk out 2-3 hours in, of my 50-60 person showing and noticed a few watch and phone checkers, a 7/10 from me, gonna give it another viewing midweek.

[Zivouhr]

Not sure how large the span of the buildings are, but if they had to build new buildings to make them look old or from that era, that'll cost a lot too I guess, though still probably cheaper than CGI. Scorsese used a lot of CGI I heard in Irishman to de-age his characters to questionable effect if true. Will see that soon on disc.

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Speaking of Dances With Wolves, Goodfellas came out the same year and actually cost a bit more to make and it only made $47 million. Scorsese has never been a big box office draw. I'm not sure what Apple is expecting here but I am also not one of their accountants so...

Interesting, thanks.

I forgot Goodfellas released that same year, but saw both in theaters. Back then as a kid, I wasn't a big fan of Goodfellas, wondering why a movie would be focused exclusively on bad guys? Clearly I missed the point back then, but since then see it as a classic Mafia film along with Donnie Brasco IMO, Casino, etc.

I didn't realize Goodfellas didn't do well with attendance in theaters back then versus its budget. Thankfully it didn't ruin Scorsese's career despite not being profitable to big studios right away.

Budget $25 million
Box office $47.1 million

[Lee A Stewart]

‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ Bares Horrors Perpetrated On The Osage: How That Attention Could Help A Tribe Reclaim Land & Fortunes That Were Taken Under Murky Circumstances

https://deadline.com/2023/10/killers...ne-1235568182/

[Pieter V]

Theatrical Performance
Domestic Box Office $23,000,000

A Blu-ray is in the works.

[slip220]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ Bares Horrors Perpetrated On The Osage: How That Attention Could Help A Tribe Reclaim Land & Fortunes That Were Taken Under Murky Circumstances

https://deadline.com/2023/10/killers...ne-1235568182/

I think the subject matter will give a slight advantage to Scorsese over Nolan in the award season.

[Jorvic]

A bold, brilliant film. Watching great, epic cinema like this is a life-affirming experience.

As with The Irishman, I wouldn't have minded if the running time were longer. The acting was superb across the board.

And Robbie Robertson's score was perfectly suited to the material and used in a clever way as the narrative unfolded.

There's a lot to digest in the film, so I plan to go back to watch it again shortly.

It's astonishing that Scorsese is still making works of this standard.