Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[Modren]

Originally Posted by yanksno1

Is this movie worth the IMAX 4K Laser premium over the theater next door that's a Axis15, 4K Laser, Dolby Atmos one? I might go see this on Thursday, otherwise I would wait till next week (for Discount Tuesday, tomorrow doesn't work) but no idea if it'll still be showing then. Not listed after Thursday.

If the other screen is natively 2.39 it probably makes more sense to see it there, but I'm a bit of a stickler for letterboxing. I saw it in 2K IMAX primarily because that was the only available showtime that worked for me.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

So are we to assume this will be getting a disc release in a few months down the line, or will this have to play on Apple for awhile?

No ETA yet.


CAPTURING LOVE OF A DEADLY KIND FOR KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON
Scorsese uses invisible VFX to tell a dark tale set in history.

https://www.vfxvoice.com/capturing-l...e-flower-moon/

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Modren

If the other screen is natively 2.39 it probably makes more sense to see it there, but I'm a bit of a stickler for letterboxing. I saw it in 2K IMAX primarily because that was the only available showtime that worked for me.

I saw it in IMAX laser, nearly fills the screen cause that theater (AMC Kips Bay) uses like a 2.2 aspect ratio (when I saw Tenet and recently Exorcist Believer there, they put larger black bars on the sides to get to 1.9), so that wasn’t an issue. It looked and sounded great, but as more of a straight drama, not sure it really needs IMAX.

IMAX is included anyway with AMC A List, but with both this and Exorcist, if I had to pay for an IMAX upgrade, would’ve just seen it in standard.

[Hindustani]

Things I've noticed better on 2nd Screening (..since I had the story down)

1. Gladstone is outstanding. you watched 2nd time, you really get to those scenes she could've verbally busted out loud to match Leo.

2. DeNiro's multi-layered performance. Now that I knew the entire story and how it unfolded. DeNiro is just absolutely outstanding. Such scheming, manipulative, masterful performance.

3. Some DeNiro - DiCaprio scenes hit much harder 2nd time around. That outstanding DeNiro-Gladstone solo scene. wow!. The power of underplaying characters masterfully, "Are you real? I could be real!" !!!

4. Background Score is actually very good. I changed my mind now.

5. I stick with DiCaprio being just "good" overall. That lower jaw thing in last 1 hour of movie was more of a distraction and took away from what could have been a great performance.

6. Osage peoples monologues were much more impressive on 2nd screening. They were so interesting because the screenplay actually emphasized, indians speak less and observe more.

Its clearly a better experience 2nd time around

........Or it could be just that 2nd screening was IMAX (and this made a difference?)*

[Hindustani]

Originally Posted by slumcat

He's pretty good in the role so we can let this slide. De Niro is not the one that is miscast, I think Dicaprio is.

maybe. DiCaprio performance is uneven. He started off good. But that Lower Jaw thing in last 1 hour made his performance regress imo. Cant believe, Scorsese did not stop him.

Its in media now that both DeNiro and Scorsese "rollled their eyes few times" with DiCaprio's improvisations. neither of them were on-board. But how did the lower jaw thing slide by Marty is beyond me.

[dkelly26666]

I certainly think that this is a film that will reward multiple viewings.

And the passing of time.


As I've said, it will have a long shelf life.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by Hindustani

maybe. DiCaprio performance is uneven. He started off good. But that Lower Jaw thing in last 1 hour made his performance regress imo. Cant believe, Scorsese did not stop him.

Its in media now that both DeNiro and Scorsese "rollled their eyes few times" with DiCaprio's improvisations. neither of them were on-board. But how did the lower jaw thing slide by Marty is beyond me.

I am rooting for Razzie nominations for both Dicaprio and Fraser. Fraser literally screamed as soon as he appeared on screen and instantly took me out of the film. And the lower jaw thing Dicaprio does would be too ridiculous even on SNL.

Both Dicaprio and Fraser will be deserving of Razzie noms but sadly neither will get it.

[hanshotfirst1138]

Is it true that there are actually 70mm screenings of this? Apple TV actually went to the trouble?

[Michael11]

Dicaprio's performance made me think of Robert Downey Jr's infamous line in Tropic Thunder. It's so bad.

But everyone else was really good.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138

Is it true that there are actually 70mm screenings of this? Apple TV actually went to the trouble?

I’ve heard and can find nothing about a 70mm release, seems digital only as far as I can tell (Scorsese actually did the first digital only major studio release with Wolf of Wall Street).

You might be thinking of Napoleon, which is also from Apple and was announced to have a 70mm release.

[TauHeel05]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Theatrical Performance
Domestic Box Office $23,000,000

A Blu-ray is in the works.

Presumably a 4k disc release as well? Please...

[yanksno1]

Originally Posted by Modren

If the other screen is natively 2.39 it probably makes more sense to see it there, but I'm a bit of a stickler for letterboxing. I saw it in 2K IMAX primarily because that was the only available showtime that worked for me.

Listings updated today and don't appear to have it in the Dolby Atmos theater next week. So guess I'm seeing it in that one tomorrow!

[slumcat]

Anyone else think this film is going to age like milk?

https://ew.com/movies/reservation-do...e-dehumanizes/

Read Devery Jacobs' critique of the film. She tears is to shreds. It is a truly devastating read on the film.

I wonder if this film will be perceived in a different way as time goes on.

[slip220]

The movie allows no sympathy for those who commited all of those heinous crimes in real life so i don't understand that criticism.

[Member-866753]

I’m speaking as somebody who didn’t really think the film was great (though clearly incredibly well made and acted) so I’m not mindlessly defending it but this talking point (I hesitate to say criticism) predates the film. The attention is on Hollywood for not funding, supporting a Osage centered story. That’s not what this film is. This is still a business. Are audiences asking for that? I’d see it but it’s the responsibility of everyone. Lift up indigenous stories and storytellers. Instead they take a shot at this film which never pretended to be that. It’s a Scorsese movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio from Apple.

No, this isn’t on Scorsese. This inherent structural part of the book exists and he’s adapting it to the screen. He hired Osage consultants right? He did the best he could and made an effort but Scorsese is not Osage. He could never make that film. His creative impulse, job was to adapt the book. He cannot mine it for Osage experience or touch he doesn’t have. That’s a different film. And one that, I agree, should be made.

I could be totally wrong but I thought I read somewhere that Scorsese and Gladstone had their eyes on another Osage centered project. Maybe he could produce it and handpick a creative of that community to write and direct it.

[slip220]

Maybe they should criticize other movies that don't acknowledge them, instead of the one that takes the effort to tell a real story that happened to their community.

The usual race swapping safe bs uplifiting movies is the worst thing that Hollywood can do

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by AspiringMinimalist

I’m speaking as somebody who didn’t really think the film was great (though clearly incredibly well made and acted) so I’m not mindlessly defending it but this talking point (I hesitate to say criticism) predates the film. The attention is on Hollywood for not funding, supporting a Osage centered story. That’s not what this film is. This is still a business. Are audiences asking for that? I’d see it but it’s the responsibility of everyone. Lift up indigenous stories and storytellers. Instead they take a shot at this film which never pretended to be that. It’s a Scorsese movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio from Apple.

No, this isn’t on Scorsese. This inherent structural part of the book exists and he’s adapting it to the screen. He hired Osage consultants right? He did the best he could and made an effort but Scorsese is not Osage. He could never make that film. His creative impulse, job was to adapt the book. He cannot mine it for Osage experience or touch he doesn’t have. That’s a different film. And one that, I agree, should be made.

I could be totally wrong but I thought I read somewhere that Scorsese and Gladstone had their eyes on another Osage centered project. Maybe he could produce it and handpick a creative of that community to write and direct it.

"He consulted Osage people" is as limp a fig leaf as "I have black friends".

Scorsese made the film he did. He has to answer for it. He was not forced by anyone to do anything. He had absolute 100% freedom to make whatever he wanted, at whatever budget he wanted, however long he wanted. He made the film he did. And now people are free to read it for what it is.

Scorsese wrote the film too. It isn't like he was helpless and the screenplay was what is was. He wrote it! He had the book rights but he decided who he wanted to focus on and what the story he wanted to tell.

HIS screenplay and movie 100% center Buckhart. He made a movie that makes it more than anything Buckhart's story. Is that what the book was? I haven't read the book but I gather not. I am happy to be corrected on this front.

So Scorsese made the creative decision about what the focus of the film should be. Scorsese isn't some gullible victim who got conned into making this film. This film is the result of his explicit intentions. This is the film he wanted to make.

[dkelly26666]

I'm putting this whole thread on ignore for a while, LOL.

Until 'someone' finds something else to be'outraged' about and moves on...

Whew... life's too short.

[Member-866753]

Originally Posted by slumcat

"He consulted Osage people" is as limp a fig leaf as "I have black friends".

Scorsese made the film he did. He has to answer for it. He was not forced by anyone to do anything. He had absolute 100% freedom to make whatever he wanted, at whatever budget he wanted, however long he wanted. He made the film he did. And now people are free to read it for what it is.

Scorsese wrote the film too. It isn't like he was helpless and the screenplay was what is was. He wrote it! He had the book rights but he decided who he wanted to focus on and what the story he wanted to tell.

HIS screenplay and movie 100% center Buckhart. He made a movie that makes it more than anything Buckhart's story. Is that what the book was? I haven't read the book but I gather not. I am happy to be corrected on this front.

So Scorsese made the creative decision about what the focus of the film should be. Scorsese isn't some gullible victim who got conned into making this film. This film is the result of his explicit intentions. This is the film he wanted to make.

Nothing about the existence of Killers excludes the possibility for an Osage centered story to made told. This is a Martin Scorsese film in which he (yes) had Osage consultants to help with the telling of HIS film, the film Apple and financiers funded, the film audiences came out to $20+ million. It’s still a film first and foremost. Not a historical document, not a fact-based documentary…

Creatively speaking, any artist can make any film they want as they have zero social responsibility in doing so. It is a creative endeavor. The same way audiences can choose to see it or not see it. Like it or not like it. Blaming Martin Scorsese for the lack of indigenous storytellers is missing the larger point about profitability, which films are funded/succeed with American audiences.

[slip220]

Originally Posted by slumcat

"He consulted Osage people" is as limp a fig leaf as "I have black friends".

Scorsese made the film he did. He has to answer for it. He was not forced by anyone to do anything. He had absolute 100% freedom to make whatever he wanted, at whatever budget he wanted, however long he wanted. He made the film he did. And now people are free to read it for what it is.

Scorsese wrote the film too. It isn't like he was helpless and the screenplay was what is was. He wrote it! He had the book rights but he decided who he wanted to focus on and what the story he wanted to tell.

HIS screenplay and movie 100% center Buckhart. He made a movie that makes it more than anything Buckhart's story. Is that what the book was? I haven't read the book but I gather not. I am happy to be corrected on this front.

So Scorsese made the creative decision about what the focus of the film should be. Scorsese isn't some gullible victim who got conned into making this film. This film is the result of his explicit intentions. This is the film he wanted to make.

Claiming in that way that Scorsese makes Buckhart the center of the story makes it look like Scorsese made him the hero, when it was the absolute opposite, if of course you saw the ****ing movie. The story was supposed to be centered on the investigation, but they ditched it and made Dicaprio as one of the bad guys, a despicable human being with no redeeming qualities. People should be appaled by his actions, that was the intention of Scorsese making him and the relationship with Mollie the center of the story , to make us familiar with them and show how evil, greedy and manipulative they could be. The whole point was to see evil from the inside.