Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[slip220]

Originally Posted by russweiss1

I didn't see Roma but I also really enjoyed The Favourite. Both of those films however receive lower overall ratings on IMDB. Green Book also has 2-3X as many votes.

If you didn't see Roma how could you claim "Green Book was an extremely well made and entertaining film that deserved any awards it received." ?

And btw Green Book was average af, one of the worst BP winners like Coda and Shakespeare in Love

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by russweiss1

I didn't see Roma but I also really enjoyed The Favourite. Both of those films however receive lower overall ratings on IMDB. Green Book also has 2-3X as many votes.

I like Roma and The Favorite but I think neither should have won Best Picture, nor Green Book.

There was several superior options like Zama, Cold War, Shoplifters, Burning and Western.

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by slip220

If you didn't see Roma how could you claim "Green Book was an extremely well made and entertaining film that deserved any awards it received." ?

And btw Green Book was average af, one of the worst BP winners like Coda and Shakespeare in Love

I guess the same that you can claim Green book was average af.

[LordoftheRings]

It's fun to read about past Oscars.

1917 one of the very best movies ever, period.
Roma fantastic film, all the way...a true cinema masterpiece.
Green Book awesome story and well acted, great music.
Cold War beautiful artistic film of very high caliber.
Parasite a superb fun ride with a fantastic bunch.
...

Between Killers of the Flower Moon and Oppenheimer my money is on the later... Bezt Picture & Bezt Director & Bezt Cinematography & Bezt Film Editing. It's a close competition but it is what it is.
Barbie no need to apply.

But, someone else might bend slightly towards Killers for the story (Bezt Adapted Screenplay), and I give them that.

We're in it for the highly artistic intelligent entertainment.
We wouldn't have it any other way.

[slip220]

Originally Posted by russweiss1

I guess the same that you can claim Green book was average af.

But me having a preference on Oppenheimer and Killers to win BP its a problem and should watch those 270 movies released this year

There goes your ****ed up logic

[50strat54]

Ok, saw it last night.

Reminded me of The Irishman, too long, long stretches of boredom, dialogue driven but not as interesting dialogue wise as Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight.

Many earlier Scorsese films have great dialogue like Goodfellas or Taxi Driver but this one was just ok

I am glad to have watched it once, just as I am glad to have watched The Irishman but this is not one of his best films.

The war that's going on in this thread of this film vs. Oppenheimer, well put me on team Oppenheimer. That was a great movie, had some slow spots but had far better execution than Killers Of The Flower Moon.

Just my opinion folks, yell at me if you want but I totally understand now after watching it why people are staying away. The movie might have made a better mini-series on Apple TV where the audience could digest the movie in smaller bites.

[DrWally]

Originally Posted by slip220

Barbie or Greta Gerwig winning would be a travesty. We already had Coda winning BP recently, we don't need another one.

Dare I ask, but another one of what, precisely? Barbie and CODA have absolutely nothing in common at all.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by DrWally

Dare I ask, but another one of what, precisely? Barbie and CODA have absolutely nothing in common at all.

Both directed by women.

[prkchopexpress]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Both directed by women.

he must have forgot about nomadland lol.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by slip220

If you didn't see Roma how could you claim "Green Book was an extremely well made and entertaining film that deserved any awards it received." ?

You don't have to see every single film made in a given year, or indeed every single film nominated, to say a film deserved any rewards it received. Just because the possibility exists that another film could have been more deserving, does not mean that the film in question is undeserving.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

The movie might have made a better mini-series on Apple TV

It basically is that - it's just been released in theaters.

There is something extremely perverse about Scorsese's last 2 films - they are not legitimate theatrical films. That is kinda literally true - Irishman is for 99.9999% of the world population a streaming movie like Extraction etc.

Killers is a curious case. It technically is also a streaming movie, but it has just been given a wide cinema release instead of the mandatory qualifying release - possibly to garner more prestige and because they have a star in DiCpario - though he did a streaming film for Netlix too.

The point being - IF you create a film from scratch for the cinema, that is a created as a mandatory studio picture theatrical as its core function - then Irishman and Killers would NOT be the films we would have ended up with.

Because streaming removes all constraints, most streaming movies tend towards bloat and longueurs.

Orson Welles said 'The enemy of art is the absence of limitations" We see that in Scorsese's cinema - loose & baggy and meandering and unfocused and untight - everything the opposite of what his cinema used to be - punchy, impactful, blistering.

Scorsese needs to make a film with actual theatrical constraints for an actual theatrical release and theatrical budget - I daresay he would flourish and probably make something great.

But the ship has sailed. Scorsese has what 2 more movies in him? I daresay both will be over 3 hours, mini-series like, over 200 million dollars and probably financed by a streaming service.

Scorsese at this point is incapable of working in the theatrical studio system - where people like Nolan just this year have FLOURISHED with similar adult dramas - greater commercial success and dare I say greater critical acclaim.

[slip220]

Originally Posted by DrWally

Dare I ask, but another one of what, precisely? Barbie and CODA have absolutely nothing in common at all.

Of course not, Barbie is much better movie than CODA but would equally be a terrible winner of BP

Originally Posted by prkchopexpress

he must have forgot about nomadland lol.

Actually i forgot, it shows how boring and unremarkable that movie was for me...i don't think i finished it.

Originally Posted by RCRochester

You don't have to see every single film made in a given year, or indeed every single film nominated, to say a film deserved any rewards it received. Just because the possibility exists that another film could have been more deserving, does not mean that the film in question is undeserving.

Yes, i know and i agree with you...just was testing his logic

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by slip220

Of course not, Barbie is much better movie than CODA but would equally be a terrible winner of BP

Just goes to show how small the pool of good movies was during the pandemic, where CODA and Nomadland are best picture winners. If they came out this year, I don't think either of them would have made the 10 nominees, or maybe just barely squeezed in.
But yeah, they would've stood no chance against the likes of Killers, Oppenheimer or Poor Things.

[UltraMario9]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by slumcat

It basically is that - it's just been released in theaters.

There is something extremely perverse about Scorsese's last 2 films - they are not legitimate theatrical films. That is kinda literally true - Irishman is for 99.9999% of the world population a streaming movie like Extraction etc.

Killers is a curious case. It technically is also a streaming movie, but it has just been given a wide cinema release instead of the mandatory qualifying release - possibly to garner more prestige and because they have a star in DiCpario - though he did a streaming film for Netlix too.

The point being - IF you create a film from scratch for the cinema, that is a created as a mandatory studio picture theatrical as its core function - then Irishman and Killers would NOT be the films we would have ended up with.

Because streaming removes all constraints, most streaming movies tend towards bloat and longueurs.

Orson Welles said 'The enemy of art is the absence of limitations" We see that in Scorsese's cinema - loose & baggy and meandering and unfocused and untight - everything the opposite of what his cinema used to be - punchy, impactful, blistering.

Scorsese needs to make a film with actual theatrical constraints for an actual theatrical release and theatrical budget - I daresay he would flourish and probably make something great.

But the ship has sailed. Scorsese has what 2 more movies in him? I daresay both will be over 3 hours, mini-series like, over 200 million dollars and probably financed by a streaming service.

Scorsese at this point is incapable of working in the theatrical studio system - where people like Nolan just this year have FLOURISHED with similar adult dramas - greater commercial success and dare I say greater critical acclaim.

[Purplenoon]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

It's fun to read about past Oscars.

1917 one of the very best movies ever, period.
Roma fantastic film, all the way...a true cinema masterpiece.
Green Book awesome story and well acted, great music.
Cold War beautiful artistic film of very high caliber.
Parasite a superb fun ride with a fantastic bunch.
...

Between Killers of the Flower Moon and Oppenheimer my money is on the later... Bezt Picture & Bezt Director & Bezt Cinematography & Bezt Film Editing. It's a close competition but it is what it is.
Barbie no need to apply.

But, someone else might bend slightly towards Killers for the story (Bezt Adapted Screenplay), and I give them that.

We're in it for the highly artistic intelligent entertainment.
We wouldn't have it any other way.

I have read both books that OPPENHEIMER & KOTFM were based on. IMHO, Oppenheimer's screenplay was stunning. KOTFM was not. The Oscar will go to OPPENHEIMER. Take it to the bank.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Purplenoon

I have read both books that OPPENHEIMER & KOTFM were based on. IMHO, Oppenheimer's screenplay was stunning. KOTFM was not. The Oscar will go to OPPENHEIMER. Take it to the bank.

I did and the bank teller asked me why I was bringing him screenplays. Because they’re a bank. So that didn’t work.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I did and the bank teller asked me why I was bringing him screenplays. Because they’re a bank. So that didn’t work.

Your ever-facetious approach is better than mine. Every time.

[50strat54]

The Oscar Best Picture is no longer prestigious, nor accurate.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Purplenoon

I have read both books that OPPENHEIMER & KOTFM were based on. IMHO, Oppenheimer's screenplay was stunning. KOTFM was not. The Oscar will go to OPPENHEIMER. Take it to the bank.

Well said; you're an avid reader and you've read through it all.
If the Academy voters are as good readers as you are they too will give the Oscar for Best Adadpted Screenplay to Oppenheimer. But I doubt they've read both books.

* How many Oscars total for Oppenheimer, seven or nine?

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

The Oscar Best Picture is no longer prestigious, nor accurate.

It's what it is, Hollywood in all its emperor's new clothes.