Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[LordoftheRings]

Scorsese, popular with Marvel superheroes?

With great power comes great responsibility.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Yes, because that's how the Oscars work, it's a snapshot of what people in the film industry who are voting members of AMPAS think are most deserving at that time.

There was no outcry in 1991 over heavy campaigning for the award like there was for Shakespeare in Love, thus no "injustice". Just because other non-winning films emerge as more popular or influential over time means nothing.

Vertigo has been voted as one of the greatest movies of all time and is very influential but it received zero major nominations in 1959, nevermind actual Oscars. Does that mean now that Gigi was undeserving of all the awards it received? Absolutely not.

The technical skill and artistry that Costner employed (as a first-time director no less) in helming Dances With Wolves was most impressive and he was a well-deserved winner of that Oscar (as was Forrest Gump for that matter).

Dances with Wolves was also a major industry story, similar to how Titanic played out 7 years later: considered an ill-conceived disaster when Costner decided to produce and direct it, being labelled "Kevin's Gate" in the Hollywood press. It's box office and critical success was a huge victory for Costner. One of the reasons it was spun as a terrible risk was because of how many subtitles the film would have for the Lakota Sioux dialogue, something considered wholly foolish at the time. Epics in general hadn't been good box office since the 1970s, so the 3-hour runtime was also seen as utterly stupid before its release.

It was the Oppenheimer of 1990 in terms of critical reception and box office clout. Goodfellas made 1/4th of its box office in a time where that meant more for the Oscars. Ghost didn't have the critics on its side as an "important" film. DWW/Ghost/Goodfellas is actually fairly similar to this year's Oppenheimer/Barbie/KotFM situation.

Also, DWW is a fairly important film to the industry at that time. Without DWW you may not get some of the adjustments in the industry for epic length and non-English languages with subtitles in predominantly English films. You could make a solid argument that films like The Lord of the Rings don't get made without the proof of concept started with DWW.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by captveg

It was the Oppenheimer of 1990 in terms of critical reception and box office clout.

And even more impressively, it did so without a gimmick like IMAX.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by captveg

Also, DWW is a fairly important film to the industry at that time. Without DWW you may not get some of the adjustments in the industry for epic length and non-English languages with subtitles in predominantly English films. You could make a solid argument that films like The Lord of the Rings don't get made without the proof of concept started with DWW.

Not to mention it revived the western genre that had basically flatlined by that point in time (the Brat Pack oriented Young Guns notwithstanding).

It was the success of Dances With Wolves that prompted Clint Eastwood to dust off the script for Unforgiven and get that masterpiece made; and as the many contemporaneous articles pointed out at the time of its release, Avatar is basically a sci-fi redressing of Dances With Wolves.

[slumcat]

There can be more than one good movie in a year folks. It's a good outcome as long as one wins.

The King's Speech and Chariots of Fire are also great winners.

[DukeTogo84]

I'm curious if decades down the line this film will be remembered as one of Scorsese's best works? So many of his films seem to find a renaissance years later, and while this already has a very large positive following, I think that will only grow. The more I think about this film, the more I realize how important it was to have been simply made. I think it's one of Scorsese's best works on the human condition of conflict and guilt.

I can't think of a single director whose work in their later life as a "senior" was a consistent as Scorsese. Not Kubrick, not Hitchcock, and not even Kurosawa. I'm truly glad he made such an important film and that he directed the hell out of it.

[residentgrigo]

Gangs of New York is Marty´s 2nd "worst" film after New York, New York. It doesn´t work on a basic level yet is headlined by De Nero. No talent can truly save a bad idea. His first 2 films don´t quite count but I would put both above those 2 clear-cut vanity pictures.

I liked Killers of the Flower Moon but I don´t know if I would put any aspect into the awards dograce. Maybe cinematography? Certainly not editing or script. The real story overshadows the film for me in the end. Irishman Begins was the right length but Killers of the Flower is missing the first 15 to 20 minutes and gets loong in the tooth in the 2nd half.

[Purplenoon]

I liked Scorsese's last two movies, but I wish he'd cut future films down closer to two hours.

[spanky87]

Lily Gladstone is still getting nominated for Best Actress at the Oscars. Emma Stone has an advantage because she has a more showy role in Poor Things and the film is completely about her. But she already won an Oscar early in her career and she shouldn’t even have won for La La Land in the first place.

With DiCaprio, things have gone as I feared. People were so adamant about not allowing him to overshadow Lily Gladstone to the point that he’s now been overshadowed himself and not getting enough recognition. He doesn’t seem to be campaigning much either and is just out there supporting Gladstone.

[dkelly26666]

I've already accepted that this film is going home empty handed.

Then, 10-20 years from now, cineastes will still be watching it, talking about it, studying it, appreciating it, and saying, "How on Earth did this movie flop and not win any Oscars back then???" Like they do with so many other films from the past (especially Scorsese and Kubrick films).

Oh well, Scorsese and myself will be long gone by then, most likely.

But, time will vindicate it.

[GloveSlap]

I thought this movie already felt dated at release. It's so clearly a product of the early 20s, and not for the better.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by GloveSlap

I thought this movie already felt dated at release. It's so clearly a product of the early 20s, and not for the better.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Just yet another troll in this thread, mocking my 'prediction', LOL. Not you, the one you replied to.

[MazeRunner]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I've already accepted that this film is going home empty handed.

As it should. (Minus Lily Gladstone of course the only good thing.)

[Jay Mammoth]

Hopefully wins some much deserved awards, but cool if not. Great film.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Jay Mammoth

Hopefully wins some much deserved awards, but cool if not. Great film.

Correct. It will still become a classic, regardless.

I have a bad history with the Academy, anyway. I haven't agreed with a Best Picture or Best Director choice by them since "No Country for Old Men" and the Coen Bros., back in 2007. I've only agreed with them 11 times since I started making top ten lists 52 years ago, in 1971. 11 times in 52 years.

I'm used to disagreeing with them.

Moreover, I look back across the stone classics I've picked over the years that they didn't, and those films are still big and relevant many years later, without the Oscars.

A Clockwork Orange, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, E.T., Kurosawa's Ran, GoodFellas, Pulp Fiction, Fargo, Saving Private Ryan, Mulholland Drive, it goes on and on....

Then, there's the ones they just flat out rejected, that I thought deserved better, like Malcolm X,City of God, A History of Violence,Silence...

Finally, there's my left-field ones that I knew they'd never touch, like An American Werewolf in London, The Last Temptation of Christ, The House That Jack Built...

There's a few I agree with, Schindler's List, The Godfather, Platoon...

But mostly, I just disagree with them most of the time, especially in recent years. This year will just be more of the same.

But, guess what? The films are still FOREVER, even without those silly awards.

[cgpublic]

I'm endlessly entertained by those who live in their own little bubble, oblivious to the world around them, with their biases and belief systems devoid of any objective measure of reality.

It's like a laugh track playing to an empty set.

It's an open secret that Apple not only paid through the nose to keep KOTFM in theaters only to have the film fail miserably at the box office relative to its budget, hand in hand with Apple dropping endless bundles of gift bags containing Apple product to reviewers out of desperation to keep this dog in the hunt.

KOTFM is a bottom tier entry in the context of Scorsese's filmography. Don't believe me? If anyone were to approach me and state this film is superior and or more entertaining relative to more than one or two of his films listed below, I would laugh in their face!

Who's That Knocking at My Door, Boxcar Bertha, Mean Streets, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Taxi Driver, New York, New York, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, After Hours, The Color of Money, The Last Temptation of Christ, Goodfellas, Cape Fear, The Age of Innocence, Casino, Kundun, Bringing Out the Dead, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed, Shutter Island, Hugo, The Wolf of Wall Street, Silence, The Irishman

Seriously? Have you watched the film's in Scorsese's filmography? Were you sitting in a theater screening Taxi Driver or Raging Bull when they were released? You've got to be joking.

The icing on the cake is a whine party in this thread about Oppenheimer, not only the clear Best Picture of this year, or any other year in this century, and Barbie, which totaled a billion and a half dollars, with the combined effect of saving theater owners from oblivion!

It's called the real world. Look into it.

The awards after dinner mint is someone actually believing that KOTFM is more deserving than films, and their filmmakers, such as Past Lives, The Holdovers, Poor Things, Anatomy of a Fall, All of us Strangers and The Zone of Interest of a nomination, never mind a statuette.

Like they say in the old neighborhood.

Mint.

[BluBonnet]

I got a good chuckled out of that

[Jay Mammoth]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Correct. It will still become a classic, regardless.

I have a bad history with the Academy, anyway. I haven't agreed with a Best Picture or Best Director choice by them since "No Country for Old Men" and the Coen Bros., back in 2007. I've only agreed with them 11 times since I started making top ten lists 52 years ago, in 1971. 11 times in 52 years.

I'm used to disagreeing with them.

Moreover, I look back across the stone classics I've picked over the years that they didn't, and those films are still big and relevant many years later, without the Oscars.

A Clockwork Orange, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, E.T., Kurosawa's Ran, GoodFellas, Pulp Fiction, Fargo, Saving Private Ryan, Mulholland Drive, it goes on and on....

Then, there's the ones they just flat out rejected, that I thought deserved better, like Malcolm X,City of God, A History of Violence,Silence...

Finally, there's my left-field ones that I knew they'd never touch, like An American Werewolf in London, The Last Temptation of Christ, The House That Jack Built...

There's a few I agree with, Schindler's List, The Godfather, Platoon...

But mostly, I just disagree with them most of the time, especially in recent years. This year will just be more of the same.

But, guess what? The films are still FOREVER, even without those silly awards.

Yeah I find the crowd that thinks awards and box office success equate to the quality of a film or tv series not too bright. Better Call Saul one of the best shows in the last decade had 53 Emmy noms and no wins.
I’m glad for Killers success so far and will definitely go down as a classic despite its haters.

[dkelly26666]

And no film is "clearly" the Best Picture of the Year, no film is "clearly" the Best of the century. That is ALL your opinion. Not fact.

A film isn't 'bottom-tier' because one says so. That's opinion, too.

One can have that opinion, and I can have the opposite opinion, without being wrong. Or, "not in the real world". What nonsense.

That's how this works.

If I need a mint, you need an enema...