The guy that should get a supporting actor nod is the Osage elder in white who was telling the history of the Osage. It was so natural and from the heart it felt like it wasnt scripted but came forth from his soul.
The cast all around was solid, but the attention will be rightfully so on Lily Gladstone, as well as DeNiro & DiCaprio. The only one that stuck out was a cameo actor I felt didn't fit the slimy, conniving nature of the character. Otherwise, yeah, the award season is getting interesting now.
It's probably a speech given often. Probably why it was included. "You know that speech that you give? I wanna take it and put it in the movie/book/song/poem/comic/TH-cam" kind of thought inspiration process.
In theory, waiting until the third act to bring in the FBI makes sense. It’s not a Law and Order episode where detectives arrive on scene a couple of hours after the body was found. The tribe had to live with these things happening to them for a long time and knew the people who did it. And the people that did it really weren’t hiding it that much. The FBI showing up 90-120 minutes in gives the audience a similar response as the tribe, which is “Finally, what took you so long?”
@@jhonshephard921 Scorcese pushes his bad guy is awesome schtick as usual (every film). Doesn't work here. This story could've been an all-timer in another director's hands. Big miss.
The book is split into 3 parts: Mollie's story (Osage perspective), the FBI investigation, and a smaller part in the end with present-day Osage people. In interviews, Scorsese talks about the change in the script from focusing on the investigation to focusing on the couple, because the "investigation movie" has been done many times and there was heart in the story of Ernest and Mollie. I understood that and ultimately liked the film, but it is clear that the focus is squarely on Leo and DeNiro, even though Mollie and Tom White were the protagonists in the book. And maybe because Leo (the star and EP) is such an important part of the film, there was so much sympathy given to his character, laying the blame on DeNiro's, that I felt it was a bit much. I did like the way they wrapped up the story a lot, though. And his cameo made me emotional. The investigators are well portrayed in the film, they're smart, cunning and get stuff done. It's just not the focus of the film. As a fan of the book I was a bit frustrated because they didn't tell the audience clearly why and how the Osage ended up on those lands, nor do they mention that this was the first major fbi investigation. But I love Scorsese and did like the film quite a lot. It wasn't a masterpiece like Silence (underrated gem!), but it is one of the best of the year for me. Like most Scorses films, it'll stay with me for a while. Maybe it'll grow on me, like The Irishman did.
"nor do they mention that this was the first major fbi investigation." I think Ernest not knowing who the FBI was implied this is when they were first forming
It was pretty much stated in the dialogue the ignorance in the characters confused by who Tom and his Bureau team were was enough to showcase that the FBI was just established at the point they got involved with this case.
I remember that dialogue. But it could just mean that the bureau was something new that these people from a small town, largely overlooked by the government, didn't know about. The movie doesn't show how important this particular investigation was to the FBI, like the book does. That's what I meant. But I don't hold that against the movie, I liked the film, and what good movies about real events do is spark interest in the subject, so that people can go home and research more about it.
I thought the movie did a great job of giving you reasons you should feel sorry for Ernest. But then it pulls the rug out from under you when he lies to Mollie about what was in her Insulin at the end. He "cleansed his soul" by giving up his Uncle but even when not under the influence of King he couldn't take accountability for what he did when given one last chance. By giving you some doubt on whether he's evil or easily manipulated right I feel like it keeps you from completely hating the protagonist for 3.5 hours until that final moment.
The original draft of the movie was from the point of view of the FBI, and Di Caprio was supposed to play the Jesse Plemens character, who was originally the protagonist. They shifted the story to be about the Burkharts to have the movie be about the betrayal of the Osage people, rather than white heroes coming to investigate what happened and to bring justice to the needy natives. But it sounds like it didn't quite go far enough, which is a bummer. Lily Gladstone is an amazing actress. Her guest starring appearance on Reservation Dogs absolutely shattered me.
The fact that some of you guys think the first draft is instantly a white savior storyline that should never be told is quite baffling and deeply deeply problematic. its still a very valid storyline everyone can learn something from if done right.
@@afrosymphony8207it's been done 1000 times, and white people are the reason indigenous people have been slaughtered for hundreds of years... The fact you find people's correct analysis of white savior clichés a problem, is deeply deeply problematic.
@@afrosymphony8207 I've been reading a lot of interviews with Scorsese and Di Caprio and this is how they've described the process of making the movie, especially with how the movie differs from the original book. I'm not making up the white savior perspective, that's a thing they've talked very frequently and very specifically about. I haven't read the book. It might not have that perspective. But Scorsese and Di Caprio seem to think it does, or at least the original script written with Eric Roth did.
@@afrosymphony8207 I can confirm that what @lydia1634 is saying is correct. I saw this early in NYC and that is what Marty said, that the original draft (and the book) is about the birth of the FBI and follows the person that Jesse Plemons plays, who would've originally been played by Leo
If you haven’t seen “ Silence” by Marty it’s an absolute masterpiece. Loved it. Slow but beautiful… especially if you were religious but you are not anymore
I am just stoked that we have a 3.5-hour Scorcese epic playing in cinemas! I have never had the chance to watch a Scorcese movie in theatres mainly due to my age, and now I am super excited especially cuz of the De Niro performance. The only shame is that it is coming to theatres in India on the 27th, so will have to wait a week!
This is why i enjoy reviewers and ones like Dan especially. Fans can be so rapt up in hype. I saw people attack reviewers who ddnt call this film great. And the fans hadnt even watched the movie! Some people really need to get a life
This has been happening for days on X (I refuse to call that abomination of a platform Twitter). Film X really got overhyped with the hatred for Marvel and Star Wars that they forgot to actually see the movie to judge it on its merits. I'm seeing it tomorrow night and I'm very excited but I'm gonna temper my expectations of seeing the Osage people do much in their own story
Maybe Christopher Nolan and Martin Scorsese could use their power and wealth to bring back 4-5 hour films with breaks in them. Three and a half hours of sitting in one place is a bit much. Movie theatres make most of their money on food and drinks. It's in their business to keep the audience around longer.
I will only ever watch these "auteur" directors' films on streaming. I don't have the patience to sit in a movie theater for three and a half hours. That's just too big an ask.
I would rather they use their time to bring back actual stars. The movie was great but DeCaprio's character should have been played by a much younger character, same with DeNiro's. Maybe someone like Daniel Radcliffe would have been more age appropriate, and DeNiro's character should have been played by DeCaprio.
@@hothotheat3000 It is in the sense that it refuses to give new people a chance and Rajnikanth and Shah Rukh Khan types are still the only "stars". The main cast should have been MUCH younger and Hollywood should have continued trying to build brands around new actors and directors. Instead the brand is "Marvel" or "DC" or "Jurassic Park". No one is coming to see "the new Chris Pratt movie" but I actually used the words "the new DiCaprio movie" when getting my tickets when the guy didn't understand the name of the movie. It gives execs more control because big name actors can be replaced by anyone as long as they hold the big IP but it reduces experimental movies because the studio can only promote the repetitive IP and not "here is the new XYZ movie".
❤loved this film. It had a realistic deepening of the Osage Culture & Community. The betrayal by entrusted anglo-american men that conducted deceitful oil business & intermarriage abuse was just dang on point expressed brilliantly by DiCaprio & DeNiro. Mad Respect To The Osage Community! They did an Amazing Preformance in telling thier story thru the Director's film.
Just saw it. It was pretty amazing. Fully engaged the entire time. And every single scene has something in it that is uniquely inventive and specific to that scene and just moves forward so perfectly from scene to scene. I've never been bothered by long films and most great films are long. I felt other people's discomfort with it. So I wished I was in that theater alone. I'll never understood people's beef with long movies in a strong, fully engaging movie. Molly's instant and complete understanding of who he was and what he was and still marrying him anyways is a nuanced real life relationship that I feel is always missing from movies. I'm glad he left out all these extra scenes to get us there. This seemed the more intelligent and nuanced move. Which she pulled off brilliantly with her eyes. In this way Scorcrse is stil the bold young filmmaker of the 70s. So instead of it showing up in big ideas it shows up in small, bold decisions. Also this is 2 movies in a row he departs from the story and goes full meta at the end. A big middle finger to us and Hollywood. That young bold filmmaker is still in there.
I’ve read the book as well, and I would disagree. The only thing the book and movie have in common is the shared historical story of the early 1920’s , which both stay true to, but the book and movie tell the historical story in vastly different ways. The book tells the story in 3 parts from 3 different perspectives that allow the author to conceal the truth and weave this historical story into a real life murder mystery with some big reveals. Scorsese, on the other hand, drops the mystery for more of a straight forward telling of the historical story replacing the mystery with more of a darkly twisted love story combined with a character piece on greed and betrayal. I enjoyed the book more, but I will say that the film felt more personal and gut wrenching.
Not a fan of the by-the-book, linear storytelling of Scorsese and recent Eastwood (Flower Moon and American Sniper are good but could've been great) .... they always have great source material but tell the story in a style that could be much more visionary and compelling. I guess the aging process also slows the artistic ambitions.
@@greggibson33I wasn't a big fan of either, but I thought this movie was better than Oppenheimer. I'm my opinion, that movie would have been much better with a more linear narrative.
This is an excellent review of the film. Personally, I wish there was more to the character of Molly, but I do think it was more Leo-De Niro focused to draw in more audience members who are paying off name recognition
I heard the original intention was to follow the non fiction book it was based on, which was only from the FBI guys pov that Leo was supposed to do. But decided to focus on the victims and the monsters to properly tell what happened and how messed up it was.
Dude, half of the film was bout how Mollie dealt with white people in her community and deaths of her family but it was seen through the eyes of Ernest/Di Caprio. I'm glad it wasn't made as a feminist film, which was not. Thanks to King Scorsese.
I don’t know if I’m the weird one,but I am more hyped about Jesse plemons than Leo. He’s such a good actor. Will definitely go watch his performance this week end
He absolutely owns every scene he’s in. He was a standout. And this movie has one of the best supporting ensemble casts ever. Most of musicians showing up in acting roles, which is a nice Easter egg for those in the know (one is a lot more famous than the rest and it was cool to see him act).
@@djstarsignsaw Jason Isbell’s name come up @ the end & wuz immediately “oh that’s who that was!!!!”. But the one you’re referring to I suspect was the one in the radio drama ? Yeah that was fun. & yes Jesse Plemons is great in his scenes.
Very smart move for Appole to partner with Paramount on this movie. Paramount have much more experince and relationships with distributors and the studio will be happy to make some money from the box office. It also keeps Scorcese and the cast happy as it will get a full theatrical release, giving those who dont have Apple TV more of a chance to see it as well as increased awarenss going into awards season. Finally, when it lands on Apple TV at some point, more people are likely to watch then if it had gone straight to streaming due to having a big theatrical release. I beleive Apple will be doing something similar with Sony for the upcoming Ridley Scott napoleon movie
Wasn’t as bothered by the runtime personally. Couldn’t help but think of what you once said Marty called The Irishman: “a picture of considerable length…” 😅
Spoilers if you haven’t seen it, go watch it it’s great. The best scene in the film, for me, was in the middle of the film. The one where Dark Was The Night, Cold Was The Ground by Blind Willie Johnson plays. We get this disturbing and haunting shot of Molly with glazed over eyes looking out at the fires in the windows. Ernest is putting the poison in both his drink and her insulin. They both look horrendous. She looks nearly dead, and she is nearly dead. He’s completely torn apart by greed, guilt, self preservation and madness from hiding the truth. The shots in that scene montage are just incredible. It’s the point in the movie where I started to cry because I was convinced her character wasn’t making it. I didn’t think Molly was going to live to the end, so the scene just hit harder because of that. It’s my favorite moment from the movie, mainly because of the track used behind it. Blind Willie Johnson is a very tragic tale that people should know about, and a biopic on him is something I’d really enjoy.
Yeah. But did it take 3 hours to feel that or did you get it in the first 30 minutes and was wondering why they kept trying to make you "feel" it? Me after 120 minutes - "Bro! If you're gonna kill her for the money, just do it already!! It's been 2 hours of y'all talking about it!!!"
That actress is being overhyped cause it's a Scorsese film, I did not find her acting good very wooden and dry, I been hearing all this praise let down for sure.
I just really wanted the story to be focused on lily gladstone's Molly, and that's disappointing. Even tho Leo and Dinero are talented, they've always front and center, and i wanted the Osage people to be front and center.
There isn't enough documented history about her and experience to make it primarily about her character. She was just experiencing being at the center of several murders. Though I guess a bunch of fictionalized scenes involving her instead of fictionalized scenes featuring the villians would've been better. This angle was just misguided.
Without giving it away. I thought the end was a nice alternative to reading a bunch of text that usually provides the epilogue to true story movies. I can also see people finding it silly or taking them out of the movie though.
@@lorrrdy The final cameo is what made it work for me. It seemed silly at first, but then it got very emotional. Really showed what it meant to tell this story.
Its genius considering that Radio Broadcast was something that happened in real life. A radio broadcast to bump up the ego of Hoover and the FBI in the midst of their powertrip during the late 50s. If you read the book, they actually talk about that broadcast that also conveniently leaves out the mention of Tom White as the real heart of the investigation. Heartbreaking ending.
Both me and the person who watched it with me hated it. Not only does it take you out, we saw it as kind of selfish. If you want to do the broadcast, fine, but why not manipulate it so it's the voice of one of her decedents, or a person from the tribe? It's their pain and hurt and injustice that should take center stage at that moment, because it happened to them. I can't even really describe the frustration of "person talks for you" that comes with being a minority... I just honestly would have preferred text on screen.
Saw this last night at an early preview. Was curious to hear your thoughts Dan. The ending didn’t bother me but I’m interested to see what other people think. I will most likely not see it again since it’s a real downer. If I do it will be in a theater because the cinematography is amazing.
I actually liked the ending, it's basically the same as for other biopics in giving the aftermath of the characters through text that the audience have to read, the difference is, in this movie they have to spell it out in a theater play which I really like
The wrap was great and bold imo. It also happens to be a nod to the fact that J. Edgar Hoover had crime podcasts going around during the development of the investigations. This was in the book. A very Scorsese touch, and not the “cliche” black screen with white text
While a bit too expository for my taste, I did appreciate and commend the approach in how he wanted to wrap up the story through a radio play. And then transition to the modern Osage Tribe performing one of their ritual dances as a proper end point. So yeah, definitely one I did enjoy and feel will be better appreciated in time, unlike The Irishman from my POV.
Spot on! Scorsese is probably my favorite, but this one lacked a little focus..the love story wasn’t fully developed. The perspective was not centered around Molly or the Osage enough imo .More context would have been welcomed, which that could’ve been told from the fbi perspective. Felt a little repetitive. Also they made Bill smith white oddly (I think combing him with the real life local lawyer). Important story, decent movie, but not his best work (and that’s okay)
one thing Lawrence has tat this doesn't is an intermission. i was struggling around the 2 hour mark as the film does dip, but it really picked up for me once Jessie Plemmons came in as the FBI agent. the last hour is the best hour. and if anyone needs to pee i will say go just after the explosion, and get back before jessie enters the picture, because once he does you will not want to leave. i stuck out the whole thing but did have crossed legs for like the last 45 minutes! i'm also one of the few who really didn't rate Lily Gladstone's performance that highly, especially as she almost disappears in the second half as she is sick in bed. i love De Niro in this, he is my front runner for supporting actor.
Lawrence had an intermission because up until the early 80s, movies came on multiple reels. It wasn’t because people thought they needed a potty break.
I read the original script was from the FBI perspective and Leonardo Dicaprio was going to play the lead agent. They say it was changed because they felt Ernest and Mollie's perspective explored more of the heart of the story and it wouldn't end up being another White Savior movie. I like the choice. The Mollie and Ernest story is like a microcosm of the relationship between the Osage and White people in that county. Alot of the tragic Native American stories are one of compromise to create peace and trust only for that trust to broken because of greed and White Supremacy.
So... another period piece movie from a prestige auteur director known for crime films that is one of their final films where Leonardo DiCaprio's character is given way too much focus when everything else going on in the movie is a million times more interesting? Not at all a new situation.
When I saw the trailer I thought it was weird to be focusing on the villains rather than the investigation. The book is all about the mystery and trying to figure out whats happening. I think thats where the compelling story is. Not all this stuff with the antagonists which is all made up because we don't know any of it. Hale never admitted anything and pretty much everyone else died before they could say anything of consequence. Having read the book I really though it would have been better served being directed by someone like David Fincher, Zodiac specifically came to mind as a similar tone.
@@niknigal3379 so you think it's better that they created a bunch of fictional interactions betwern the villians and indulged in rampant speculation instead of following the facts? Plus the FBI isn't involved until the 3rd act.
I can honestly say that this movie was not all that entertaining, and I absolutely love that about it. I just love that this movie can exist. The ending of the movie exists purely to showcase to the audience yeah this wasn’t really meant to be entertaining. He intentionally didn’t add all the bells and whistles that would have made the movie more engaging and the story more digestible. But he didn’t want the story to be more digestible. He just wanted to tell the story he deeply cares about. Like I genuinely don’t think I’ll ever rewatch this movie again, but I am also extremely happy I saw it because now I know that story. And I bet the fact that he was able to immortalize this story that he cares so much about, will probably bring him more satisfaction than any other film he has made, regardless of how much more his others have entertained people.
"I can honestly say that this movie was not all that entertaining, and I absolutely love that about it." Why do a fiction movie? Why not a documentary?
I finally watched Oppenheimer yesterday, and I feel about it, the way you feel about this movie. There's greatness there, I did like it, but I have several criticisms for it. The third act being the biggest one for me. The guy next to me fell asleep, to the point that he shoved his elbow onto me, in an attempt to try to get comfy, like he was in his bed. I checked my watched 3 times. I didn't even do that with Power of the Dog, which is notoriously slow paced.
Yeah the third act of Oppenheimer after the bomb test is very drawn out, I'm sorry but so much of the interrogation scenes could've been cut down or cut out. Interesting still, but definitely slow pacing.
That’s interesting because the third act of Oppenheimer, for me, was where the film really picked up. I love those big Nolan climaxes where a ton of stuff is going on and you have those big realisations, particularly upon the reveal of Oppenheimer pulling the strings the whole time and the final scene, which I felt wrapped everything up in a nice little bow. What preceded, while not bad by any means, just felt a lot like most biopics nowadays do, a two hour montage of stuff happening. For me, it was the Nuclear Bomb test scene that took the film from good to great and I loved everything afterwards
@@samuelbarber6177 To me it felt like 2 separate movies. Which either could have worked on their own. But after the “big event”, I wasn’t expecting a whole extra hour of movie. I thought he was going to wrap up a few loose ends and call it a day. I was definitely not ready for a court room drama, completely disjointed from the other movie we has just seen. You know what I mean? It’s not that the third act is bad, it just feels like a different film and it elongated a movie that could have ended not long after the big event. I feel like there were 2 different movies in it and way too much going on.
I just saw it. it is 3hours and 45 mins long. I won't say that I was bored by the movie but it was too long. Also, uncomfortable to be sitting for that long in a theatre seat. By the end, I think the climatic end scenes were lost on me because by that time I just didnt care anymore and I had kind of checked out. The actors were great in their roles, the story was based on true events but the movie didnt need to be so drawn out.
I kind of wish there was more with the Osage people themselves. As the film goes on, I feel as though they kind of lose focus, especially once the Courtroom drama begins. Aside from that, I don’t really have any criticism of the movie, though I feel a bit unfulfilled this first go around. I’d very much like to watch it again to properly comprehend it all.
I agree it needs to be shorter. When the majority of the third act is characters revealing things to each other that the audience already knows, there's a problem. I also hated the "creative" conclusion. I understand it's a artist's choice, but to me it felt like it ripped me out of the movie, came across as comical and therefore undermined the tragic events just witnessed. Really, they should have shot another half hour of footage focusing on the investigation, stuck it between Plemon"s arrival and the court proceedings, then released it as a four-part limited series. Either that, or Ol' Thelma needs to tighten the reins a bit on Marty and know when a movie is simply too long to service the story. I agree with a lot of what Dan said here and I think he put it perfectly when he said "Somewhere in this good 3.5 hour film is a great 3 hour film." I've also been saying myself that Supporting Actor this year will be a battle of the two Roberts. That would be a tough choice. Downy Jr is long overdue and it's a shame he doesn't already have an Oscar. De Niro has two, but it would be nice to see have one for one of his senior or "late-career" performances. This could also lead us to a director/picture split again come Oscar time. In order to appease everyone and Noone, maybe Scorsese takes Best Director while Oppenheimer takes Best Picture or vise versa. Lily Gladstone is amazing and she is my pick so far for Supporting Actress. I think her biggest threat in sight may be Carey Mulligan in Maestro, depending on whether she gets recognized as lead or Supporting. (If they had just gave her the win she deserved for Promising Young Woman, she would be less of a threat.) Solid review Dan, this is a movie everyone should see, if only for the great performances and much needed history lesson.
Funny you mention the FBI taking a backseat. The book the film is based on actually focuses on the FBI uncovering the mystery of the murders. Scorsese chose to focus on the killers instead.. so the film is like an inverse of the book it’s based on.
One big problem I felt this movie had was DeNero and DeCaprio. They are both too old for the roles they are playing, considering how conflicted his character is it would be much much better if he was a younger guy that was shown as very easy to manipulate for someone like DeNero. The issue with DeNiro is if he was younger, his greed would be more understandable but at the age he is shown in the movie, how much more gold can he hoard.
I wonder what we would get if MS realized he's not the best person to tell this story and put his considerable influence behind an indigenous team. I also would like more discussion of how this isn't history. It's still happening. When work camps move near indigenous lands, women go missing. Today. Right now.
I found the film very weak. The subgenre of this film is clearly an "undercover" story. But, unlike what happens in The Departed, there is no tension/suspense whatsoever since NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY, distrusts Leonardo Dicaprio's character for a large part of the narrative. There is no investigation conducted by Jesse Plemons' character. He simply asks a few questions and that's it. The courtroom drama in the third act is very weak (there is no well-developed set-up & pay-off). The fact that the Osage do not distrust Robert DeNiro and Leonardo DiCaprio's characters makes the Indians seem completely stupid. And when deaths continue to happen, in my opinion, it generated involuntary laughter. There is a tremendous lack of drama, suspense, surprises, etc. in the narrative since we are never present in the most dramatic moments. It's all narrated through images or observed by DiCaprio's character. If the film is about this character's redemption, the story is done very poorly.
I loved the book. I hated the movie. Self Indulgent and boring. I would’ve rathered more Osage perspective or fbi. Ernest and hale Was the least interesting perspective for me. Read the book.
Just watched the movie this afternoon. News of the movie lead me to read the book, and a very good book it is! The movie lost the key element in the book in the first 20 minutes. In the book, the motivation for what happened is held from the reader, but in the movie the plot is revealed right away. So I had to sit for for an additional 3+ hours to make it to the end. It was brutal. Yes, the cinematography was good, however DiCaprio seemed out of place in this role and there was no chemistry whatsoever between him and Gladstone. The book deserves more than this, and I’m a Scorsese fan. This movie easily could’ve been an hour and a half shorter and would’ve made for a better movie.
If this movie focus on the investigation of FBI guy as the original novel does, this would be more entertaining and shorter. But it would be less profound human drama like this movie has achieved.
I agree that the film could have been shorter, but Scorsese’s deep dive into the treachery of the human heart, makes it a masterpiece to me. Gladstone and DeNiro are fabulous.
Did they pay 50 million each to Dicaprio and Deniro? Because there is no reason this film budget to be over 200 million, it was shot in US and mostly on location. It is just baffling.
Adjusted for inflation, “Killers” cost as much as “Heaven’s Gate” did in 1980. Period pieces are expensive because everything you see on screen was made. “On location” means a movie or show was shot in the area the story takes place. It doesn’t mean said area had buildings, train stations, and oil well sites that looked like they did a hundred years ago. All the buildings had to be built, the clothes had to be made, someone had to find cars, guns, musical instruments, etc. that existed in the 1920s. Add 2 actors getting movie star salaries, nearly a hundred speaking roles, an acclaimed director, a top tier production crew, and delays from Covid, and it’s pretty impressive it didn’t cost more.
@@bobcobb3654 200 million is pushing it lol. Not saying it isn't worth it cause I think it is. And I'm sure you can def see the money on screen, but this isn't an epic where they have to have war battles on horse and action set pieces. The covid delay costs are the only real thing that should've bumped it up that high.
@@doc8013 well, the new Mission Impossible, the new Indiana Jones, the Little Mermaid, The Flash, and Fast X all cost more to make (Mission, Indy, and Fast X cost at or more than $300 million). A $200 million epic isn’t the pearl-clutching figure it was in 1997 when the entertainment press was rooting for Titanic to fail.
I still enjoy the Oscars even though it has lost its cache. I haven’t seen Killers yet but I think it’s safe to say that Downey Jr. will likely win. It’s hard for any actor like De Niro to win 3 Oscars. And I think Downey Jr. will definitely get the Jamie Lee Curtis treatment.
they lost 100% of their relevance once they started with sensitivity readers and ford hiring of people according to skin colour or sexual preference. Merit makes better films. This way you get the best people. Imagine having to hire a cameraman according to skin colour and sexual preferences. Their own rules make it rigged and uninteresting.
@@MicahMicahel but what if the best person was someone who really wasn’t white? That’s impossible to prove. So now it seems to be one’s thinking that if the actor or cameraman who won isn’t white then the award is not legitimate?
yes! you get my point. With our system you will never trust a person of colour and they will never know if they got the job on merit. The fraud syndrome is taking over people's minds @@dougdeveloper8850If I was black I would hate this system and hide the fact I was black. IN canada black people get free business loans even if they have the worst credit possible. We didn't have slavery. The natives actually said Canada treated them better. 'We' worked with them even.I don't deserve a reward. It wasn't me. My people starved from communism in the 20th century. the y committed cannibalism.. because of communism. Was that my suffering? Wouldn't it be false valour if I took the privileges for their bad treatment? I'm not eating people. our Canadian government was exposed for creating fake news where nuns were supposed to have killed lots of children but it was fake. If you are making movie all people are important and you want the very best. For anything really. Would you accept a surgeon that got through school because of their skin colour? can they carve into you? If everyone has the same equal opportunity we will know the person of colour is the right one because of merit. T EH left is making people racist.
a further thought. Art is very competitive. Often failure is what makes an artist get to the next level. These people that are benefiting from systemic privilege are even worse than the idea of rich people hiring their relatives. No rich person ever hired their relatives to make movies or perform surgery or pilot a plane. Why do you think that is? @@dougdeveloper8850 TEh old way would be based on merit still and people that died were able to. even in sth most chauvinistic periods of the 20th century women would write screenplays, work top level at advertising jobs. Black people were most likely blocked by they aren't now. You can weaken their art of you give them privileges. It's racist to make it easier for them because it mans they will never get to the next level. Identity politics is evil and only functions to divide people and divert your attention.
"Let's make a movie about the tragedy of the Osage people" "Sure, but let's center it around a white guy wresting with his conscience." "Why would we do that?" "We got Leonardo DiCaprio" "Well okay then."
I understood that Robert deniro and Leonardo as the character focus was the main goal but woman watch movies so The female character perspective is very important
He makes way more than just gangster movies. Yes, some of his most notable movies have to do with organized crime, but he's unfairly pigeonholed as a director who only does gangster movies. Hugo, The King of Comedy, After Hours, The Last Temptation of Christ, Raging Bull, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Cape Fear, The Aviator, Shutter Island and more aren't gangster movies.
Killers of the Flower was good but not great. I enjoyed the story, but the book was better. I didn’t love the acting and agree with your opinion on changing up the plot
it's definitely not true that he only makes mob movies and he is admirable for switching genres. However, my gripe is that some of his mob films are the same story
Oof…I have really nothing positive to say about this movie. If it cost $200M then it must have been in the salaries bc that $ isn’t spent in production. If felt every bit of 3.5 hours. And every role was overacted…almost campy. Lily Gladstone was one note and emotionless. It just wasn’t for me.
I am probably part of the 1 percent that dont like the movie but I feel like it was a bit of a slog, maybe I just don't like Scorsese's 3 hour epic dramas. It feels way too similar to the irishman imo, where it feels way too much like a mob movie (with deniro and dicaprios interactions and how they go about their business). Although the story itself is interesting, the Scorsese style epic hurts it, the way they shoot and setup the murders feels very bland and bleak (although that might be what its going for). The 2nd half definitely felt more engrossing than the first.
I enjoyed the movie. And I agree that there is a 2.5-3 hour movie, a better movie hidden in this move. Why are we, as viewers, have to endure these unjustifiably long movies? The length does not make these movies better or more important.
So: I'll say this. I felt largely aligned with Murrel's take on this one while watching. By the end; the tragic power it built really overwhelmed me. I'll say subtly that while many innocent people are harmed in this, one of them we hardly know. It's the least discussed, someone barely registered and yet it is when the dam breaks for a character. And it was for me also. I knew I'd have to let the movie settle, but let me say: it's settling with increasing appreciation and awe at its precision and beauty, not less. That's my experience.
While I haven’t seen the movie yet, and I won’t until it comes to streaming, I REALLY enjoyed this review. Dan has an ability to tell it like it is on a level that just resonates with me.
I really enjoyed the first two thirds and also think the FBI work should have been the focus on the last third. It was a little boring seeing DiCaprio turn his alliances over and over.
Just watched, It was great movie. I wonder how the box office numerbers will be, in denmark, the city i live in, the cinema been packed through thursday and till sunday. It dont mean much overall, but wonder how it is everywhere else
Scorsese said they started the script from the FBI point of view but the story was turning into a white savior type of movie. He didn't want that. An Osage involved in the making of the movie initially wanted it from the Osage point of view but realized for that to be done correctly it would have to done by Osage people. Taking the killers point of view appears to be the best, though not perfect, point of view.
I want to see it, but I just don't think I can make the time for it. For one thing, no one will go with me to see a movie that long. For another, it just happens to be coming out at a very busy time for me, and that's just too long for it to be a responsible decision for me to see it. I pine for the days of 90 minute movies.
I've never really understood the complaints about runtimes. 90 minute comedies being 2 and a half hours is too much, I get something like that. But when one of the greatest directors ever, in his 80s, gives us a mammoth runtime I feel really fortunate. Not saying the theatre experience would be great lol, especially if you have to use the restroom. Might need to go back to intermissions for movies of this length and scale.
The guy that should get a supporting actor nod is the Osage elder in white who was telling the history of the Osage. It was so natural and from the heart it felt like it wasnt scripted but came forth from his soul.
The cast all around was solid, but the attention will be rightfully so on Lily Gladstone, as well as DeNiro & DiCaprio. The only one that stuck out was a cameo actor I felt didn't fit the slimy, conniving nature of the character. Otherwise, yeah, the award season is getting interesting now.
It's probably a speech given often. Probably why it was included. "You know that speech that you give? I wanna take it and put it in the movie/book/song/poem/comic/TH-cam" kind of thought inspiration process.
In theory, waiting until the third act to bring in the FBI makes sense. It’s not a Law and Order episode where detectives arrive on scene a couple of hours after the body was found. The tribe had to live with these things happening to them for a long time and knew the people who did it. And the people that did it really weren’t hiding it that much. The FBI showing up 90-120 minutes in gives the audience a similar response as the tribe, which is “Finally, what took you so long?”
"In theory"..... but it doesn't in practice.
I think his point was that when they did show up they should have taken more of a forefront.
@@greggibson33 it does actually.
@@jhonshephard921 Scorcese pushes his bad guy is awesome schtick as usual (every film). Doesn't work here. This story could've been an all-timer in another director's hands. Big miss.
@seanolaocha940 Not what I meant. He pushes the 'bad guy as hero' in literally EVERY movie. It's become redundant and stale, imo
The book is split into 3 parts: Mollie's story (Osage perspective), the FBI investigation, and a smaller part in the end with present-day Osage people. In interviews, Scorsese talks about the change in the script from focusing on the investigation to focusing on the couple, because the "investigation movie" has been done many times and there was heart in the story of Ernest and Mollie. I understood that and ultimately liked the film, but it is clear that the focus is squarely on Leo and DeNiro, even though Mollie and Tom White were the protagonists in the book. And maybe because Leo (the star and EP) is such an important part of the film, there was so much sympathy given to his character, laying the blame on DeNiro's, that I felt it was a bit much. I did like the way they wrapped up the story a lot, though. And his cameo made me emotional. The investigators are well portrayed in the film, they're smart, cunning and get stuff done. It's just not the focus of the film. As a fan of the book I was a bit frustrated because they didn't tell the audience clearly why and how the Osage ended up on those lands, nor do they mention that this was the first major fbi investigation. But I love Scorsese and did like the film quite a lot. It wasn't a masterpiece like Silence (underrated gem!), but it is one of the best of the year for me. Like most Scorses films, it'll stay with me for a while. Maybe it'll grow on me, like The Irishman did.
"nor do they mention that this was the first major fbi investigation." I think Ernest not knowing who the FBI was implied this is when they were first forming
It was pretty much stated in the dialogue the ignorance in the characters confused by who Tom and his Bureau team were was enough to showcase that the FBI was just established at the point they got involved with this case.
I remember that dialogue. But it could just mean that the bureau was something new that these people from a small town, largely overlooked by the government, didn't know about. The movie doesn't show how important this particular investigation was to the FBI, like the book does. That's what I meant. But I don't hold that against the movie, I liked the film, and what good movies about real events do is spark interest in the subject, so that people can go home and research more about it.
I thought the movie did a great job of giving you reasons you should feel sorry for Ernest. But then it pulls the rug out from under you when he lies to Mollie about what was in her Insulin at the end. He "cleansed his soul" by giving up his Uncle but even when not under the influence of King he couldn't take accountability for what he did when given one last chance. By giving you some doubt on whether he's evil or easily manipulated right I feel like it keeps you from completely hating the protagonist for 3.5 hours until that final moment.
The original draft of the movie was from the point of view of the FBI, and Di Caprio was supposed to play the Jesse Plemens character, who was originally the protagonist. They shifted the story to be about the Burkharts to have the movie be about the betrayal of the Osage people, rather than white heroes coming to investigate what happened and to bring justice to the needy natives. But it sounds like it didn't quite go far enough, which is a bummer. Lily Gladstone is an amazing actress. Her guest starring appearance on Reservation Dogs absolutely shattered me.
The fact that some of you guys think the first draft is instantly a white savior storyline that should never be told is quite baffling and deeply deeply problematic. its still a very valid storyline everyone can learn something from if done right.
@@afrosymphony8207it's been done 1000 times, and white people are the reason indigenous people have been slaughtered for hundreds of years... The fact you find people's correct analysis of white savior clichés a problem, is deeply deeply problematic.
@@afrosymphony8207 I've been reading a lot of interviews with Scorsese and Di Caprio and this is how they've described the process of making the movie, especially with how the movie differs from the original book. I'm not making up the white savior perspective, that's a thing they've talked very frequently and very specifically about. I haven't read the book. It might not have that perspective. But Scorsese and Di Caprio seem to think it does, or at least the original script written with Eric Roth did.
@@afrosymphony8207 I can confirm that what @lydia1634 is saying is correct. I saw this early in NYC and that is what Marty said, that the original draft (and the book) is about the birth of the FBI and follows the person that Jesse Plemons plays, who would've originally been played by Leo
I was so excited for Jesse Plemons to play Tom White.
Tom White is essentially the lead in the book.
If you haven’t seen “ Silence” by Marty it’s an absolute masterpiece. Loved it. Slow but beautiful… especially if you were religious but you are not anymore
I'm a Muslim and I absolutely adore Silence
One of my favourite films of all time. Top 10 Scorsese, easily.
Weird when people call him Marty lol like you’re not buddies or something
shoutout to Dan, one of the best critics in the history of this platform, been my go to guy for years
This directing and subtle music had me transfixed. Moreover, the imagery and acting were powerfully touching.
It’s not a mafia movie per se but it’s definitely about organized crime.
During my screening I simultaneously heard snoring and muffled Taylor Swift music. Hollywood is back baby!!!
Lmao same. When it was a quiet scene you could hear Taylor swift through the walls. Mad annoying
@@abornvillain Seriously...
Leo: *poisoning his own wife*
The walls of the theatre: MARRY ME JULIET...🗣🗣🗣
😬
I am just stoked that we have a 3.5-hour Scorcese epic playing in cinemas! I have never had the chance to watch a Scorcese movie in theatres mainly due to my age, and now I am super excited especially cuz of the De Niro performance. The only shame is that it is coming to theatres in India on the 27th, so will have to wait a week!
I went day 2 once it released. I wasn't going to miss a chance.
Did you feel the length of this? Thats my only concern
@@KalvinPatelIt feels almost an hour shorter than it is (unlike The Wolf of Wall Street, which felt an hour longer).
This is why i enjoy reviewers and ones like Dan especially. Fans can be so rapt up in hype. I saw people attack reviewers who ddnt call this film great. And the fans hadnt even watched the movie! Some people really need to get a life
This has been happening for days on X (I refuse to call that abomination of a platform Twitter). Film X really got overhyped with the hatred for Marvel and Star Wars that they forgot to actually see the movie to judge it on its merits. I'm seeing it tomorrow night and I'm very excited but I'm gonna temper my expectations of seeing the Osage people do much in their own story
I thought this was the best film he’s made since The Wolf of Wall Street
@kdizzle901 if you watched it and thought so then no problem there.
Just always weird seeing people attack others for not liking what they like
Maybe Christopher Nolan and Martin Scorsese could use their power and wealth to bring back 4-5 hour films with breaks in them. Three and a half hours of sitting in one place is a bit much. Movie theatres make most of their money on food and drinks. It's in their business to keep the audience around longer.
Hollywood needs to copy Indian cinema. Those movies all have intermission.
I will only ever watch these "auteur" directors' films on streaming. I don't have the patience to sit in a movie theater for three and a half hours. That's just too big an ask.
I would rather they use their time to bring back actual stars. The movie was great but DeCaprio's character should have been played by a much younger character, same with DeNiro's. Maybe someone like Daniel Radcliffe would have been more age appropriate, and DeNiro's character should have been played by DeCaprio.
@@hothotheat3000 It is in the sense that it refuses to give new people a chance and Rajnikanth and Shah Rukh Khan types are still the only "stars". The main cast should have been MUCH younger and Hollywood should have continued trying to build brands around new actors and directors. Instead the brand is "Marvel" or "DC" or "Jurassic Park". No one is coming to see "the new Chris Pratt movie" but I actually used the words "the new DiCaprio movie" when getting my tickets when the guy didn't understand the name of the movie.
It gives execs more control because big name actors can be replaced by anyone as long as they hold the big IP but it reduces experimental movies because the studio can only promote the repetitive IP and not "here is the new XYZ movie".
@@jhonshephard921I legitimately don't care for "actual stars" anymore. I want good performances.
❤loved this film. It had a realistic deepening of the Osage Culture & Community. The betrayal by entrusted anglo-american men that conducted deceitful oil business & intermarriage abuse was just dang on point expressed brilliantly by DiCaprio & DeNiro. Mad Respect To The Osage Community! They did an Amazing Preformance in telling thier story thru the Director's film.
Just saw it. It was pretty amazing. Fully engaged the entire time. And every single scene has something in it that is uniquely inventive and specific to that scene and just moves forward so perfectly from scene to scene.
I've never been bothered by long films and most great films are long. I felt other people's discomfort with it. So I wished I was in that theater alone. I'll never understood people's beef with long movies in a strong, fully engaging movie.
Molly's instant and complete understanding of who he was and what he was and still marrying him anyways is a nuanced real life relationship that I feel is always missing from movies.
I'm glad he left out all these extra scenes to get us there. This seemed the more intelligent and nuanced move. Which she pulled off brilliantly with her eyes.
In this way Scorcrse is stil the bold young filmmaker of the 70s. So instead of it showing up in big ideas it shows up in small, bold decisions.
Also this is 2 movies in a row he departs from the story and goes full meta at the end. A big middle finger to us and Hollywood.
That young bold filmmaker is still in there.
Lily Gladstone gave a heart rending performance. She's my favorite for best supporting actress
I think that is a problem for this movie if she’s only in the supporting category.
She's being campaigned in Lead now.
Would've been a lock. In the leading role, it'll be tighter competition for sure.
Did you watch another film by any chance. She's the main lead.
As someone who has read the source material, the film follows the book pretty closely.
martin scorsese would disagree
I’ve read the book as well, and I would disagree. The only thing the book and movie have in common is the shared historical story of the early 1920’s , which both stay true to, but the book and movie tell the historical story in vastly different ways. The book tells the story in 3 parts from 3 different perspectives that allow the author to conceal the truth and weave this historical story into a real life murder mystery with some big reveals. Scorsese, on the other hand, drops the mystery for more of a straight forward telling of the historical story replacing the mystery with more of a darkly twisted love story combined with a character piece on greed and betrayal. I enjoyed the book more, but I will say that the film felt more personal and gut wrenching.
Not a fan of the by-the-book, linear storytelling of Scorsese and recent Eastwood (Flower Moon and American Sniper are good but could've been great) .... they always have great source material but tell the story in a style that could be much more visionary and compelling. I guess the aging process also slows the artistic ambitions.
@@greggibson33I wasn't a big fan of either, but I thought this movie was better than Oppenheimer. I'm my opinion, that movie would have been much better with a more linear narrative.
@@greggibson33 motherfucker compared Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese like they had any right in the same sentence
This is an excellent review of the film. Personally, I wish there was more to the character of Molly, but I do think it was more Leo-De Niro focused to draw in more audience members who are paying off name recognition
I heard the original intention was to follow the non fiction book it was based on, which was only from the FBI guys pov that Leo was supposed to do. But decided to focus on the victims and the monsters to properly tell what happened and how messed up it was.
Dude, half of the film was bout how Mollie dealt with white people in her community and deaths of her family but it was seen through the eyes of Ernest/Di Caprio. I'm glad it wasn't made as a feminist film, which was not. Thanks to King Scorsese.
I don’t know if I’m the weird one,but I am more hyped about Jesse plemons than Leo. He’s such a good actor. Will definitely go watch his performance this week end
Be warned he doesn't show up until the 2 hour mark. But when he comes in, boy is he great in it!
He absolutely owns every scene he’s in. He was a standout. And this movie has one of the best supporting ensemble casts ever. Most of musicians showing up in acting roles, which is a nice Easter egg for those in the know (one is a lot more famous than the rest and it was cool to see him act).
@@djstarsignsaw Jason Isbell’s name come up @ the end & wuz immediately “oh that’s who that was!!!!”. But the one you’re referring to I suspect was the one in the radio drama ? Yeah that was fun.
& yes Jesse Plemons is great in his scenes.
He's barely in the movie and Leo steals the scenes that they are in.
I was so excited to see his character when he did show up - Jesse is amazing
Very smart move for Appole to partner with Paramount on this movie. Paramount have much more experince and relationships with distributors and the studio will be happy to make some money from the box office. It also keeps Scorcese and the cast happy as it will get a full theatrical release, giving those who dont have Apple TV more of a chance to see it as well as increased awarenss going into awards season.
Finally, when it lands on Apple TV at some point, more people are likely to watch then if it had gone straight to streaming due to having a big theatrical release.
I beleive Apple will be doing something similar with Sony for the upcoming Ridley Scott napoleon movie
F Paramount!
The length of time you have the audiences 100% attention is measured by the length of time the audience has 100% control of their bladder.
Wasn’t as bothered by the runtime personally. Couldn’t help but think of what you once said Marty called The Irishman: “a picture of considerable length…” 😅
Spoilers if you haven’t seen it, go watch it it’s great.
The best scene in the film, for me, was in the middle of the film. The one where Dark Was The Night, Cold Was The Ground by Blind Willie Johnson plays. We get this disturbing and haunting shot of Molly with glazed over eyes looking out at the fires in the windows. Ernest is putting the poison in both his drink and her insulin. They both look horrendous. She looks nearly dead, and she is nearly dead. He’s completely torn apart by greed, guilt, self preservation and madness from hiding the truth. The shots in that scene montage are just incredible. It’s the point in the movie where I started to cry because I was convinced her character wasn’t making it. I didn’t think Molly was going to live to the end, so the scene just hit harder because of that. It’s my favorite moment from the movie, mainly because of the track used behind it. Blind Willie Johnson is a very tragic tale that people should know about, and a biopic on him is something I’d really enjoy.
My favorite scene as well dude!!
It looked like a literal hell. Superb cinematography.
The only think I felt all movie was the Osage fear and dread the whole movie. That was front and centre for me the whole time. It was haunting.
Yeah. But did it take 3 hours to feel that or did you get it in the first 30 minutes and was wondering why they kept trying to make you "feel" it?
Me after 120 minutes - "Bro! If you're gonna kill her for the money, just do it already!! It's been 2 hours of y'all talking about it!!!"
@@thedarkemissarytotally agree, 30 minutes in, its all clear
The book doesn't really tell the story from the Osage perspective at all, so it seems like they tried to rework it to meet it halfway.
That actress is being overhyped cause it's a Scorsese film, I did not find her acting good very wooden and dry, I been hearing all this praise let down for sure.
I just really wanted the story to be focused on lily gladstone's Molly, and that's disappointing. Even tho Leo and Dinero are talented, they've always front and center, and i wanted the Osage people to be front and center.
David Grann's book didn't heavily focus on the Osage community, it focused more on the FBI investigation
There isn't enough documented history about her and experience to make it primarily about her character. She was just experiencing being at the center of several murders. Though I guess a bunch of fictionalized scenes involving her instead of fictionalized scenes featuring the villians would've been better. This angle was just misguided.
Without giving it away. I thought the end was a nice alternative to reading a bunch of text that usually provides the epilogue to true story movies.
I can also see people finding it silly or taking them out of the movie though.
I agree. It's much better than just text on the screen. I loved it. And the cameos were good. Specially his cameo, it made me emotional.
@@lorrrdyThe end line of "There were no mentions of the murders..."
What a gut punch.
@@lorrrdy The final cameo is what made it work for me. It seemed silly at first, but then it got very emotional. Really showed what it meant to tell this story.
Its genius considering that Radio Broadcast was something that happened in real life. A radio broadcast to bump up the ego of Hoover and the FBI in the midst of their powertrip during the late 50s. If you read the book, they actually talk about that broadcast that also conveniently leaves out the mention of Tom White as the real heart of the investigation. Heartbreaking ending.
Both me and the person who watched it with me hated it. Not only does it take you out, we saw it as kind of selfish. If you want to do the broadcast, fine, but why not manipulate it so it's the voice of one of her decedents, or a person from the tribe? It's their pain and hurt and injustice that should take center stage at that moment, because it happened to them. I can't even really describe the frustration of "person talks for you" that comes with being a minority... I just honestly would have preferred text on screen.
Saw this last night at an early preview. Was curious to hear your thoughts Dan. The ending didn’t bother me but I’m interested to see what other people think. I will most likely not see it again since it’s a real downer. If I do it will be in a theater because the cinematography is amazing.
I actually liked the ending, it's basically the same as for other biopics in giving the aftermath of the characters through text that the audience have to read, the difference is, in this movie they have to spell it out in a theater play which I really like
The wrap was great and bold imo. It also happens to be a nod to the fact that J. Edgar Hoover had crime podcasts going around during the development of the investigations. This was in the book. A very Scorsese touch, and not the “cliche” black screen with white text
While a bit too expository for my taste, I did appreciate and commend the approach in how he wanted to wrap up the story through a radio play. And then transition to the modern Osage Tribe performing one of their ritual dances as a proper end point. So yeah, definitely one I did enjoy and feel will be better appreciated in time, unlike The Irishman from my POV.
Spot on! Scorsese is probably my favorite, but this one lacked a little focus..the love story wasn’t fully developed. The perspective was not centered around Molly or the Osage enough imo .More context would have been welcomed, which that could’ve been told from the fbi perspective. Felt a little repetitive. Also they made Bill smith white oddly (I think combing him with the real life local lawyer). Important story, decent movie, but not his best work (and that’s okay)
one thing Lawrence has tat this doesn't is an intermission. i was struggling around the 2 hour mark as the film does dip, but it really picked up for me once Jessie Plemmons came in as the FBI agent. the last hour is the best hour. and if anyone needs to pee i will say go just after the explosion, and get back before jessie enters the picture, because once he does you will not want to leave. i stuck out the whole thing but did have crossed legs for like the last 45 minutes!
i'm also one of the few who really didn't rate Lily Gladstone's performance that highly, especially as she almost disappears in the second half as she is sick in bed. i love De Niro in this, he is my front runner for supporting actor.
Lawrence had an intermission because up until the early 80s, movies came on multiple reels. It wasn’t because people thought they needed a potty break.
I read the original script was from the FBI perspective and Leonardo Dicaprio was going to play the lead agent. They say it was changed because they felt Ernest and Mollie's perspective explored more of the heart of the story and it wouldn't end up being another White Savior movie. I like the choice. The Mollie and Ernest story is like a microcosm of the relationship between the Osage and White people in that county. Alot of the tragic Native American stories are one of compromise to create peace and trust only for that trust to broken because of greed and White Supremacy.
I'm at the age where if it's over 2 hours, it's getting watched at home.
Still very intrigued to check it out as soon as possible. Very good review.
I think i just found my new favorite review channel. I agreed the story should have focus on Jesse Plemons character and more of the indian culture.
I'm seeing it tomorrow for my birthday. I hope I love it.
I like longer movies and I'm going to see it this Friday at the AMC Theater in Dolby Cinema
We only want your thoughts on the movie after you watched it not a synopsis
*just like his last movie, this one also put me to sleep* 😴
Sorry about your attention span.
So... another period piece movie from a prestige auteur director known for crime films that is one of their final films where Leonardo DiCaprio's character is given way too much focus when everything else going on in the movie is a million times more interesting? Not at all a new situation.
When I saw the trailer I thought it was weird to be focusing on the villains rather than the investigation. The book is all about the mystery and trying to figure out whats happening. I think thats where the compelling story is. Not all this stuff with the antagonists which is all made up because we don't know any of it. Hale never admitted anything and pretty much everyone else died before they could say anything of consequence. Having read the book I really though it would have been better served being directed by someone like David Fincher, Zodiac specifically came to mind as a similar tone.
I completely disagree. The film would've been stronger with less screen rime given to the FBI
It's very different from the book.
@@niknigal3379 so you think it's better that they created a bunch of fictional interactions betwern the villians and indulged in rampant speculation instead of following the facts? Plus the FBI isn't involved until the 3rd act.
@@tophers3756 this is a film, not a documentary. If the fictional elements enhance or strengthen the narrative I'm all for it
@@tophers3756who cares about the FBI?
I found it to be slow, silent, circular and depressing. It was way too long also. They could have easily cut an hour out of it. Disappointing.........
Blocking out part of my Saturday to see it this weekend. I'm just glad a new, interesting movie is coming out!
I can honestly say that this movie was not all that entertaining, and I absolutely love that about it. I just love that this movie can exist. The ending of the movie exists purely to showcase to the audience yeah this wasn’t really meant to be entertaining. He intentionally didn’t add all the bells and whistles that would have made the movie more engaging and the story more digestible. But he didn’t want the story to be more digestible. He just wanted to tell the story he deeply cares about.
Like I genuinely don’t think I’ll ever rewatch this movie again, but I am also extremely happy I saw it because now I know that story. And I bet the fact that he was able to immortalize this story that he cares so much about, will probably bring him more satisfaction than any other film he has made, regardless of how much more his others have entertained people.
"I can honestly say that this movie was not all that entertaining, and I absolutely love that about it."
Why do a fiction movie? Why not a documentary?
I'm just glad most cinemas here have intermissions.
I finally watched Oppenheimer yesterday, and I feel about it, the way you feel about this movie. There's greatness there, I did like it, but I have several criticisms for it. The third act being the biggest one for me. The guy next to me fell asleep, to the point that he shoved his elbow onto me, in an attempt to try to get comfy, like he was in his bed. I checked my watched 3 times. I didn't even do that with Power of the Dog, which is notoriously slow paced.
Yeah the third act of Oppenheimer after the bomb test is very drawn out, I'm sorry but so much of the interrogation scenes could've been cut down or cut out. Interesting still, but definitely slow pacing.
That’s interesting because the third act of Oppenheimer, for me, was where the film really picked up. I love those big Nolan climaxes where a ton of stuff is going on and you have those big realisations, particularly upon the reveal of Oppenheimer pulling the strings the whole time and the final scene, which I felt wrapped everything up in a nice little bow. What preceded, while not bad by any means, just felt a lot like most biopics nowadays do, a two hour montage of stuff happening. For me, it was the Nuclear Bomb test scene that took the film from good to great and I loved everything afterwards
@@samuelbarber6177 To me it felt like 2 separate movies. Which either could have worked on their own. But after the “big event”, I wasn’t expecting a whole extra hour of movie. I thought he was going to wrap up a few loose ends and call it a day. I was definitely not ready for a court room drama, completely disjointed from the other movie we has just seen. You know what I mean? It’s not that the third act is bad, it just feels like a different film and it elongated a movie that could have ended not long after the big event. I feel like there were 2 different movies in it and way too much going on.
I just saw it. it is 3hours and 45 mins long. I won't say that I was bored by the movie but it was too long. Also, uncomfortable to be sitting for that long in a theatre seat. By the end, I think the climatic end scenes were lost on me because by that time I just didnt care anymore and I had kind of checked out. The actors were great in their roles, the story was based on true events but the movie didnt need to be so drawn out.
Seeing it Saturday afternoon.
Indeed got tickets for this Saturday! thanks for the review!
I kind of wish there was more with the Osage people themselves. As the film goes on, I feel as though they kind of lose focus, especially once the Courtroom drama begins. Aside from that, I don’t really have any criticism of the movie, though I feel a bit unfulfilled this first go around. I’d very much like to watch it again to properly comprehend it all.
I agree it needs to be shorter. When the majority of the third act is characters revealing things to each other that the audience already knows, there's a problem. I also hated the "creative" conclusion. I understand it's a artist's choice, but to me it felt like it ripped me out of the movie, came across as comical and therefore undermined the tragic events just witnessed.
Really, they should have shot another half hour of footage focusing on the investigation, stuck it between Plemon"s arrival and the court proceedings, then released it as a four-part limited series. Either that, or Ol' Thelma needs to tighten the reins a bit on Marty and know when a movie is simply too long to service the story.
I agree with a lot of what Dan said here and I think he put it perfectly when he said "Somewhere in this good 3.5 hour film is a great 3 hour film." I've also been saying myself that Supporting Actor this year will be a battle of the two Roberts. That would be a tough choice. Downy Jr is long overdue and it's a shame he doesn't already have an Oscar. De Niro has two, but it would be nice to see have one for one of his senior or "late-career" performances.
This could also lead us to a director/picture split again come Oscar time. In order to appease everyone and Noone, maybe Scorsese takes Best Director while Oppenheimer takes Best Picture or vise versa.
Lily Gladstone is amazing and she is my pick so far for Supporting Actress. I think her biggest threat in sight may be Carey Mulligan in Maestro, depending on whether she gets recognized as lead or Supporting. (If they had just gave her the win she deserved for Promising Young Woman, she would be less of a threat.)
Solid review Dan, this is a movie everyone should see, if only for the great performances and much needed history lesson.
Deniro was excellent in Silver Linings playbook, probably his best performance since that one
Funny you mention the FBI taking a backseat. The book the film is based on actually focuses on the FBI uncovering the mystery of the murders. Scorsese chose to focus on the killers instead.. so the film is like an inverse of the book it’s based on.
The inverse in more than one way. The book focused on the facts while the film freely indulges in fictionalized scenes and speculation.
@@tophers3756that's because it's fiction. Duh
One big problem I felt this movie had was DeNero and DeCaprio. They are both too old for the roles they are playing, considering how conflicted his character is it would be much much better if he was a younger guy that was shown as very easy to manipulate for someone like DeNero. The issue with DeNiro is if he was younger, his greed would be more understandable but at the age he is shown in the movie, how much more gold can he hoard.
I wonder what we would get if MS realized he's not the best person to tell this story and put his considerable influence behind an indigenous team. I also would like more discussion of how this isn't history. It's still happening. When work camps move near indigenous lands, women go missing. Today. Right now.
I found the film very weak. The subgenre of this film is clearly an "undercover" story. But, unlike what happens in The Departed, there is no tension/suspense whatsoever since NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY, distrusts Leonardo Dicaprio's character for a large part of the narrative. There is no investigation conducted by Jesse Plemons' character. He simply asks a few questions and that's it. The courtroom drama in the third act is very weak (there is no well-developed set-up & pay-off). The fact that the Osage do not distrust Robert DeNiro and Leonardo DiCaprio's characters makes the Indians seem completely stupid. And when deaths continue to happen, in my opinion, it generated involuntary laughter. There is a tremendous lack of drama, suspense, surprises, etc. in the narrative since we are never present in the most dramatic moments. It's all narrated through images or observed by DiCaprio's character. If the film is about this character's redemption, the story is done very poorly.
Agreed! It was so bad and felt amateurish to me.
Booked my tickets, cuz I always trust Dan!
Bobby De Niro here reminds me of Yubaba/Zeniba from Sprited Away..
I loved the book. I hated the movie. Self Indulgent and boring. I would’ve rathered more Osage perspective or fbi. Ernest and hale
Was the least interesting perspective for me. Read the book.
I went to see it last night but there was an equipment malfunction, nuts
Got asked to go see this movie Thursday night and Friday afternoon so I’m seeing it twice this weekend!
Just watched the movie this afternoon. News of the movie lead me to read the book, and a very good book it is! The movie lost the key element in the book in the first 20 minutes. In the book, the motivation for what happened is held from the reader, but in the movie the plot is revealed right away. So I had to sit for for an additional 3+ hours to make it to the end. It was brutal. Yes, the cinematography was good, however DiCaprio seemed out of place in this role and there was no chemistry whatsoever between him and Gladstone. The book deserves more than this, and I’m a Scorsese fan. This movie easily could’ve been an hour and a half shorter and would’ve made for a better movie.
If this movie focus on the investigation of FBI guy as the original novel does, this would be more entertaining and shorter.
But it would be less profound human drama like this movie has achieved.
I went in excited to see epic performances from De Niro and DiCaprio and got it. But Lily Gladstone…holy shit!
I liked it. Not his best but better than the majority of movies currently being made. Can't wait for a second look.
I'm excited to see it tomorrow 👍🏻
I agree that the film could have been shorter, but Scorsese’s deep dive into the treachery of the human heart, makes it a masterpiece to me. Gladstone and DeNiro are fabulous.
I totally agree with your thoughts. Loved the movie, with some reservations
Pun excused.
Great review Dan always hearing enjoy you take on the movies you review
Did they pay 50 million each to Dicaprio and Deniro? Because there is no reason this film budget to be over 200 million, it was shot in US and mostly on location. It is just baffling.
They prolly cost close to 60 together. I'd say no more than 30 for each of them. I was a bit surprised by the budget too.
Adjusted for inflation, “Killers” cost as much as “Heaven’s Gate” did in 1980. Period pieces are expensive because everything you see on screen was made. “On location” means a movie or show was shot in the area the story takes place. It doesn’t mean said area had buildings, train stations, and oil well sites that looked like they did a hundred years ago. All the buildings had to be built, the clothes had to be made, someone had to find cars, guns, musical instruments, etc. that existed in the 1920s. Add 2 actors getting movie star salaries, nearly a hundred speaking roles, an acclaimed director, a top tier production crew, and delays from Covid, and it’s pretty impressive it didn’t cost more.
@@bobcobb3654 200 million is pushing it lol. Not saying it isn't worth it cause I think it is. And I'm sure you can def see the money on screen, but this isn't an epic where they have to have war battles on horse and action set pieces. The covid delay costs are the only real thing that should've bumped it up that high.
@@doc8013 well, the new Mission Impossible, the new Indiana Jones, the Little Mermaid, The Flash, and Fast X all cost more to make (Mission, Indy, and Fast X cost at or more than $300 million). A $200 million epic isn’t the pearl-clutching figure it was in 1997 when the entertainment press was rooting for Titanic to fail.
@@doc8013 Besides, Apple made more than $300 billion last year. They want to spend $400 million on this and Napoleon, that’s their bidness.
I won tickets to the movie but the theater in question is an hour away and a small business so of course I'll be going this weekend.
Supposedly the original script was more FBI-focused and Leo if he was to be involved suggested changes.
This review reminds me of how I felt like Cape Fear only really worked because of Juliette Lewis.
I still enjoy the Oscars even though it has lost its cache. I haven’t seen Killers yet but I think it’s safe to say that Downey Jr. will likely win. It’s hard for any actor like De Niro to win 3 Oscars. And I think Downey Jr. will definitely get the Jamie Lee Curtis treatment.
they lost 100% of their relevance once they started with sensitivity readers and ford hiring of people according to skin colour or sexual preference. Merit makes better films. This way you get the best people. Imagine having to hire a cameraman according to skin colour and sexual preferences. Their own rules make it rigged and uninteresting.
@@MicahMicahel but what if the best person was someone who really wasn’t white? That’s impossible to prove. So now it seems to be one’s thinking that if the actor or cameraman who won isn’t white then the award is not legitimate?
yes! you get my point. With our system you will never trust a person of colour and they will never know if they got the job on merit. The fraud syndrome is taking over people's minds @@dougdeveloper8850If I was black I would hate this system and hide the fact I was black. IN canada black people get free business loans even if they have the worst credit possible. We didn't have slavery. The natives actually said Canada treated them better. 'We' worked with them even.I don't deserve a reward. It wasn't me. My people starved from communism in the 20th century. the y committed cannibalism.. because of communism. Was that my suffering?
Wouldn't it be false valour if I took the privileges for their bad treatment? I'm not eating people.
our Canadian government was exposed for creating fake news where nuns were supposed to have killed lots of children but it was fake.
If you are making movie all people are important and you want the very best. For anything really. Would you accept a surgeon that got through school because of their skin colour? can they carve into you?
If everyone has the same equal opportunity we will know the person of colour is the right one because of merit.
T EH left is making people racist.
Downey JR was phenomenal in Oppenheimer. Not seen many better performances this year
a further thought. Art is very competitive. Often failure is what makes an artist get to the next level. These people that are benefiting from systemic privilege are even worse than the idea of rich people hiring their relatives. No rich person ever hired their relatives to make movies or perform surgery or pilot a plane. Why do you think that is? @@dougdeveloper8850 TEh old way would be based on merit still and people that died were able to. even in sth most chauvinistic periods of the 20th century women would write screenplays, work top level at advertising jobs. Black people were most likely blocked by they aren't now.
You can weaken their art of you give them privileges. It's racist to make it easier for them because it mans they will never get to the next level.
Identity politics is evil and only functions to divide people and divert your attention.
"Let's make a movie about the tragedy of the Osage people"
"Sure, but let's center it around a white guy wresting with his conscience."
"Why would we do that?"
"We got Leonardo DiCaprio"
"Well okay then."
I understood that Robert deniro and Leonardo as the character focus was the main goal but woman watch movies so The female character perspective is very important
Thumbnail has me worried
Edit: Ok glad you think it’s at least good
He makes gangster movies. It’s a classic genre that goes back to early roots of Hollywood. Nothing to ashamed of. We need more of them.
He makes way more than just gangster movies. Yes, some of his most notable movies have to do with organized crime, but he's unfairly pigeonholed as a director who only does gangster movies. Hugo, The King of Comedy, After Hours, The Last Temptation of Christ, Raging Bull, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Cape Fear, The Aviator, Shutter Island and more aren't gangster movies.
Killers of the Flower was good but not great. I enjoyed the story, but the book was better. I didn’t love the acting and agree with your opinion on changing up the plot
Your reviews are always great.
Fantastic review. Exactly my thoughts!
I went with subtitles and thought it was well-structured. I personally didn’t feel any sluggishness or drag
I miss De Niro doing southern accents...good to see him give that a knock out again
it's definitely not true that he only makes mob movies and he is admirable for switching genres. However, my gripe is that some of his mob films are the same story
I can see how it is a grand movie in intent, but watching it, I felt it was "good". PErhaps I had too much high expectations going in.
Molly Burkhart and Tom White where the most interesting parts of the book!
I get using your big movie stars but come on!
Oof…I have really nothing positive to say about this movie. If it cost $200M then it must have been in the salaries bc that $ isn’t spent in production. If felt every bit of 3.5 hours. And every role was overacted…almost campy. Lily Gladstone was one note and emotionless. It just wasn’t for me.
Oops Marty made another miniseries!
Eh ... I'll wait for it to cone on digital so i can take a pee break
I am probably part of the 1 percent that dont like the movie but I feel like it was a bit of a slog, maybe I just don't like Scorsese's 3 hour epic dramas. It feels way too similar to the irishman imo, where it feels way too much like a mob movie (with deniro and dicaprios interactions and how they go about their business). Although the story itself is interesting, the Scorsese style epic hurts it, the way they shoot and setup the murders feels very bland and bleak (although that might be what its going for). The 2nd half definitely felt more engrossing than the first.
DeNiro will win over RDJ.. I wasn’t too impressed by RDJ in Oppenheimer. He felt to smooth.
I enjoyed the movie. And I agree that there is a 2.5-3 hour movie, a better movie hidden in this move. Why are we, as viewers, have to endure these unjustifiably long movies? The length does not make these movies better or more important.
Which specific scenes would you cut?
So: I'll say this. I felt largely aligned with Murrel's take on this one while watching. By the end; the tragic power it built really overwhelmed me.
I'll say subtly that while many innocent people are harmed in this, one of them we hardly know. It's the least discussed, someone barely registered and yet it is when the dam breaks for a character. And it was for me also.
I knew I'd have to let the movie settle, but let me say: it's settling with increasing appreciation and awe at its precision and beauty, not less. That's my experience.
While I haven’t seen the movie yet, and I won’t until it comes to streaming, I REALLY enjoyed this review.
Dan has an ability to tell it like it is on a level that just resonates with me.
I really enjoyed the first two thirds and also think the FBI work should have been the focus on the last third. It was a little boring seeing DiCaprio turn his alliances over and over.
Just watched, It was great movie. I wonder how the box office numerbers will be, in denmark, the city i live in, the cinema been packed through thursday and till sunday. It dont mean much overall, but wonder how it is everywhere else
Almost empty tonight in a mid-size German city. Strange for a movie with two stars an directed and co-written by a renowned director.
I’m seeing it tomorrow or Friday night. Martin is that dude!
Scorsese said they started the script from the FBI point of view but the story was turning into a white savior type of movie. He didn't want that. An Osage involved in the making of the movie initially wanted it from the Osage point of view but realized for that to be done correctly it would have to done by Osage people. Taking the killers point of view appears to be the best, though not perfect, point of view.
I want to see it, but I just don't think I can make the time for it. For one thing, no one will go with me to see a movie that long. For another, it just happens to be coming out at a very busy time for me, and that's just too long for it to be a responsible decision for me to see it. I pine for the days of 90 minute movies.
I've never really understood the complaints about runtimes. 90 minute comedies being 2 and a half hours is too much, I get something like that. But when one of the greatest directors ever, in his 80s, gives us a mammoth runtime I feel really fortunate. Not saying the theatre experience would be great lol, especially if you have to use the restroom. Might need to go back to intermissions for movies of this length and scale.
"For one thing, no one will go with me to see a movie that long" Go yourself. You'll be fine.
i still think, that Tom Conti should get the nomination for best supporting actor and not Robert Downey Jr.
Ridiculous he’s hardly in it or says very few lines
Between work and Spider-Man 2 PS5, I think this one will have to wait till next weekend.