Behold my comparative review of Killers of the Flower Moon! A lot of time and research went into this one, so I really hope you enjoy it. I’ve not seen many videos comparing Scorsese’s and Grann’s versions of this story, so it should be an interesting one for you. Make sure to drop a comment below with your thoughts on both the film version and (if you’ve read it) the book version. (If you haven’t yet read the book, you’ll be able to grab a copy here: amzn.to/3TzMAx7) Thank you for joining me and supporting the video! - Luke
Great work with the video! I agree completely with your views about the choices that Scorsese made as writer/director. I left the film with an uneasy feeling, and what you described hit it on the head. Keep up the good work!
Just wondering about your first concern, the audience laughed about the situation with the lawyer and the kids. And i mean this with no disrespect, This seems to show more the character of the audience than the director of the movie. You said this happened. Yes it was shown casually because it was done like that? Should the truth not be shown is that what you mean? I did not laugh at that scene what i got from it was simply of unbothered they were with the osage and saw them as animals and even lower. Everyone has different interpetations from watching movies, if peoples take away from the movie that he was a victim is very weird. He mentions several times how much he loves money, he takes part in killing mollys family, does not admit to molly to poisoning her. Was he stupid and manipulated? yes but he did choose to participate just because he says loves molly does in no way absolve him from killing off her family. I did not get that feeling, I have not read the book, everyone is entitled to their opinions ofcourse, personally i think it was a great movie had a coherent story line and good performances. This video felt extremely nit picky, The movie shows how they literally could not access their own money, people looking away, ignoring osage, paying 20k for the now so called fbi to finally investigate? Many murders ignored, grave robbing, and again the person who saw ernest as a victim need a MRI scan to see if there is anything inside the head. Victim? Guess all murderers have to do is show stupidity and say X manipulated me my man i am a victim. He is no victim does not matter if he was manipulated. The film shows him participating in mollys sisters murder? and even robbing people, without directions from Hale.
Hey Steve! Thanks for the feedback and perspective. This is precisely the sort of discussion I want my videos to initiate 😁 You're potentially bang on the money with the laughter saying a lot about the audience. But still, Scorsese does seem to have a severe penchant for tonal dissonance, so I believe the slight comedic tone was intentional, the same way it was used between Hale and Ernest (the Masonic Temple wooden paddle/spanking scene and the conversation between the two as Hale and Grammer are driving out of the town before the bombing). Scorsese isn't the only director who seems to enjoy corrupting audiences and getting us to laugh at things that are actually pretty nasty (Tarantino is another excellent example of a director/writer who loves to do this). So, respectfully, I stand by my observations, though I'm really fascinated (and relieved) to see that you had a very different experience with this scene. Your perspective of Ernest is also great. As you said, "Everyone has different interpretations from watching movies", and I definitely don't mean to suggest that my interpretation in this video is the only correct one. But, while he is shown to do many bad things, Scorsese and Roth do appear to want us to understand Ernest's conflict and feel something for him other than just disgust. During all the trial sequences and jail scenes (particularly when he gets *that news* about his child), Ernest's struggle seems to be put in the spotlight. Not to mention, almost all the posters/promotions for the film had Ernest pictured front and centre over Molly (understandable to some degree, as Leo is a big selling point for this movie), and this is reflected in how they told the story. If you find the time to read the book, you may be able to better relate to my perspective. Grann's version is far more balanced and spends much more time with other characters in this story, who are, in my opinion, far more compelling and worthy of our time as an audience. With all that said, as I said in my conclusion, the film is excellent - coherent, extremely well-acted, beautifully directed, etc. I definitely was quite "nit-picky", as you put it, but I would argue that is how an analysis/review should be 😅. I really appreciate your feedback and perspective, and I hope you'll stick around and continue to share more of your views on my future videos. (And by all means, please feel free to continue this debate here!) Have a great day! - Luke
@@luke.hoffman Thanks luke, i will read the book, and sorry for my english it is not my first language since i live in Europe but are from a Syriac background my people had been through a genocide. I see that your probably correct about the part with scorcese doing that on purpose, Just feelt like the movie did seem respectful and did not sugarcoat anything showing how ruthless they were against the osage. The thing with Ernest i think they wanted to show how people are complex and everything is not black and white, i just prefer it that way since in my opinion if i watch something that is based on something that happened and painting someone only with one layer seems extremely shallow, but you do seem to have more knowledge in this matter, so will take the advice about reading the book, did not mean to offend or be harsh in anyway. Will keep watching your videos and subscribe.
@@stevenwohlrab4764 Hey Steve, thanks for replying! Firstly, I took absolutely no offence from your initial comment. It was a really nice perspective to read, and I am always open to constructive feedback/criticism of my videos. So, thank you again for your comments, and please never worry about offending me. Secondly, I agree entirely that morally conflicted characters and stories are the most interesting, and I am usually very much in favour of this approach. But, as I said in the video, I felt there were more important and impactful aspects of this story that were missed because so much focus was placed on Ernest. If this hadn't been a true story (or if I hadn't read the book), my opinion on this aspect of Scorsese's approach would be far more positive 😅. Honestly, though, I still think they could have worked in the complexity and moral conflict of many of the characters whilst still telling the story more fully. I guess we'll never know 😂! Thank you for subscribing and supporting my videos, Steve. I'll look forward to some more discussions like these in the future! - Luke
Behold my comparative review of Killers of the Flower Moon!
A lot of time and research went into this one, so I really hope you enjoy it. I’ve not seen many videos comparing Scorsese’s and Grann’s versions of this story, so it should be an interesting one for you.
Make sure to drop a comment below with your thoughts on both the film version and (if you’ve read it) the book version.
(If you haven’t yet read the book, you’ll be able to grab a copy here: amzn.to/3TzMAx7)
Thank you for joining me and supporting the video!
- Luke
Great work with the video! I agree completely with your views about the choices that Scorsese made as writer/director. I left the film with an uneasy feeling, and what you described hit it on the head. Keep up the good work!
Awesome video. Very interesting. Now I need to read the book…😂
Do it! As you can probably tell, I loved it 👀
Just wondering about your first concern, the audience laughed about the situation with the lawyer and the kids.
And i mean this with no disrespect, This seems to show more the character of the audience than the director of the movie. You said this happened. Yes it was shown casually because it was done like that? Should the truth not be shown is that what you mean? I did not laugh at that scene what i got from it was simply of unbothered they were with the osage and saw them as animals and even lower.
Everyone has different interpetations from watching movies, if peoples take away from the movie that he was a victim is very weird.
He mentions several times how much he loves money, he takes part in killing mollys family, does not admit to molly to poisoning her.
Was he stupid and manipulated? yes but he did choose to participate just because he says loves molly does in no way absolve him from killing off her family.
I did not get that feeling, I have not read the book, everyone is entitled to their opinions ofcourse, personally i think it was a great movie had a coherent story line and good performances.
This video felt extremely nit picky, The movie shows how they literally could not access their own money, people looking away, ignoring osage, paying 20k for the now so called fbi to finally investigate? Many murders ignored, grave robbing, and again the person who saw ernest as a victim need a MRI scan to see if there is anything inside the head.
Victim? Guess all murderers have to do is show stupidity and say X manipulated me my man i am a victim. He is no victim does not matter if he was manipulated. The film shows him participating in mollys sisters murder? and even robbing people, without directions from Hale.
Hey Steve! Thanks for the feedback and perspective. This is precisely the sort of discussion I want my videos to initiate 😁
You're potentially bang on the money with the laughter saying a lot about the audience. But still, Scorsese does seem to have a severe penchant for tonal dissonance, so I believe the slight comedic tone was intentional, the same way it was used between Hale and Ernest (the Masonic Temple wooden paddle/spanking scene and the conversation between the two as Hale and Grammer are driving out of the town before the bombing). Scorsese isn't the only director who seems to enjoy corrupting audiences and getting us to laugh at things that are actually pretty nasty (Tarantino is another excellent example of a director/writer who loves to do this). So, respectfully, I stand by my observations, though I'm really fascinated (and relieved) to see that you had a very different experience with this scene.
Your perspective of Ernest is also great. As you said, "Everyone has different interpretations from watching movies", and I definitely don't mean to suggest that my interpretation in this video is the only correct one. But, while he is shown to do many bad things, Scorsese and Roth do appear to want us to understand Ernest's conflict and feel something for him other than just disgust. During all the trial sequences and jail scenes (particularly when he gets *that news* about his child), Ernest's struggle seems to be put in the spotlight. Not to mention, almost all the posters/promotions for the film had Ernest pictured front and centre over Molly (understandable to some degree, as Leo is a big selling point for this movie), and this is reflected in how they told the story. If you find the time to read the book, you may be able to better relate to my perspective. Grann's version is far more balanced and spends much more time with other characters in this story, who are, in my opinion, far more compelling and worthy of our time as an audience.
With all that said, as I said in my conclusion, the film is excellent - coherent, extremely well-acted, beautifully directed, etc. I definitely was quite "nit-picky", as you put it, but I would argue that is how an analysis/review should be 😅. I really appreciate your feedback and perspective, and I hope you'll stick around and continue to share more of your views on my future videos. (And by all means, please feel free to continue this debate here!)
Have a great day!
- Luke
@@luke.hoffman Thanks luke, i will read the book, and sorry for my english it is not my first language since i live in Europe but are from a Syriac background my people had been through a genocide.
I see that your probably correct about the part with scorcese doing that on purpose, Just feelt like the movie did seem respectful and did not sugarcoat anything showing how ruthless they were against the osage. The thing with Ernest i think they wanted to show how people are complex and everything is not black and white, i just prefer it that way since in my opinion if i watch something that is based on something that happened and painting someone only with one layer seems extremely shallow, but you do seem to have more knowledge in this matter, so will take the advice about reading the book, did not mean to offend or be harsh in anyway.
Will keep watching your videos and subscribe.
@@stevenwohlrab4764 Hey Steve, thanks for replying!
Firstly, I took absolutely no offence from your initial comment. It was a really nice perspective to read, and I am always open to constructive feedback/criticism of my videos. So, thank you again for your comments, and please never worry about offending me.
Secondly, I agree entirely that morally conflicted characters and stories are the most interesting, and I am usually very much in favour of this approach. But, as I said in the video, I felt there were more important and impactful aspects of this story that were missed because so much focus was placed on Ernest. If this hadn't been a true story (or if I hadn't read the book), my opinion on this aspect of Scorsese's approach would be far more positive 😅. Honestly, though, I still think they could have worked in the complexity and moral conflict of many of the characters whilst still telling the story more fully. I guess we'll never know 😂!
Thank you for subscribing and supporting my videos, Steve. I'll look forward to some more discussions like these in the future!
- Luke
Great perspective. It sounds to me that you should dabble in screenwriting mate.
😅 thank you, sir! Glad you enjoyed it