Killers of the Flower Moon is a LETDOWN | No Spoiler Review!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ต.ค. 2023
- I went into Killers of the Flower Moon with very high expectations, but sadly this film for me was kind of a letdown. Here's my NO SPOILER review! #killersoftheflowermoon #martinscorsese #leonardodicaprio #robertdeniro #lilygladstone #filmreview #moviereview #theawardscontender
THE AWARDS CONTENDER ON PATREON
Exclusive Videos, Vote for Elusive Oscar, and More!
/ theawardscontender
WRITTEN AND PRODUCED BY BRIAN ROWE
/ mrbrianrowe
/ mrbrianrowe
FOR ALL INQUIRIES
brian_rowe@me.com
The following music was used for this media project:
Music: Airport Lounge by Kevin MacLeod
Free download: filmmusic.io/song/3347-airpor...
License (CC BY 4.0): filmmusic.io/standard-license
Artist website: incompetech.com
Killers of the Afternoon
Lol, when I left the theater, I heard someone say, "that didn't even feel like 3 hours." I was like, WHAT 😳! MY KNEES ARE LOCKED UP, LADY. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??
Everybody is different, as are their tolerance for movie length/sitting/patience/absorption in a narrative/pacing, etc
I also didn't feel the length of it. I had problems with the film, but that wasn't one of them.
I dont feel long and i engoy it..but i feel reabet and boring in invastgation
I agree entirely. I kept wondering what it was I was missing, based on the ecstatic reviews.. It felt deliberately subdued to the point of being almost devoid of dramatic tension or momentum.
It's because Scorsese = instant praise and glaze.
"Directors don't get better as they get older"
Absolutely! I thought I was somehow really off in my reaction to this film but for me it was soooo flat and subdued it just didn’t work for me.
I agree. I had the same feeling I had watching Napoleon. Some great scenes and amazing craft to transport you to that time in a believable way. However, I was left with a real longing for the movie I thought it could be. Napoleon got criticised (rightly so in many instances) and I kind of put that movie on the same level as this one. Yet because this was directed by MS it automatically gets a good grade as journalists (ahem) either worry they will look the odd one out or be blacklisted in future MS endeavours (not that I imagine MS would worry about that for a minute).
@@DesmondL111
Has nothing to do with the age in that case. Whoever doesnt enjoy "Killers of the Flower Moon" because its too long and he thinks me misses some dramatic twists, should never watch "Like a raging Bull".
Its a matter of taste, but most of Scorsese's movie take their time and sometimes you couls summarize the plot of a 3 hours movie in 3 sentences.
I had the same exact feelings. I like the movie, but didn't love it.
I am someone that doesn't care about the length of a film. Gone with the Wind, Fanny & Alexander and Hamlet (1996) are long, but they hold your attention from start to finish. That's the key; a film needs to keep you engaged until the end.
KotFM, unfortunately, doesn't do that for me. I checked out around the court scene. I wanted less DiCaprio (who was fine) and more Cara Jade Myers (she was great as Anna) and the actor who gave that speech in the wigwam (he was so good)!
Personally, I had little problem with the run time. The story compelled me from start to finish (especially the last hour)
Interestingly enough, it was the relatively shorter Oppenheimer that made me fidget in my seat during its final hour
I totally agree with you! I feel like it had to be that long to tell the entire story, and I was absolutely captivated
Movies always want you wanting more like damn it’s almost over. I’m sad but with this movie it wasn’t like that but I did have to watch it in two parts.
I absolutely had the same experience that you had with this film. I was so looking forward to loving it but I ultimately felt like Marty was not the best person to tell this story. Nothing from the Osage perspective and the characters motivations were unclear a lot of the time except for De Niro’s. Why did the Osage women keep marrying white men after these murders, why could the Osage not access their funds without white people? Why is Molly not doing much about her family’s deaths? By the last hour I understood I wasn’t going to like the film so then the pacing did become an issue also. But gorgeous cinematography, costume and production design.
And I hated that true crime ending, for me, it took the severity out of the preceding events and just made them seem like fodder for entertainment.
I agree and why the wife was so stupid he kill her and she take nedeel again
But back then it was a in the 1920's and it didn't get a actual justice what's right. The Osage just want to have a regular life in their turf only. Not just oil
I agree with you... way too long. I just finished reading the book and I'm so glad that I procrastinated because I don't think I would have understood or appreciated the plot. I heard that MS wanted to focus on the Osage people and not make it a white man movie. However, in the latter half of the movie when FBI agents arrive should have amped up the drama as it was exciting in the book. The head FBI agent played by Jesse Plemons was very innovative for the times in his approach to get justice for the Osage people. My friend fell asleep. I also got tired of L DiC...always making that strange face.
Right? I agree. Tom White and Mollie should’ve been the main focus in the second half of the story. Scorsese gave neither much to work with.
L DiC?!
After about 2 hrs I stepped away to go to the bathroom and ended up being outside the theatre for about 15 minutes. My thoughts were starting to drift and I was feeling restless in the seat. Im glad I left for a bit because I came back re energized and really loved the last hour of the movie. I love watching movies so much but I know my brain is challenged with holding attention for long periods of time, sometimes even in a good way sometimes in an excruciating way. The way the material is presented has a strong affect on how I perceive the runtime. I had no problem with holding attention my with Babylon - a 3 he movie because it was paced so well and frenetically. For Oppenheimer I had a little trouble because the film was doing so much in the first 2 hours after the trinity test scene my attention just felt spent. For Flower Moon, I agree with you Brian 3 and a half hours is a long time for a movie cut the way it is. Each scene is really solid on its own but they don’t build on eachother the way other films do, even other Scorsese films. I still have very high regard for the artistry and how important and well realized Flower Moon is, that aspect is undeniable and evident in any scene you take out of it. On the whole though, it does require so much focus from the viewer.
Well said about the artistry - and I did the same as you after 2 hours, haha
Loved this movie saw it in the theatre 3 days ago and yes it was long af. But this whole film really stuck with me and I feel that all scenes were necessary because otherwise the movie could have been a hot mess. Scorsese did not disappoint with this one. Everything was stunning. There was a lot of stuff that really shocked me. I agree to disagree with some parts of your review. The performances were outstanding all three Oscar worthy (Di Caprio, de Niro and Gladstone were the standouts in the film). My rating is a 9/10.
I totally get your points and mostly agree with your review, but not with this one. I think all scenes are essential. The 3.5 hours actually made me sympathize with Lily's character, develop a strong hatred for Robert's portrayal, and root for justice for the Osage. I wasn't bored watching it. I was so into it.
I even felt the same way. I totally agree with you.
@@roxy5588a useless and in-depth commentary on the brilliant Scorsese,in such a important film
Agree - I was gripped throughout. There was never any part I thought was unnecessary or could have been removed. It was pensive, emotional, and poetic.
The character studies.... delving into evil, delving into apathy.... were incredible and essential.
On the second viewing, I agree 100%
Apparently you didn’t listen ….he said the LAST HOUR….was boring not ALL of it 🙄
I saw it on opening day, and I completely zoned out during potions of this movie.
They should have taken some of those 3.5 hours to explore Mollie’s internal dialogue/perspective more. **Potential Spoilers** I was concerned she would not have rejected Ernest based on her behavior up until that final meeting between her and Ernest. Am I also the only one who felt like they did not want to wholeheartedly lean into making Ernest a clear cut villain? I felt like they were trying to convince us that his character was too simple to know what he was doing, or trying to convince us that he still loved Mollie, or that there was ambiguity there. I felt it problematic.
This. I would have been fine if it were more Mollie solo time, but I got so bored with both male characters in the middle when it was just kind of them doing the same thing over and over. It made it feel as long as it was.
Thank you for your honesty - it’s appreciated - question do you know if his long term editor is still working with him ?
So you're saying that Killers Of The Flower Moon feels like SLEEPERS OF THE YAWNING MOON.
Wow! Didn’t expect a 5/10 for Killers of the Flower Moon 🙈
Hi Brian, My overall thoughts were that the run time didn't fit the story. The final hour was simply a drag. Nevertheless it was a great movie with some powerful messgaes. I think the major positives are the performances from DiCaprio, DeNiro and Gladstone and the score by robbie roberston aswell as jack fisks production design. I have given it a 8 out of 10 compared to the 8.6 out of 10 i gave Oppenheimer.
I haven’t seen kotfm yet, but this makes me relieved that I’ll be watching it on streaming, so I can have an intermission - or view it over two sittings.
I respect this review and I do feel like a streaming rewatch may help this film grow on you (I don't think I would have liked The Irishman in the theater as much as on Netflix). It's also safe to say this wouldn't make your top 15 favorite Scorsese films ever 😅 My review: Amazing film. The direction and cinematography were impeccable and there were so many powerful scenes in the movie. Lily Gladstone gives such a fully realized and lived in performance that really tugs onto the heartstrings well. Leo gives one of his best performances on screen and De Niro is consistent all the way through. In spite of the running time, the film didn't feel bloated at all and was a riveting historical drama to watch. This movie will get several Oscar nominations, definitely a big contender for any it gets nominated in. The ending was incredibly well done and effective too. I do think Lily gets enough screentime to be considered a lead but this is totally Leo's movie through and through. Thanks for an honest review! I hope your next one is The Killer by David Fincher coming November 10th on Netflix 😊
Just saw it yesterday and yeah, I gotta agree with you that it is quite unwieldy. Unlike Oppenheimer, I really felt that runtime and I felt it wasn't as focused in its storytelling. There are barely any payoffs and the lack of tension and urgency in the final hour was such a letdown. I was really rooting for this one but it won't crack the top 5 for me this year. Past Lives and Oppenheimer are still my top films for the year. Excited for NAPOLEON🎉🎉
Same! Excited for Napoleon too
@@carlysheree3130 I hope it really delivers on the battle scenes. Currently reading WAR AND PEACE and Napoleon's clash with the Russians first at Austerlitz and again at Borodino are, in my opinion, the most fascinating episodes in his military expeditions! I know they are gonna show Austerlitz because I recognized the frozen ice bombardment in the trailer. Not sure about Borodino, but it would be a huge mistake to leave out the one battle that shattered the percieved invincibility of Napoleon's Grand Army forever
I don't know what's going on lately and most movies are so long! It is as if they do not have the ability or the effort to cut out all the unnecessary.
i originally had no interest in this but after hearing about how Good Lily is, i decided to watch and learn more about the Osage. It was a good movie, but definitely an event! I had to bring snacks...i saw someone on tiktok talk about how long the movie is and they got dragged in the comments lol, so i appreciate your honesty
Hi. I am new to your channel and just wanted to say how impressed I was with your thoughtful and honest review of this film. Due to mobility issues getting to the cinema is now quite difficult for me and so I really appreciate listening to the views of others. I found your review incredibly well balanced and I very much look forward to following more of your content. 🎬😊
Very brave of you to criticize Scorsese. Great review!
I see your points, and they are pretty agreeable, but a 5/10 is egregious. Yes, the length is a problem, and Leo's character drags the film down in the latter half, but a 5?? Nah. A 7, sure, but 5 is failing, and this movie is far from a failure.
You are keeping it real. You are being honest I like it .
Haven’t seen it yet, but i definitely thought The Irishman was too long, and that was from the comfort of my own couch. I’m still going to give it a chance. I’m curious, any thoughts on Paramount’s refusal to allow intermissions in theaters?
Leonardo DiCaprio gives the exact same super intense performance over and over and over for the larger part of his career. I can't agree with you that he's surprising in Flower Moon, it's the very opposite. As far as Scorsese is concerned, I've always appreciated his genius, but I don't think there's a single Scorsese film that I can say I truly love. Also, there's woman factor. Marty absolutely fails at creating compelling female leads. If I'm not mistaken, the last female driven Scorsese movie is Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974).
I dont like leanardo acting but he was good in this film.
Alice wonderfull move.lilly gladston sister in film must make her role biger she was good
I agree with this review. I saw it on IMAX the first week it was out in high anticipation given the award buzz. As you shared, from hour 2 to the end, my wife and I started checking our watches wondering where the film was going. All the elements of the film were there for greatness, but I felt it would have been a vastly better film at 2 and a half hours than at its 3 and a half hour runtime.
I saw Oppenheimer twice, and at 3 hours was glued to the screen, not wanting to miss a moment, so I’m not loath to viewing long films, but I feel the filmmaker needs to earn my attention to sit through it.
Funny, I think I had the exact opposite experience😂.
The first half felt slow and tedious to me, but the second half, where things go to a head, was one of the most "edge of my seat" experiences I had all year.
I agree Brian. I read the book when it first came out and am a major Scorsese fan. However, the film felt a little self-indulgent in the third act. I think for how much Mr Scorsese states the cinema is important, well this movie was clearly made for being streamed. Had it been merely screened at the cinema, it would have been at least half an hour shorter. I still enjoyed the film, but so many what-ifs.
Really glad this is coming to Apple TV. 3.5 hours is way to long for me to sit in a theatre so I will split the film over two evening sessions.
Treat it like a mini series.
If you split the film ouvert two evening sessions, you are missing the point of this movie. This film is not too long. For me, it’s one of the best of the year.
@@intrepid2010 Don't be ridiculous I won't be missing the point of the film at all. Adding a break does not change plot points or characters views. It still just the same dam movie split over two sessions. As I said above 3.5 hours is too long for me and the general consensus from most that aren't critics with their noses up Scorsese's backside its that the film is too long. Sitting the full 3.5 hours in one sitting will most likely ensure I enjoy the film even less.
@@Stefarooh I don’t agree with you. But you can watch it anyway you want. But for me, I will never watch it in two sessions. Maybe, you will understand my point after you see it. Most critique don’t say the film is too long.
@@intrepid2010 Good for you, but I highly doubt any of what you typed up above is going to have any bearing on my viewing experience, its not like we are watching two different films.
Because of the Academy's history of liking Scorsese enough to get his films into BP & it might even get double-digit nominations out of respect for the crafts put behind Killers of the Flower Moon, I do wonder if that'll get 10 nominations like Gangs of New York or The Irishman did & walked away empty-handed or will it get 11 & tie the record with The Turning Point & The Color Purple? I ask because as of now, I'm not predicting this to walk away with a single Oscar, including Adapted Screenplay due to how competitive that category is probably going to be with Oppenheimer, American Fiction, & Poor Things.
It’ll be like The Irishman where it’ll be nominated for like ten awards and not win a single thing. But in this case, Social Media will get mad because Lily Gladstone deserves an Oscar. To be fair, Marty already has an award, so maybe it is Nolan’s time. I do think what Nolan did with Oppenheimer is more impressive than what Scorsese did with Killers of the Flower Moon.
@@samuelbarber6177 The fact that the Academy wasn't willing to give Scorsese another Oscar for Hugo, a film whose main message was about film preservation, shows that he's never winning another & that The Departed was the best/only shot he had at actually winning one.
Reedly scot in naplion make great diroction i think
@@samuelbarber6177 I think at the very least, Lily Gladstone should be rewarded for her performance, if it ends up the only Oscar win for the film of the night
I think the film could easily have been 30 minutes shorter. I also think that any movie that's 3 and half hours long needs an intermission. I did like the movie but like you, I was a little let down with the pacing.
Been watching your videos, great insight keep up the work.
When I first watched Killer Moon, I was disappointed too. I was expecting something grand sweeping in all its forms. But I wanted to watch again to try and understand what Scorsese is doing. My favorite film of his, which I didn't like at first viewing, is The Age of Innocence. (My second favorite is Kundun.) I consider Scorsese to be the greatest filmmaker of all time. Watch it not three times, and I can say it's a masterpiece above all the other masterpieces. He refuses to do what he has done. So many filmmakers have copied him relentlessly. I, Tonya is Goodfellas on ice, and The Joker is Taxi Driver. In the famous GQ article, he said, "Shape the thing you're making into a pure expression of the thing you're making: 'Cut away, strip away the unnecessary, and strip away what people expect.'"
The ending, I think, is brave. He comes out and says this film is still not made by the people who should tell it. He himself is an outsider trying his best. He wants this story to be told again and by the people it has happened to.
I haven't seen Killers yet (soon hopefully), but I think the excessive length of The Irishman is literally why the movie worked. All the repetition and the pointless violence and all of these characters who come and go whose names you'll never remember... that's why the last 30 minutes of the movie hit so hard. Like De Niro's character you're left with nothing of substance. Like him you're waiting for it all to add up to something, for it to have a point, for all of his huge sacrifices to have a payoff, his neglect of his family and his murder of his only real friend, and then you and the character both realize in the same horrible instant that all of it was meaningless, and now all that's left is to watch this sad old man slowly die alone.
I agree. Scorsese (in my opinion) really started getting into the intentional repetition back in Casino. In the end after all the ups and downs and killings and betrayals and three hour runtime, Ace Rothstein ends up spending the rest of his life sitting in humble a room all day betting on horses. "And that's that." I love that about Casino, Wolf of Wall Street and The Irishman.
@@jake4919 Yeah, Casino and Wolf are very much the same idea. You just see so much brutality or, in Wolf's case, debauchery, that eventually you grow numb to it just like the characters, and it totally puts you into their headspace. Suddenly you're empathizing with these awful men, whether you want to or not, without losing sight of the fact that they're not good people. He did a similar thing in Taxi Driver. Whether you like this guy or not, and the huge majority of viewers don't, the filmmaking forces you to see the world through his eyes. You may not like him, but you understand him.
@@pearljamrules27 100 percent.
I couldn't agree more. Line for line, I felt like you were saying everything I was feeling.
I wonder if they should have gone non-linear. Maybe open with the trial and cut backwards. Maybe show it all from Mollie's perspective throughout. I dunno. The second half of the movie Mollie is basically sick and in bed so she doesn't get enough
It's like the opening paints the characters out perfectly. The cinematography is stunning. The production design. Like first third I was like, "Alright this is a top 5 2023 movie". But then it kinda just lulls. Lots of the scenes get repetitive with Ernest caring for Mollie, the investigation not really building in tension, etc. It just needed more urgency.
Totally agree with you re movie length. It feels kind of 'flabby' - needs a lot of tightening up. Loved Mollies portrayal, though!
co-signing the minority opinion of both this and The Irishman. Both of which I was excited to see as well - especially this one. And I do prefer this to The Irishman. But it's good not great and I definitely felt that last hour (not in a good way). Scorcese is a master at what he does and given the more recent films that may not be concise storytelling.
Brian, I may be one of the few people who agrees with your assessment of KOTFM. I loved De Niro (the "birr birr birr" of the "blackbird talk" was particularly memorable), and Gladstone was fine but her role needed more heft to it. I also dug the art direction, photography, costume design, and score, but I, too got weary of DiCaprio's character. He gets way too much screen time; if feel the most complex aspect of his role--his relationship with Molly--is given short shrift, mainly because of the necessary mechanics of the plotting. But I sure could have used more scenes with he and Gladstone, as I'm still not entirely convinced his Ernest is truly in love with her (I mean, I felt he was just using her to get to the money, per his assignment). Another of the movie's elements I loved were the many supporting characters, like the various henchmen, lawyers and Osage personas, that I feel could have used more screentime (They could have taken some of DiCaprio's scenes, I feel). Anyway, I got very weary of the film and I know that certainly was not Scorsese's intent. (I realize it's a dour, grim story, but I do wonder if a few lighter moments would have lifted the gloom a bit. At any rate, as is obvious, I'm in your court on this one. It'll do well at Oscar time, and it may win a few (Score for Robbie Robertson, Cinematography for Prieto, and maybe one for its terrific art direction--for Jack Fisk, who has been overdue for an Oscar for decades now, ever since his work with Malick and David Lynch). But like you, I wanted to love this one, and I just didn't--just the same feelings I had/have for GANGS OF NEW YORK).
I recall that Wolf of Wall Street was considered ‘too long’ initially and that’s all that was focused on. Then people got wise and the recognition has caught up.
The length isn’t the only thing.
I liked this film a lot.
Love your review, totally agree. Thank you.
I think the long run time really let’s you see more depth to the characters and the storyline. I don’t think there were scenes that I felt were unnecessary or that didn’t add value to the plot. The acting was superb and the cinematography was beautiful. A true masterpiece
I love and respect all your reviews (including this one), but I have to disagree with you. This is the first time this long-lost, not-taught-in-schools history of indigenous peoples has been given a large platform for general consumption. It’s a dense, haunting, and tragic history that Scorsese and Co. spent a lot of time in my home state (interviewing and incorporating the Osage Nation Native Americans’ input/commentary, culture, clothing, etc) to get just right and as authentic as possible. The length is warranted and I was never bored. I was like a sponge, soaking up all this information and riveted, horrified, and heartbroken by its revelations. I agree I wanted more Mollie, but this was also a problem with the novel (of which it’s based) that doesn’t focus on her and is primarily told from the Jesse Plemmons character, chronicling the crimes and the birth of the FBI. Mollie, Ernest, and Hale were merely names (not full fledged characters). Scorsese wisely restructured the story around Ernest and Mollie’s union to give it a more personal, intimate, character driven touch (and to make us FEEL the tragedies and the weight and intricacies of the betrayal). That creative choice did wonders for the film by not having it all be about the trial and made it about the “people” (the good ones, the bad ones, and the most vulnerable). The tragedy of Mollie’s character is that she does become more passive as the film goes along because she’s beholden to the caretaking by her manipulative husband. And it’s true to the history that she had to watch in slow motion the destruction of her life and her people as she grew weaker and weaker because she chose to trust/love her husband despite having every reason not to. Her final act of heroism was getting these murders answered for by an objective person uninvolved with the greed of the land. Otherwise we may never of had this story to tell at all. She brought about that justice and by extension this history to all of us.
Our state of Oklahoma is very proud of this achievement and to have this history FINALLY told to mainstream audiences. And for that, I think this film will have longevity because it is culturally significant as well as being a beautifully crafted piece of cinema.
I highly recommend the book the movie was based on. The author researched for ten years.
I dont agree.he dont show us alot of think about native amrican.and lilly gladston same girl she love her husbend even if he kill her
So glad you talked about the Irishman here. Cuz if you thought Killers was overlong but not the Irishman, I'd say you were wacko! The length for Killers almost worked for me. I do agree with your point about Goodfellas, too. Dead on. Scorsese is a genius, but not infallible. Loved your honest review!!
I didn't mind the runtime, especially as I went in expecting a slow burn and was pleasantly surprised by the pacing and the sheer number of plot points. But this is one of those films where I can't help imagining the alternate universe where the book was adapted as a miniseries instead, with distinct episodes built around each murder, with the last couple of episodes covering the investigation and trial. I wanted to see even more of the supporting cast and feel a better sense of the long timeline.
At first I was scared of the 3.5 hour run-time. I purposely didn't tell my husband cause I thought he'd tell me to wait for streaming. However, this film kept me awake and engaged the whole time. I think I actually like the 2nd and 3rd parts better than the 1st part. Even the end, where they kind of summarized all the events "after", I found interesting. Had this been a 5 episode limited series that expanded on the "end", I would have really appreciated it. The performances and the story (a tragic history that I knew nothing/little about) kept me interested the whole time.
I totally agree and loved your Scorsese top 10 list. In my Scorsese top ten I would include After Hours, "Life Lessons" from New York Stories, and The Color of Money.
If "Killers of the Flower Moon" is dragged, how can we describe "Tar" which was almost as long but without a plot 😂
I love both films. LOL
It’s annoying how many people think that “plot” is the most essential aspect to a movie. If it isn’t advancing the linear sequence of events forward, then it must not matter. People who only care about plot should really just read the Wikipedia summary.
@@samuelbarber6177 not saying anything; it is just that Tar was one of the most miserable experiences of my life... :p
I loved both and I believe the screenplay of TÁR was outstanding. It was such an interesting take on our society. And Cate Blanchett was unbelievable !
Tar😨no script..the killer beter and have story
I was worried this would be the case!
Completely agree. Also, there was a podcast that talked about how amazing the “passage” of a character to the afterlife was shot by Scorsese. I couldn’t wait to see it. And then I saw it…. Yeah…ummm…it was a pretty basic shot. Done a million times before in movies. I wish people would not fall head over heels for a directors movie just because they think they should. Is he an amazing director, of course. Is this movie great, no. Could I make this movie, no. Could I shoot the “passage” scene, yes.
I don’t personally feel it was too long at all. See, most movies probably could be criticised as “too long”. If you’re going by plot, then basically no movie should be longer than ten minutes. I personally prefer long movies anyway, as long as they’re good. If I’m enjoying a movie, I’m not going to knock it down because it’s a bit longer than I would have made it. I always defer back to Roger Ebert’s: “No good movie is too long, no bad movie is short enough.”
And on that, I personally thought it was really good. Basically all of the craftsmanship is excellent, the acting is great. For me the standout was Gladstone, but also DiCaprio, who I don’t think has been this good since maybe Django Unchained, and think this is his best collaboration with Scorsese since The Departed. I do have my criticisms, like how I feel the Osage got less attention as the movie went on when I wanted to learn more about them as a people, but that’s less a criticism of the movie, and more just asking for a different movie. It did leave me a lot to think about after finishing, and I’m even seeing it again, because Marty is just one of those filmmakers where his movies always require a bit more reflection.
I will admit, it is hard for me to talk about it objectively, because it is my first Marty movie in the cinema and he is one of my all time favourite directors (my favourite film of his is The Irishman). What’s interesting is that this is pretty much how I felt about The Wolf of Wall Street. I guess it depends on how interested in the story and characters you are, because that movie did not work for me.
I consider it along the line of Gangs of New York (maybe better than it actually) and King of Comedy rather than Goodfellas, Wolf of Wall Street, etc. Still a quality film and I like thinking back and finding new details that I may have missed but it did lack that kick at the end. The radio scene kind of felt like that but the whole court thing is a little convoluted. Even if it's the real story.
Thank you so much for putting me onto the Fablemans. This is one of the best films I've ever seen!
usually i would agree with any one who says a 3+ hour long film is too long but for some reason with KOTFM it worked so well and was needed.
I completely agree! It was good overall, and the first hour was literally 5*, but the momentum just completely goes towards the end bringing the whole thing down.
I respect your opinion I totally agree with your points! Lily Gladstone should've been front and center of attention all throughout KotFM
Oppenheimer is still my favorite best picture contender for next years Oscars. I hesitate to say its my favorite film of the year since I still haven't seen some of the international features yet from Koreeda, Hamaguchi, Ken Loach, Wim Wenders, etc
Lily Gladstone definitely was a lead, and an excellent one, subtle acting has always been my favourite type of acting, she had this great presence, almost like a statue, so strong, so independent.... and then those certain scenes her breakdown moved me so much I almost cried.....
Talk about good crying, DiCaprio's jail breakdown was one of his finest acting moment, it's almost impossible this man could always get newer and newer, better and better.....
My absolute scene stealer was my all time favourite DeNiro. He's never been this great in the past 30 years...... Definitely he should got his 3rd Oscar in Best supporting actor category, EASILY.
The only issue I had this movie was definitely its length.....2,5 hours would have worked so much better, honestly the moment Jesse Plemmons has appeared the story got INCREDIBLY slow.
Great story, but way too long!
And while I liked DiCaprio as well, his one note performance has led me to take him off my Best Actor predictions. For now I have Cooper, Domingo, Wright, Giamatti, and Murphy with Scott in sixth, DiCaprio in seventh, and Keoghan in eighth.
I hope the academy will not nominate him this year. I fear they may nominate him so he will show up and increase their viewership. There are so many more deserving performances this year that should be recognized.
Totally! I thought the same when I left the cinema. This may have backfired on Leo as exposing him as a lessor actor than we previously thought. Time for him to mature and take it to another level.
@peteracain I think he's a fantastic actor I just feel his character isn't all that complex. He plays him well but there's no arc.
You may be right. I have appreciated him in the past. I think this role and the writing of it was so shallow that he didn't have much to work with@@mr29
I love the film.
But interesting take, Brian. ❤️
I mean, I understand when "Gone With Wind" showed there was an intermission. I saw Mel Gibson's "Hamlet" that way. And "Out of Africa" too, come to think of it. Would that have helped? I'll probably not see it til it streams anyway. And yes, even if I love it ( and I may not) I still respect your comments. You always make clear what your personal preferences and reactions are and why so. I HOPE I disagree, lol!
Kenneth Branagh' Hamlet wasn't it? The Zefferelli version was shorter
One problem with the film is that two of the three main characters do not have arcs. Their scenes become repetitive.
I am referring to the characters played by DiCaprio and De Niro.
I really enjoyed this film and didn't feel like anything could be cut. Maybe the end radio play could be shortened a bit.
This is the most honest and accurate review of this film that I’ve seen.
I didn’t feel like the last hour was dragging, but I did feel that in the very middle. I felt it for every excruciating minute of The Irishman, so I prefer this one, but I agree with most of your critiques.
My #1 issue is that Scorsese took the time to change the perspective of the source material - but he changed it to the wrong character. The film would have been so much better if it had pivoted to Molly’s point of view because she is the most compelling character narratively. I would have love to see some more of her inner thoughts and feelings. She’s where the story is and it’s unfortunate that the focus on her gets lost.
The length of the movie is the artistic essentiality. Just like you want the trauma of Osages to end...the length makes it real. I went in a packed hall. There was pin drop silence after 5 minutes. Everyone was hooked. And they all clapped at the end
I totally agree with you. I think the runtime was appropriate to try and tell the (mostly forgotten) story of the Osage people. Had it been shortened, the offenses against them wouldn't have been done justice.
Thanks again!
Agreed. There's some good stuff here, but..... as I've said in other posts, the driving force for film is drama, not endless meandering bloat. Also Scorsese is addicted to the 'bad guy is the protagonist' theme. He pushes it in EVERY film. Doesn't matter the time, place or setting. It's become tedious and redundant. He is the wrong director for this GREAT story... this could've been an all-time classic, in the same league as 'Unforgiven' or 'There Will be Blood'... this will not be remembered as one of his best imo.
He doesn't do it in every film. You've got silence, Hugo, kundun, the last temptation of Christ, Alice dies live here anymore, bring our your dead, the departed
@@ryanhopkins5239 Correction.... not every, most - Goodfellas, Casino, The Departed, The King of Comedy, Taxi Driver, The Wolf of Wall Street, Cape Fear, Gangs of New York, Raging Bull, The Irishman, Killers of the Flower Moon...
@@greggibson33 I would disagree about the departed. I don't think dicaprios character is a bad guy. There's still a good chunk of like 10 films where that isn't true. So I don't really think the point holds merit
Disagree - I was gripped throughout. There was never any part I thought was unnecessary or could have been removed. It was pensive, emotional, and poetic. I was left haunted by the journey I had just been on.
The character studies.... delving into evil, delving into apathy to allow evil to continue.... were incredible and essential.
Didn't mind the length tbh my main issue was that the romance really didnt work for me. The chemistry and bond just isn't there imo. And it focuses so much on it. Also not a huge fan of how Ernest's character was portrayed. Was he culpable from the start or no? He kinda just randomly switched into being evil a quarter of the movie in.
Totally agree about Oppenheimer though. That was a far better movie in pretty much every way. The stakes, the characters, the style, the score, pacing all of it. Gonna be tough to beat that for my film of the year.
Vue cinemas here in the Uk have introduced a 15 min intermission. We welcome it.
I haven't seen it yet. I can remember seeing Gangs of New York in Manhattan and being so excited for it, then being so let down. Hope this doesn't happen again. I would however love to see a 3 1/2 hour version of Goodfellas, that's the one movie that I never, ever wanted to end.
I am actually surprised by how many people say this was too long. Normally I'm in the same camp and I never thought that Scorsese movies outside Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street or The Departed have ever been well paced. That's why I think comparing this to Oppenheimer isn't really fair since a. Oppenheimer is an all-timer and b. Nolan movies' major strength has always been the pacing. This was a really good movie, one of the best of the year, easily (granted I haven't seen many of the other awards contenders yet which were exclusive to Film Festivals).
Scorsese is back to form after my disappointment with The Irishman and this movie might be a beautiful send off to the acclaimed director (if he wishes this to be his final film) - it's a hystorical epic and a crime movie in one which Martin always excelled at but it also becomes a legal drama in the last hour.
These genre switches, combined with the tight screenplay and great editing really help to keep the pace moving and you really don't feel the 3.5 hour runtime here which was a big issue with The Irishman.
For a three and a half hour movie, I would have liked to have seen more agency and perspective from the Osage but I understand the movie wanted to highlight the despicable nature of the villains of the film which was always a strength of Scorsese and he does so perfectly here. I was furious throughout the full runtime.
I also wasn't a big fan of the washed out color palette and music here. Some more prominent music would have helped set the tone more for the film and helped even more with the pacing (much what Nolan was able to achieve with Oppenheimer).
You’re not an outlier Brian. This movie dragged and dragged and dragged - with such interesting and emotional subject matter, that’s a terrible indictment. De Niro brilliant, Gladstone brilliant, cinematography brilliant….. the one thing I’d pull you up on is praising the editing. If a movie feels too long, the editing is almost by definition the movie’s biggest sin.
dude... I am speechless how exactly 1:1 is my opinion to yours. Literally I felt the exact same way about every aspect of the movie you mentioned. Awesome :D Except the score that Ill give will be more like a 7/10. Five is a biiit too low.
Thanks for your honest opinion! Absolutely agree with everything you said. ❤
The pacing at the last hour was so awful I was almost crying over the boredom of it all. The story itself is fascinating and could be done so much better, but overall it felt too slow and repetitive. The ending was amazing, honestly I’d rather watch THAT for a few hours 😅
I have read that DiCaprio (as the ExecProducer of this film) steered away the focus of the movie to Ernest instead of the criminal investigation that was the main part of the book. At first I thought that was a cool angle, having read the book shortly before the film. But Ernest is just not that much of a character. In the book, the biggest shock comes, when the investigators find out, that Ernest plays pivotal role in the killings, but in the movie, you know right from the start, which also makes the love story kind of questionable. They stayed close to the characterisation of the people in the book and that is ultimately, why the roles are relatively surface level - they simply dont have much information about them. I fully agree with your thoughts about the runtime and would add, that the film would benefit from a more traditional "police investigation"-setup.
⚘
Hard disagree. Ernest Burkhart is an incredible character and it might be Leo’s best role. The quote that sums up his character is “I love money just as much as I love my wife” and the film is Ernest going back and forth on these contradictory views.
For that reason, of course the love story is questionable from Ernest’s side. For Mollie otoh it is love which blinds her to the evil that Ernest is, otherwise Mollie knows exactly what Hale and the lazy men are doing. And built into Mollie’s love for Ernest is Leo’s decades long teen heartthrob persona in service of him being a gold digger.
The first time I saw it I too was somewhat bored but the second time I saw it it all made sense and I now think this film is a masterpiece.
Its no Ben Hur , Ten Commandments , Gone With the Wind , Deerhunter . Did the Editor get paid . Long movies must have great scene after scene . Easy cut of an hour or more to make nice tight film
This was a 1 hour story in a 3 1/2 hour film. Scorsese is still a master but my god, there are scenes that won’t end.
Saw it last night. I wholeheartedly agree that it is too long. I don't mind long movies, but you could easily chop 30-60 minutes from this one without sacrificing any of the storytelling, character development or emotional weight. I don't know if I would give it as low as 5/10 however, to me it is still a 7-7.5, because the technical elements really are superb and the acting is great.
This review broke my heart😢
I am with you 100%. There is a lot to love, but overall, I am mixed, too. It went off the rails a couple of times, but when the actor Louis Cancelmi showed up I was like - really do we need this? Why are we going back in time for this? Completely superfluous and easy to remedy. I, too, loved Lilly Gladstone but come on, it's not enough of strong Mollie and too much poisoned Mollie.
Was it Long ? Yes. Were all scenes necessary ? Also yes! I think the running time is justified. It didn’t feel like 3.5hs honestly.
I felt similar. I wouldn’t say every minute was necessary but I also didn’t think a moment was wasted. Sure it could have been a bit tighter, but so could basically every movie ever.
The film long but i enjoy it..but artisticly thet rebeat scens
yeah, to me felt like 2,5 hours :) not 3,5
Meh. They could've cut the movie in half and not lost anything.
I saw KOTFM the first weekend and my impression is exactly yours: This could be an hour shorter and better for it. Also - despite the bloated runtime Scorsese somehow managed to miss telling a lot of the story. And I also agree, The Irishman for all its flaws is better than KOTFM
You won't lose us for disliking this movie; and if there are those who, they can go live in their echo chamber. And it even seemed that you tried to like this movie, despite the many things you un-enjoyed! Scorsese has been hit or miss with me. I only really like Silence, The Age of Innocence and The King of Comedy. I don't think I'm up for seeing three hours of this film! I hope you keep sharing your honest thoughts, even if you may going against the tide. It's a mark of a strong critic (and I don't mean just being a contrarian) and helps us understand your POV on movies.
I loved Lily Gladstone in ‘Freeland’ (2021) starring Krisha Fairchild.
I can’t believe Earnest was born on Sept. 11th - look it up!
I’m so relieved that I’m not the only one who was less than super enthusiastic about this movie. I liked it, but didn’t love it. I read the book on which it’s based 3 or 4 years ago and I think I liked that better. What really surprised me was that I made it to the end without a bathroom break (just barely 😊).
This is interesting, a movie buff friend just told me she slept through half of the movie.
oh look, it's dicaprio making the same facial expressions he makes every time i've seen him. i am among the many who just don't understand the appeal of this actor.
I agree, he's overrated.
5 out 10? Without a doubt, you are out of your mind. The running time is an issue for sure and this was the same issue that I faced when I was watching OPPENHEIMER. Actually, during OPPENHEIMER was so bored that I fell asleep. That was the same feeling I had before going to see FLOWER MOON. I loved the first 2 hours of it, but I could not care much seeing Mollie lingering and lingering. A lot of scenes should have been cut. The last hour of the film was kinda abrupt...overall, PERSONALLY it is a much better movie than OPPENHEIMER....at least I did not fall asleep watching SCORSESE's new film. 8 out 10
Wow I couldn’t not disagree more. The runtime was long but it was so well paced that it just flew by. Best film of the year for me so far
I havent seen the film yet but im glad its 3 1/2 hrs long. Godfather II has almost the same exact run time give or take 5mins. And that film is a fucking masterpiece.
Same thing happened to The Irishman with me and that was on Netflix lmao
Really underwhelming film when you consider all the hype. It was a bomb at the box office and bombed with audiences' expectations as well.
Lots of different opinions on this one with Austin. Burke Chris Stockman and Jeremy Jahn's given praise to the film but someone like yourself and Alachua Queen also rightly giving criticisms to the film. This is what I love about film how it sparks up discussion and conversation and we don't always agree.
I agree 100%
I was expecting this movie to be so much better.
The acting was really good. Really impressive acting but…..
The movie was not great and I don’t get all the Oscar love because of I thought the movie was too long which could be forgiven if I was really invested and the script and directing was more impressive.
I honestly think that at this point Scorsese gets credit for his movies now just for his name.
This movie was too long but also this movie had so many wasted scenes that didn’t even need to be included. There some scenes that made no sense and we didn’t even know what exactly was happening and there was no explanation of who some people were or what they were doing or why it was being shown to us. A few scenes come to mind.
Also honestly, with the subject matter and the story, it should have left me moved and in tears at the end but I wasn’t because he made the mistake of making this movie and telling the story from the prospective of the villains and didn’t allow us to really get to know the Osage people and bond with them, instead we are forced to follow these two jerks and their scheming.
The actors were great but the movie was waste a potential and I feel like for the length it was it could have been SO much better in so many ways.
Hats off to the actos though because they still have us some compelling moments.
I’m not mad. I’m just disappointed :) Disagree about it earning its time (I went in very apprehensive), but I can easily see how that issue is divisive. And I totally agree about the ending being brilliant (another divisive area).
The Critical Drinker gave a very similar review of this film. Food for thought.
I totally agree with your review! Spot on!
Please do a story of your favorite "long ass movies" that never felt like a slog.
Mine are:
1) Gone with the Wind
2) Oppenheimer
3) Magnolia
4) Lawrence of Arabia
5) Titanic
6) Ten Commandments (I'll watch it every time it's on TV)
7) Sound of Music
That's interesting. Six of these movies I saw in theaters. It's odd that I didn't see "10 Commandments" because it was showing at the movie theater I worked at when I first started there.
Gone with the Wind is awful though...
Awfully entertaining@@user-ul8xu8sk5i
The first time I saw it I was 3rd grade in a field trip. There was a revival in the big screen - in 70 mm no less. To a tiny kid, I felt swallowed up by the whole spectacle. @@FaydOgolon
Omg I saw it yesterday with my mum, the story is history and we should never forget something like this happens and still happends. But pffffffffff…. I said to my mum shall we go? And I never had that ever going to the cinema but it was made really boring…. And sooooooooo stretch out story. It made me even nervous
If there is a book from it than it’s better to read the book. It was the money not worth