đ Killers Of The Flower Moonâ đ-- Martin Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio & Robert De Niro (Discussion Thread)
- Thread starter LevelUp
- Start date
valet
The official Chaplain of the Coli
My thoughts. Minor spoilers ahead. If you want none, don't read it until you see the movie. Again MINOR SPOILERS. Major spoilers will be in the spoiler tag.
First, let's get the obvious out the way. How does it compare to another Oscar type film, Oppenheimer. And to me not on Nolan level. Nolan had interesting dialouge and pacing down pack for a long movie. To me, Killers suffered in the pacing department until the last hour. That's when he got in the bag and the ending was so dope. But those first 2 hrs. And the reason this movie suffered is the writing. The Indian people for the most part were not interesting. The main Indian character was boring and lifeless (in more ways then one). Like you would think a movie about Indians, would be the best part but they wasn't to me.
Now, positives.
1) Action scenes. The different ways people were killed were dope. Def. took you back to Martin's classic films.
2) Meth Damon- For me, he took this film to another level. This ngga acting is just on another level. He can just elevate films.
3) Leo- on the positive side. He did his thing. Especially that last hour.
4) De Niro- He would easily be the best in here if he was younger. He still has it but age prevents him taking it there. He still was good.
Negative-
The Indians-Yes, they're the victims but they just came off as clueless. The way they trusted white people was just
Compared to Black people and our plight. We knew game. We just didn't have the power. Indians didn't have power either but they just didn't get it.
Leo- on the negative side. Speaking of dumb. His character was so dumb it was frustrating. Like I couldn't stand how stupid Leo was. Yes, he dope at acting but his character was borderline special needs.
Main Indian woman-Again, another dummy who was frustrating. Maybe that's her culture but she was almost slave like once her character made a decision which changed her life.
Bottom line to me. Glad I saw in theatre. No way would I watch this at home in one sitting. Did not like the pacing. The acting was way better then the dialogue. Though the action and deaths were good.
First, let's get the obvious out the way. How does it compare to another Oscar type film, Oppenheimer. And to me not on Nolan level. Nolan had interesting dialouge and pacing down pack for a long movie. To me, Killers suffered in the pacing department until the last hour. That's when he got in the bag and the ending was so dope. But those first 2 hrs. And the reason this movie suffered is the writing. The Indian people for the most part were not interesting. The main Indian character was boring and lifeless (in more ways then one). Like you would think a movie about Indians, would be the best part but they wasn't to me.
Now, positives.
1) Action scenes. The different ways people were killed were dope. Def. took you back to Martin's classic films.
2) Meth Damon- For me, he took this film to another level. This ngga acting is just on another level. He can just elevate films.
3) Leo- on the positive side. He did his thing. Especially that last hour.
4) De Niro- He would easily be the best in here if he was younger. He still has it but age prevents him taking it there. He still was good.
Negative-
The Indians-Yes, they're the victims but they just came off as clueless. The way they trusted white people was just
Compared to Black people and our plight. We knew game. We just didn't have the power. Indians didn't have power either but they just didn't get it.Leo- on the negative side. Speaking of dumb. His character was so dumb it was frustrating. Like I couldn't stand how stupid Leo was. Yes, he dope at acting but his character was borderline special needs.
Main Indian woman-Again, another dummy who was frustrating. Maybe that's her culture but she was almost slave like once her character made a decision which changed her life.
Once my ngga Meth Damon came, it changed the whole flow. Felt like a true crime drama. Ngga snitchng and everythint fell apart. And that ending was creative. The way they did it old time radio style (my pops had me growing up on that) was so dope
Bottom line to me. Glad I saw in theatre. No way would I watch this at home in one sitting. Did not like the pacing. The acting was way better then the dialogue. Though the action and deaths were good.
Last edited:
lolâŚcool way to kill time on vacationâŚlast time I saw a movie abroad was âthe usual suspectsâ
was visiting family in UK at the time
humminbird
Veteran
I saw Mission Impossible Fallout on vacation one timelolâŚcool way to kill time on vacationâŚlast time I saw a movie abroad was âthe usual suspectsâ
was visiting family in UK at the time
It had me feeling like I was on a spy mission for the rest of the trip
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
Saw it yesterday. Underwhelming, if not boring. You basically know all that you need to know fairly early, who does what how and why. Then it's just 3 hours of what you already understood unfolding, with mostly mid dialogues sprinkled with a couple chuckles here and there. There's no build-up, no tension, hardly any intrigue, no surprises, no "Ah!" moments. "Flat" is how it felt. And it's not a contemplative movie either with amazing visuals or with an "atmospheric" feel either to balance the lack of energy and pacing. Whole thing could've been wrapped up in less than 2 hours.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
Facts, basically what I said in my previous comment. I didn't know anything about this historical event and yeah after half an hour you've figured out the whole movie basically.
Having read the book years ago, and a lot about the movies development, it was in it's first version more of a mystery, and then the whole movie was essentially inversed, and they dropped the mystery. There is no mystery, it's not a mystery. I have read at least one mixed review that may be accurate, waiting until Monday or Tuesday probably.
For his telling, Scorsese has drawn on assorted genres â the movie is at once a romance, a western, a domestic drama, a whodunit and, finally, a police procedural
The movie LOOKS great from the preview, but at 3:30, the pacing needs to be remarkable. So does the photography.
For his telling, Scorsese has drawn on assorted genres â the movie is at once a romance, a western, a domestic drama, a whodunit and, finally, a police procedural
The movie LOOKS great from the preview, but at 3:30, the pacing needs to be remarkable. So does the photography.
Last edited:
âKillers of the Flower Moonâ Review: An Unsettling Masterpiece
Martin Scorseseâs three-and-a-half-hour epic, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, is a romance, a western, a whodunit and a lesson in the bloody history of the Osage murders of the 1920s.
Yes its well worth it.
Both have premium sound and image quality.
UltraAVX has a clearer image, IMAX the larger (largest) screen and both have premium audio.
Some movies film entire scenes with cameras made for IMAX.
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
We just got back and yep Scorsese put out another classic. Sure it's long but it takes a while to tell the whole story of how everything developed. This was Leo at his best. Probably winning the Oscar. De Niro was at the best he's been in years. I love how layered the characters are. There's a lot of moving parts within the community and it all comes together at the end. Jesse Plemons is fukkin great too.
Cinematography was tremendous as well.
Cinematography was tremendous as well.
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
I think there were a couple scenes in the first 1.5 hours that could have been shortened a bit but there's no way I'm cutting anything from the last two hours. It's an acting clinic and you need all the scenes to put the pieces together. Not that it's a 'mystery' it's just a complicated case.
