Entertainment
Sponsored by

Unlocked*** KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON *** (Scorsese, DiCaprio, De Niro)

30,557 Views | 230 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by BigAg95
AlaskanAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
God that movie blew. Was about 85 minutes too long. The characters were 1 dimensional, it dragged on forever, if that was a low budget PBS special, it would still have been bad.

The story in and of itself was fairly interesting but the execution was abysmal.

My advice is don't bother spending the money for the theater, just wait for streaming.
smc05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just saw it tonight. I was surprised by how much I didn't like it. Felt every bit of the length. I think the score was the best part.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I feel like this happens every damn time I end up having to change showtimes. I had a ticket to this exact screening at this exact theater, but ended up having to move it to next weekend in order to see it with my parents…

Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This happened to me in NYC when I went to the opening night of the Hobbit. Ian McKellen showed up in the IMAX I usually went to, and I went to another just cause it was in 48 FPS.

Which ended up looking like crap anyway.
Casual Cynic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was into it for the first two hours but then it just seemed to drag on and on and I kept checking my phone to see when it would finally end.
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought it was a well acted and well crafted movie, as one would expect. It is an interesting historical event being depicted, and I hadn't read the book so I enjoyed learning historical and dramatic details. I didn't find the characters one dimensional and I didn't feel it was like a low budget PBS special - that is an over the top comment.

It was definitely long (it's telling events that occurred over many years) and while there were a fair number of audience laughs it was missing the "fun" in some of my favorite Scorcese films. I was engaged but it never felt gripping, and I do agree this is one I may never desire to watch again. I am glad I saw it, and did enjoy it, but it just didn't really grab me in an interesting way.
FancyKetchup14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I had high hopes, but I wasn't the biggest fan of that movie. It felt like an hour too long. And I couldn't really get over Leo's mumbling either.

I thought Jason Isbell had some serious acting chops, though. He was awesome.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:

This happened to me in NYC when I went to the opening night of the Hobbit. Ian McKellen showed up in the IMAX I usually went to, and I went to another just cause it was in 48 FPS.

Which ended up looking like crap anyway.

Ooof. I hated the 48 FPS so much that I walked out of The Hobbit like 20 minutes in and never watched a single minute again of it or the rest of the trilogy.
BCSWguru
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Was not a big fan of this one. Way too long. Weak for a Scorsese flick. Leo seemed to kinda mail it in.
Cliff.Booth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The trailer and reading a summary of the events never really had me chomping at the bit to go see it, but I was hoping for initial reviews to convince me otherwise. Definitely seems like one to see from the couch and probably in 3 sittings.
BassCowboy33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
***SPOILERZ***

Ok, most of my fears about this film (and complaining in the trailers thread were realized)

I'm a BIG fan of the book, so that needs to be mentioned here.

1. First off, Lily Gladstone will win Best Actress, and she should. Not since Julianne Moore in Still Alice has someone done so much acting with just their eyes. She steals every scene she's in.

2. DiCaprio was fantastic as the weasel of a husband. The scenes with him and Gladstone are the best in the film.

3. As others have said before me, this movie was at least an hour too long. The movie never grabs the viewer enough to justify its runtime. Too many scenes just go on and on with no added value. Oddly, the film spends too little time on important aspects of the murders and dedicates tons of time to superfluous stuff. EDIT: In my opinion, the first 15 minutes were the best in the film, thanks to the fantastic score going on.

4. I was worried about the casting of Robert De Niro as Hale, and that fear was justified. He basically plays Robert De Niro in three-piece suits giving side eyes. At no point is his character anything other than a warm body. The drastic age difference between the real Hale and De Niro was also annoying.

5. My biggest worry about the trailers, and one I complained about ad nauseam in that thread, was the narrative structure. The book is a mystery being solved by the FBI. The movie gives away what's happening 10 minutes into the film (as did the trailer) and loses any suspense or emotional investment after that. In order to change the narrative, the main character was switched from Tom White in the book to Ernest and Molly, who are major supporting characters in the book. By doing this (especially with Ernest), there's no mystery or suspense. We're watching a 3.5-hour press release to which we already have all the information.

6. Also, Jesse Plemons does more with less than any actor around.

7. Brendan Fraser's role was like if the script said, "Man screams loudly."

8. The end of the film, using a radio show to tell what happened after, is awful. It makes zero sense and pulled me right out of the story.

9. Scorsese dedicates a ton of time to the Osage, and rightfully so. But they're all caricatures. By eliminating nearly all of the investigative side of the story (of which there's a ton), you don't really learn about any of the Osage victims, thus you never get invested in solving their murders (and you don't get much investigation at all, really). You don't get Tom White's fight for justice, Hoover's insistence on solving the case, or Mollie's confusion as to what's happening.

I'm sure I'll add more to this in the coming days, but I was very disappointed in this one.
BassCowboy33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brian Earl Spilner said:

I thought it was good, if a bit long. You could probably lose a good 25 minutes.

My one main complaint is how it wraps up. I think we really needed a longer scene with Ernest and Mollie once she learned the truth. Plus, it was never made 100% clear if he was purposely trying to kill Mollie, or was ignorant to what he was injecting her with.
The book leaves this open to interpretation because Grann could never figure it out either. In the mystery setting that is the book, this makes sense. In a movie that eliminates the suspense of what's happening, it does not make sense.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Couldn't agree more with #5.
Claude!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you want a much, much shorter alternative telling of the story, Charley Crockett released a song about it:

BCG Disciple
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I didn't read the book, so I can certainly understand why that is an issue. Would have been so much better.

But 8 flat out pi**ed me off. Just cheapened the entire experience. Made me feel like I wasted 3.5 hours.
Casual Cynic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree, telling the story from the perspective of Ernest and Molly pretty removed all the real tension of the story.
BassCowboy33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Casual Cynic said:

I agree, telling the story from the perspective of Ernest and Molly pretty removed all the real tension of the story.
I think a strict Molly/White story would've been fantastic. But, yeah, Ernest's point of view was sooooo underwhelming.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
WHOOPThatTrick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just saw this. Almost came off as a documentary rather than a drama.. Aside from that, I felt like they never developed DiCaprio's character or his wife's. There was never a "Breaking Bad" kind of plot that would have explained his horrible actions via turn of thoughts or exposition of his true character, a battle within himself...and her's. Or, that's who he always was and she always knew. His character lazily flipped flopped from stupid to evil, and the flip back and forth was both bewondering, and flat. The best thing, in my opinion, was when his wife asked him what he have been giving her, and he said "Insulin", and didn't come clean when he was dead to rights. She walked.

It was fascinating to learn about a historic event I had no clue about, but if you're going to be allowed 3 1/2 hours to make us feel like we were there, and could relate to the characters, Scorsese kicked "wide-middle".
WHOOPThatTrick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
One last thing... The soundtrack sucked. Should have got the girl that did "The Revenant". She won an Oscar with three or for notes...I forget. Brilliant.
Maroon Elephant
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jesse Plemons was outstanding. Could have been a great movie if it was 2:30.

But instead, this movie is 2:55 of (at times) droning dialogue, 0;05 of action and 2:45 of Deniro's character gaslighting everyone to hell and back. That's it. That's the movie. FIN.
TexAgs Firestorm Survivor
11.25.23
#NeverForget
dixie whiskey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
i opened the thread to find out more on the movie but honestly now i just want to watch bg knocker continue to red pill us about the whole indian thing. now that he's told us what hollywood doesn't want us to know, about how after all white people ever did to them was show up to their communities and nicely ask them to gtfo and accept being manifest destinied, and it wasn't til they got all unreasonable about whitey stealing their homes and lands among other minor inconveniences that white folks had to introduce the genocide-y stuff to them. clearly there was no other recourse. and those savages had the audacity to respond to the unprecedented slaughter by killing white babies! such savages. i mean seriously it wasn't even as bad as the holocaust, meanwhile a few of them killed WHITE BABIES! but no doubt hollywoods liberal woke agenda will try to portray the white man as the bad guy.

i just wanted to read one thread about a movie without someone crying about woke. no doubt pointing out the unnecessary racist part of his cry rant is gonna trigger some other weird maga talking point im excited for


to be clear, bg knocker, before you might get the wrong idea, im not actually interested in having some kind of grown up debate with you about your bigoted delusions. you're clearly too far gone to bother with. the lengths you've gone to build up your ridiculous woke boogeyman's destructive impact on society in your mind isn't healthy and i truly hope someday you resolve whatever is broken in you that makes you see the world that way.


ps please stop ruining the entertainment board with all that paranoid bs k bye
FancyKetchup14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dixie whiskey said:

i opened the thread to find out more on the movie but honestly now i just want to watch bg knocker continue to red pill us about the whole indian thing. now that he's told us what hollywood doesn't want us to know, about how after all white people ever did to them was show up to their communities and nicely ask them to gtfo and accept being manifest destinied, and it wasn't til they got all unreasonable about whitey stealing their homes and lands among other minor inconveniences that white folks had to introduce the genocide-y stuff to them. clearly there was no other recourse. and those savages had the audacity to respond to the unprecedented slaughter by killing white babies! such savages. i mean seriously it wasn't even as bad as the holocaust, meanwhile a few of them killed WHITE BABIES! but no doubt hollywoods liberal woke agenda will try to portray the white man as the bad guy.

i just wanted to read one thread about a movie without someone crying about woke. no doubt pointing out the unnecessary racist part of his cry rant is gonna trigger some other weird maga talking point im excited for


to be clear, bg knocker, before you might get the wrong idea, im not actually interested in having some kind of grown up debate with you about your bigoted delusions. you're clearly too far gone to bother with. the lengths you've gone to build up your ridiculous woke boogeyman's destructive impact on society in your mind isn't healthy and i truly hope someday you resolve whatever is broken in you that makes you see the world that way.


ps please stop ruining the entertainment board with all that paranoid bs k bye


Sir this is a Wendy's
BassCowboy33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dixie whiskey said:

i opened the thread to find out more on the movie but honestly now i just want to watch bg knocker continue to red pill us about the whole indian thing. now that he's told us what hollywood doesn't want us to know, about how after all white people ever did to them was show up to their communities and nicely ask them to gtfo and accept being manifest destinied, and it wasn't til they got all unreasonable about whitey stealing their homes and lands among other minor inconveniences that white folks had to introduce the genocide-y stuff to them. clearly there was no other recourse. and those savages had the audacity to respond to the unprecedented slaughter by killing white babies! such savages. i mean seriously it wasn't even as bad as the holocaust, meanwhile a few of them killed WHITE BABIES! but no doubt hollywoods liberal woke agenda will try to portray the white man as the bad guy.

i just wanted to read one thread about a movie without someone crying about woke. no doubt pointing out the unnecessary racist part of his cry rant is gonna trigger some other weird maga talking point im excited for


to be clear, bg knocker, before you might get the wrong idea, im not actually interested in having some kind of grown up debate with you about your bigoted delusions. you're clearly too far gone to bother with. the lengths you've gone to build up your ridiculous woke boogeyman's destructive impact on society in your mind isn't healthy and i truly hope someday you resolve whatever is broken in you that makes you see the world that way.


ps please stop ruining the entertainment board with all that paranoid bs k bye


What the…
Belton Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dixie whiskey said:

i opened the thread to find out more on the movie but honestly now i just want to watch bg knocker continue to red pill us about the whole indian thing. now that he's told us what hollywood doesn't want us to know, about how after all white people ever did to them was show up to their communities and nicely ask them to gtfo and accept being manifest destinied, and it wasn't til they got all unreasonable about whitey stealing their homes and lands among other minor inconveniences that white folks had to introduce the genocide-y stuff to them. clearly there was no other recourse. and those savages had the audacity to respond to the unprecedented slaughter by killing white babies! such savages. i mean seriously it wasn't even as bad as the holocaust, meanwhile a few of them killed WHITE BABIES! but no doubt hollywoods liberal woke agenda will try to portray the white man as the bad guy.

i just wanted to read one thread about a movie without someone crying about woke. no doubt pointing out the unnecessary racist part of his cry rant is gonna trigger some other weird maga talking point im excited for


to be clear, bg knocker, before you might get the wrong idea, im not actually interested in having some kind of grown up debate with you about your bigoted delusions. you're clearly too far gone to bother with. the lengths you've gone to build up your ridiculous woke boogeyman's destructive impact on society in your mind isn't healthy and i truly hope someday you resolve whatever is broken in you that makes you see the world that way.


ps please stop ruining the entertainment board with all that paranoid bs k bye


And this is as nutty as any right wing screed we see on this board.
CC09LawAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you! Finally, someone says what we have ALL been thinking.
The Kraken
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
lawless89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wife and I saw it yesterday for a 2pm showing. We both knew the general idea of the movie, but didn't read the book and went in with decent expectations due to the cast and trailer.

Both of us thoroughly enjoyed it and and agreed that it didn't seem like it was 3.5 hours. I did think the radio scene at the end was a little different, but I thought it was a cool way to tell the "rest" of the story instead of just words on the screen. But it did take me a min to figure out that's what they were doing.

It seems like those that read the book and know the story well were disappointed, but isn't that how movies that follow up books usually go?
BCG Disciple
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
lawless89 said:

Wife and I saw it yesterday for a 2pm showing. We both knew the general idea of the movie, but didn't read the book and went in with decent expectations due to the cast and trailer.

Both of us thoroughly enjoyed it and and agreed that it didn't seem like it was 3.5 hours. I did think the radio scene at the end was a little different, but I thought it was a cool way to tell the "rest" of the story instead of just words on the screen. But it did take me a min to figure out that's what they were doing.

It seems like those that read the book and know the story well were disappointed, but isn't that how movies that follow up books usually go?

Maybe, but it told the story in addition to the rest of the story. Not sure how you spend hours forcing me to get in to characters and close out the story with a silly over dramatized radio send off. Made absolutely zero sense other than trying to be different for the sake of being different. Fell flat time and cheapened my experience.
BassCowboy33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
lawless89 said:

Wife and I saw it yesterday for a 2pm showing. We both knew the general idea of the movie, but didn't read the book and went in with decent expectations due to the cast and trailer.

Both of us thoroughly enjoyed it and and agreed that it didn't seem like it was 3.5 hours. I did think the radio scene at the end was a little different, but I thought it was a cool way to tell the "rest" of the story instead of just words on the screen. But it did take me a min to figure out that's what they were doing.

It seems like those that read the book and know the story well were disappointed, but isn't that how movies that follow up books usually go?
In a sense. I think the great annoyance here was that the book is a mystery (you don't know about Hale or Ernest's involvement until Tom White uncovers it), while the movie has no suspense or real direction. It's like reading a PR statement about the murders. It basically took The Usual Suspects and turned it into an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger.
AlaskanAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think if this had been a better adaptation of the book through the investigation lense, it would have been much better. Instead Leo wanted to play Ernest and have the crappy story be told through the relationship.

20mins it it was very clear the who/what/why/how was explained and then it was a plodding 3hr long boring slow story about **** humans, greed and racism. Which everyone should by now understand the views of the natives by the then current culture. So nothing new.

I blame Leo and I hope this doesn't win any awards for best male actor, score, script or cinematography.

The ending was the most interesting part of the entire film. I wish the entire thing was done in this fashion and could have been told in 30 minutes.
Casual Cynic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think Scorsese was trying too hard to make a movie that liberal Hollywood would like instead of just making a good movie.
BassCowboy33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Casual Cynic said:

I think Scorsese was trying too hard to make a movie that liberal Hollywood would like instead of just making a good movie.
From my understanding, he wanted to honor the Osage by telling it through their lense, which I get. But by reeling in Ernest's point of view, it sapped the story of any suspense or drama. Mollie's perspective is fine, but Ernest's is spoiler alert city.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Two things…

1) I haven't read the book.

2) Due to some of the reactions in this thread (and a select few on Twitter), I went into the theater tonight with slightly lowered expectations.

That said…

I thought this movie was FANTASTIC.

The story, the acting, the score, the costumes, the familiarity of the region (I'm from North Texas and my dad owns and operates oil wells in that exact region)… I loved every last second of it. Just so damn good and so damn haunting.

That, and I honestly don't get the knocks about there not being any suspense. In fact, I was MORE drawn into Mollie's story because I was on pins and needles waiting for HER to discover what we of course already knew. It simply traded one kind of suspense for another, and I was completely riveted throughout. Mollie was like a human McGuffin - one who's definitely going to win Best Actress - and I couldn't wait to see whose hands she was going to end up in - with Hale's around her neck or with the FBI basically bringing her back from the dead. All as her family was being picked off one-by-one around her.

I don't know, I also loved the story being told from the point of view of an absolute dolt (DiCaprio in peak form as Earnest), being pulled in opposite directions until the bitter end. That was so captivating to me, the ways he was being manipulated, with increasingly more back-and-forth whiplash, and all the character work going on there. To me, the murders were one of the least interesting aspects, to the point where I almost can't imagine a version where we're wondering who did them. I'd much rather watch the psychology and mechanics at play that allow these evil men to try and justify their actions, and then get their comeuppance in the end.

Heck, I even loved the radio show to top it all off. It was such an inventive way to do what otherwise would have been the standard/boring end title cards. It had a certain charm, I enjoyed watching them do the sound effects, the impressions of the characters, etc. It was cool!

I can't believe I'm saying this about what is now the longest movie I've ever seen in a theater (though it certainly didn't feel like it), but I seriously can't wait for it to hit Apple TV+ so I can watch it again.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Casual Cynic said:

I think Scorsese was trying too hard to make a movie that liberal Hollywood would like instead of just making a good movie.


Often when people complain about wokeness in movies, while I may not agree with them, I can at least see where the kernel of wokeness sprouted from, in their eyes. Here though? Truly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Like, none. I don't want to get into a whole thing, it's just that I've rarely seen a more clear-cut depiction in a movie of objectively evil people doing objectively evil things. And for the life of me I don't understand how framing a good chunk of the story from the point of view of that evil somehow makes the movie for "liberal Hollywood." I mean, if anything, there's a whole contingent on the far left wagging their fingers at this thing, sh*tting on it for not being woke enough, not telling it more from the perspective of the Osage, not hiring a Native American filmmaker, etc.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.