Movies: Killers Of The Flower Moon (DiCaprio, De Niro)
- Thread starter Neutrinos
- Start date
Bakayoko Ono
Registered User
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Regardless of potential quality, it's impressive to see Scorcese still going like that at his age.
Meh Eastwood does even more, both directing and often acting, in his movie and he is 92.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,844
- 2,704
Yeah, that completely nullifies what Scorsese is doing. Great insight.
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
I'll see your Scorsese and Eastwood and raise you a 97 year old Sir David Attenborough.
- Aug 24, 2011
- 27,548
- 11,991
End of Line
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2009
- 24,800
- 2,400
Love everything he does, dude is an icon for the planet.I'll see your Scorsese and Eastwood and raise you a 97 year old Sir David Attenborough.
kook10
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2011
- 4,724
- 2,829
My wife and I were going to book some tickets to see this over the weekend until we saw the 3.5 hour run time 
. I read the book and it seemed like that only had enough story to sustain 200 of the 300 pages (or whatever it was). It does take place over a long period of time though, so maybe they couldn't convey the story adequately and take stuff out? It is just too long to see it when we thought we would. It will take more planning and motivation than we've got for tomorrow.
. I read the book and it seemed like that only had enough story to sustain 200 of the 300 pages (or whatever it was). It does take place over a long period of time though, so maybe they couldn't convey the story adequately and take stuff out? It is just too long to see it when we thought we would. It will take more planning and motivation than we've got for tomorrow.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Leonardo DiCaprio's 'Endless' Improv Annoyed Robert De Niro, Martin Scorsese Says
The director cast both his longtime collaborators in "Killers of the Flower Moon," only for their acting approaches to palpably clash.
JetsWillFly4Ever
PLAY EHLERS 20 MIN A NIGHT
Went last night. I thought it was good, not great. You do feel the runtime at over 3 and a half hours.
DiCaprio, De Niro and Lily Gladstone were all fantastic. The story was interesting and a good reminder of how horribly treated indigenous people were and continue to be.
Most interesting was the interpretation of Ernest and his level of ignorance towards what was going on. Was he being controlled by his uncle or was he as guilty as all of them? Either way, they are horrible people and De Niro plays a sociopath murder as well as I have seen a long time.
DiCaprio, De Niro and Lily Gladstone were all fantastic. The story was interesting and a good reminder of how horribly treated indigenous people were and continue to be.
Most interesting was the interpretation of Ernest and his level of ignorance towards what was going on. Was he being controlled by his uncle or was he as guilty as all of them? Either way, they are horrible people and De Niro plays a sociopath murder as well as I have seen a long time.
I'll see you Scorsese, Eastwood and Attenborough, and raise you Portuguese director Manuel de Oliveira who directed his last movie Gebo and the Shadow in 2013 at the age of 103. Two years earlier his penultimate movie The Strange Case of Angelica made my top movies of the year list.
Seeing KIllers this afternoon. I'm not exactly looking forward to it, but we shall see.
Seeing KIllers this afternoon. I'm not exactly looking forward to it, but we shall see.
hotcabbagesoup
why u guys want Celebrini, he played like a weenie
Mixed feelings. It's an important story, well acted, though oddly paced and unnecessarily long. But my main problem is why are we focusing on two of the scummiest protagonists in film history, both white guys, when we should be focusing on Molly and taking advantage of Lily Gladstone's wonderful performance.
Saw it tonight. Scorsese is probably my favorite director of all time (only others in the discussion are Leone and Kurosawa). I'd say how it was shot felt more like a Malick film. Well acted, and an important story, but I'm not sure it's one I'm gonna re-watch a lot. I left the Irishman more impressed, but that was more a Scorsese-style film.
I know a lot of people are tired of his style, but I will say props to Wes Anderson for keeping all his movies under like 2 hours. Seems Hollywood needs to justify big budgets by making every film 210 minutes or longer.
I know a lot of people are tired of his style, but I will say props to Wes Anderson for keeping all his movies under like 2 hours. Seems Hollywood needs to justify big budgets by making every film 210 minutes or longer.
I agree, I left most impressed by Lily Gladstone. But, I would say, many would say Scorsese's masterpiece is Raging Bull (while I enjoy Goodfellas more, on a cinematic level Raging Bull is hard to argue against, his 3 most iconic films were Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Taxi Driver), which focused on an incredibly unlikable protagonist.
You missed Scorcese's strategy. We appreciate Molly/Lily even more because of her limited screen time.
Off topic. In Blade Runner 2049 Deckard says "Her eyes were green". They weren't green, they were brown. Why did he say this?
I am not exposed
Registered User
Yeah, people need piss breaks!
Should bring back the intermission for such movies at the cinema.
*Reason number 28 why I prefer watching movies at home instead of the cinema.
Don't think so. Scorsese took the plight of the Osage, and made another gangster movie out of it. He did what he does best and is probably most comfortable doing. Besides, he almost never focuses on female characters. He has only done it twice in his entire career (Boxcar Bertha and Alice Doesn't Live Here Any More, the last of which came out in 1974). Among his 27 movies, he only has two more in which you could even say that women have close to equal billing with men (New York, New York and The Age of Innocence, neither considered among his best works). He's old and he relied on what worked before--gangsters--but I don't think it was a good fit for the story.
Last edited:
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
I think it was his way of warding off the temptation and reminding himself that it isn't his Rachael.
He may have also wanted to provoke Niander Wallace and malign his overconfidence in his omniscience.
PeteWorrell
[...]
- Aug 31, 2006
- 4,683
- 1,827
kook10
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2011
- 4,724
- 2,829
that's interesting because some of the pre-release press was about how DiCaprio convinced Scorsese that the heart of the story was the Osage and that it wasn't about white men. I wonder what it looked like before that if this is the feedback of people coming out of the movie.
Scorsese clearly enjoys making movies with the same actors. He's made close to a dozen with De Niro and a half dozen with DiCaprio and has two more upcoming that star DiCaprio. What probably appealed to him about this one is that he could make it revolve around both. I doubt that he would've been interested if the focus were elsewhere. He seemingly enjoys the process of making movies with friends and isn't too concerned with pleasing anyone else (hence, long run times, for example). That's probably always been the case, but feels like even more the case in recent years... not that I blame him. He's 80, and if he wants to make 3.5-hour movies with his friends, he's earned the right, but I'm not as keen on watching them.
Last edited:
I think these are mostly reasonable suppositions. However, he did seem to make a big deal about how important this particular story was to him. My impression was that he seemed to take it as a personal responsibility to ensure people got to know about what happened to the Osage. So I think it was more than just an old man enjoying going to work with trusted friends and colleagues.
