By KimoSan Go To PostThat really was good and the first two hours fly by. I was surprised by the time Jesse Plemons character showed up (originally the role Leo was going to play) that so much time had passed. Shifting from the focus on the FBI, which is in the novel, to more of the Osage and family dynamic was a wise move.kimo pls
That Lily Gladstone is going to get the awards. She does so much with her eyes and face without saying a word. She has a bunch of lines and scenes throughout the picture, but it's the shots where she's just staring that are going to resonate with people.
Didn't stick around post credits. I needed to get up and stretch my back after all that time. This particular theater didn't have the recliners. They jam the seats in for IMAX I guess.
De-aged Henry Hill is at a bar.
Voice behind him says I'm putting a team together
Camera pans up and it's the Dalai Lama
Voice behind him says I'm putting a team together
Camera pans up and it's the Dalai Lama
By Punished Go To PostKotFM was very good, yes. Hope Marty has a few more left in him.He looked really fit there at the end didn't he!?
By domino Go To Postdamn Barbie was actually really goodIt went to some places lol.
Very enjoyable film for sure.
By domino Go To Postdamn Barbie was actually really goodyeah, enjoyed it a lot but i'm not surprised since i like Gerwig and Baumbach quite a bit.
Scorsese has now made six features starring DiCaprio (starting with 2002’s Gangs of New York) and 10 with De Niro. Killers of the Flower Moon, out Friday, is the first full-length Scorsese picture the actors have starred in together.
During the production, the director balanced their differing approaches to their roles: De Niro terse, DiCaprio expansive. “Oh, endless, endless, endless!” Scorsese says with a laugh, recalling DiCaprio’s discussions on set and improvisations in his scenes with De Niro. “Then Bob didn’t want to talk. Every now and then, Bob and I would look at each other and roll our eyes a little bit. And we’d tell him, ‘You don’t need that dialogue.’ ”
https://www.wsj.com/style/martin-scorsese-killers-flower-moon-b4989f0c
they basically told leo to shut it.
lads.
During the production, the director balanced their differing approaches to their roles: De Niro terse, DiCaprio expansive. “Oh, endless, endless, endless!” Scorsese says with a laugh, recalling DiCaprio’s discussions on set and improvisations in his scenes with De Niro. “Then Bob didn’t want to talk. Every now and then, Bob and I would look at each other and roll our eyes a little bit. And we’d tell him, ‘You don’t need that dialogue.’ ”
https://www.wsj.com/style/martin-scorsese-killers-flower-moon-b4989f0c
they basically told leo to shut it.
lads.
By Punished Go To PostDe-aged Henry Hill is at a bar.
Voice behind him says I'm putting a team together
Camera pans up and it's the Dalai Lama
kundun 2 when.
Saw x. I mean mr john wasn't wrong here. So was the people saying it was good though. Better than spiral for sure, but not good.
By bud Go To Postkundun 2 when.
Feel like I need to watch Kundun again. One of only two Martys I didn’t like.
there are still a few scorseses i haven't seen, and that's one of them.
also haven't seen age of innocence. see it's on netflix over here.
that's my evening sorted.
also haven't seen age of innocence. see it's on netflix over here.
that's my evening sorted.
By bud Go To Postthere are still a few scorseses i haven't seen, and that's one of them.
also haven't seen age of innocence. see it's on netflix over here.
that's my evening sorted.
Beautiful movie. Pfeiffer is incredible.
flower moon is good, very good even but not good enough to get Boy and the Heron from my 2023 no. 1 spot.
By Koko Go To PostHave yet to see plenty of movies that were/are going to be released this year, but I'm sure I'm not liking anything this year more than Killers of The Flower Moon.
That ending man
By FortuneFaded Go To PostArmond White reviews used to have more bite.
Reflecting back on the picture, the one criticism I might have is that I was a bit caught off guard at the pace at which Leo's character goes from dimwit nephew, to out and out mugger, to murdering conspirator.
In that first hour he's portrayed as a genuinely decent person who's returned from WW1. And then very quickly he's robbing natives at gunpoint and plotting the murder of his wife's family. It was too swift and didn't feel earned.
The entire film has massive time leaps, and they work just fine, but it was almost like a scene was missing or something to justify his heel turn. The only thing they do hammer home is that he enjoys the monied lifestyle and is admittedly lazy.
There are some clear parallels with Hitchcock's, Suspicion, which has Cary Grant marrying a wealthy socialite he meets on a train; using her money to fund his lifestyle; and then eventually plotting her death by poisoning her. But that picture makes it clear, despite the ambiguous ending, that Grant is a bad guy with bad intentions. Leo seems like he loves Molly, their kids and her family, but is manipulated by his uncle to just off them one by one out of necessity. I think they make it pretty clear that he didn't know he was poisoning Molly by adding to her insulin injections and when she questions him at the end, I don't believe he believed he was either. He's just that stupid.
In that first hour he's portrayed as a genuinely decent person who's returned from WW1. And then very quickly he's robbing natives at gunpoint and plotting the murder of his wife's family. It was too swift and didn't feel earned.
The entire film has massive time leaps, and they work just fine, but it was almost like a scene was missing or something to justify his heel turn. The only thing they do hammer home is that he enjoys the monied lifestyle and is admittedly lazy.
There are some clear parallels with Hitchcock's, Suspicion, which has Cary Grant marrying a wealthy socialite he meets on a train; using her money to fund his lifestyle; and then eventually plotting her death by poisoning her. But that picture makes it clear, despite the ambiguous ending, that Grant is a bad guy with bad intentions. Leo seems like he loves Molly, their kids and her family, but is manipulated by his uncle to just off them one by one out of necessity. I think they make it pretty clear that he didn't know he was poisoning Molly by adding to her insulin injections and when she questions him at the end, I don't believe he believed he was either. He's just that stupid.
By KimoSan Go To PostReflecting back on the picture, the one criticism I might have is that I was a bit caught off guard at the pace at which Leo's character goes from dimwit nephew, to out and out mugger, to murdering conspirator.He knew exactly what he was doing
In that first hour he's portrayed as a genuinely decent person who's returned from WW1. And then very quickly he's robbing natives at gunpoint and plotting the murder of his wife's family. It was too swift and didn't feel earned.
The entire film has massive time leaps, and they work just fine, but it was almost like a scene was missing or something to justify his heel turn. The only thing they do hammer home is that he enjoys the monied lifestyle and is admittedly lazy.
There are some clear parallels with Hitchcock's, Suspicion, which has Cary Grant marrying a wealthy socialite he meets on a train; using her money to fund his lifestyle; and then eventually plotting her death by poisoning her. But that picture makes it clear, despite the ambiguous ending, that Grant is a bad guy with bad intentions. Leo seems like he loves Molly, their kids and her family, but is manipulated by his uncle to just off them one by one out of necessity. I think they make it pretty clear that he didn't know he was poisoning Molly by adding to her insulin injections and when she questions him at the end, I don't believe he believed he was either. He's just that stupid.
By KimoSan Go To PostReflecting back on the picture, the one criticism I might have is that I was a bit caught off guard at the pace at which Leo's character goes from dimwit nephew, to out and out mugger, to murdering conspirator.I disagree, only thing we know from that firsts scenes (amazing opening scene btw) is the he likes money, women and that he can be manipulated pretty easily (King basically ask him if he can be his man when needed)
In that first hour he's portrayed as a genuinely decent person who's returned from WW1. And then very quickly he's robbing natives at gunpoint and plotting the murder of his wife's family. It was too swift and didn't feel earned.
The entire film has massive time leaps, and they work just fine, but it was almost like a scene was missing or something to justify his heel turn. The only thing they do hammer home is that he enjoys the monied lifestyle and is admittedly lazy.
There are some clear parallels with Hitchcock's, Suspicion, which has Cary Grant marrying a wealthy socialite he meets on a train; using her money to fund his lifestyle; and then eventually plotting her death by poisoning her. But that picture makes it clear, despite the ambiguous ending, that Grant is a bad guy with bad intentions. Leo seems like he loves Molly, their kids and her family, but is manipulated by his uncle to just off them one by one out of necessity. I think they make it pretty clear that he didn't know he was poisoning Molly by adding to her insulin injections and when she questions him at the end, I don't believe he believed he was either. He's just that stupid.
With respect to his love for Molly and his kids, I think one of the big questions the movie asks is if whatever feeling Earnest might have for Molly and the kids can be called "love" considering that he is a willing participant in the conspiracy to kill her family. Earnest knew what he was doing even if he was too dimmed to see the bigger picture and he knew that he was poisoning Molly, the fact that he pours some of it into his drink confirms it. He is just in a state of denial about the role he has played in the conspiracy.
By Call Sign: Apollo Go To PostThat ending manIt just so effective.
When he pours into his own drink I felt like he was doing it because he wasn't sure, though by that point was obviously suspicious, and perhaps wanted to know for himself. But again, I found him so stupid throughout the entire movie that I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Killers of the Flower Moon - A staggering, masterfully directed experience from the greatest living American director.
By reilo Go To PostAll hail Martin Charles Scorsese, first of his name. Hallowed be thy name. Bless you, GOAT.I looked up to see whether his father was also named Martin to contradict you and read this
The original surname of the family was Scozzese, meaning "Scot" or "Scottish" in Italian, and was later changed to Scorsese because of a transcription error.
Dude is a secret Brit. We are claiming him.
By reilo Go To PostHis father's name was CharlesHis father’s name was Luciano.
Also I read the book a few months back and it's truly written like a true crime novel. The rewrite must've been extensive and the movie is so much better for it because they truly did focus on the heart of it all which is Molly and her family's demise.
All of the actual investigative bits were cut out which was a majority of the story.
All of the actual investigative bits were cut out which was a majority of the story.
By FortuneFaded Go To PostHis father’s name was Luciano.
You should submit an edit to Wikipedia since you have all of this free time on your hands and nothing better to do
By reilo Go To PostYou should submit an edit to Wikipedia since you have all of this free time on your hands and nothing better to doHasn't been edited in months: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Scorsese&action=history
I didn't accuse you I offered a suggestion.
But what should one expect from someone that sees 5 references to the word Charles and 1 for Luciano and thinks the man went by the latter.
But what should one expect from someone that sees 5 references to the word Charles and 1 for Luciano and thinks the man went by the latter.
Maybe this explains it ?
https://gw.geneanet.org/peter781?lang=en&pz=peter&nz=bachelier&p=charles&n=scorsese
He has both names apparently.
https://gw.geneanet.org/peter781?lang=en&pz=peter&nz=bachelier&p=charles&n=scorsese
He has both names apparently.
By Lupercal Go To PostMaybe this explains it ?You sure that's not Uncle Junior
https://gw.geneanet.org/peter781?lang=en&pz=peter&nz=bachelier&p=charles&n=scorsese
He has both names apparently.
By RAThasReturned Go To PostA sequel to a disappointing movie delayed 1 whole year. Good luck.Uh oh if true
By Laboured Go To Postthis is what the kids call pure kino
By Laboured Go To PostThought Saw X was very bad indeed even compared to other Saw movies.
If you don't count spiral i can respect this opinion. But spiral is legit one of the worst films the last many years, not just the worst saw
By reilo Go To PostAlso I read the book a few months back and it's truly written like a true crime novel. The rewrite must've been extensive and the movie is so much better for it because they truly did focus on the heart of it all which is Molly and her family's demise.
All of the actual investigative bits were cut out which was a majority of the story.
The movie got a Goodfellas vibe
By reilo Go To PostAnyone that thinks Killers of Flower Moon is a white savior movie is a fucking dumbassIt’s actually a pro-FBI movie.
/end rant
J. Edgar Hoover namedrop was the “Avengers assemble” moment.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostIt’s actually a pro-FBI movie.😂
J. Edgar Hoover namedrop was the “Avengers assemble” moment.
The book legit might be a pro-FBI movie though. The most amount of depth the author goes into is that of Tom White. Recounts quite a bit of his backstory, insight into his morality, etc. On the flipside, it also goes into Hoover quite a bit and points out how bit of a nasty ass person he was and his crazy idiosyncrasies.
But the movie leaves the entire actual investigation out of the script. It's barely an investigation, it's a plot device to wrap shit up lol.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostIt’s actually a pro-FBI movie."I'm Quantico's Reckoning."
J. Edgar Hoover namedrop was the “Avengers assemble” moment.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostWhat are his best movies?
Wow that’s sad af, he’s one of my GOATs.
By s y Go To PostWhat are his best movies?I haven’t seen all of his because a few are still inaccessible here but of what I’ve seen; Millennium Mambo, A Time To Live and a Time To Die, Flowers of Shanghai, and Cafe Lumiere. I really really need to see City of Sadness when the new restoration comes to the west.