Without interference from the all-powerful Internet, this film will be difficult to master.
For the Russian audience, the ongoing murders in Osage County in the first quarter of the twentieth century were little known, and therefore, when watching or in parallel with it, you can peek into historical facts to understand the essence of what is happening on the screen, and remember the characters. There are a lot of characters here.
The events of Killers of the Flower Moon describe the infamous events associated with the murder of indigenous Osage Indians, in the territory of which oil was found. Black gold enriched the Indians and put them on the verge of death, because the greed of the white people and their desire to get rich at any cost knew no limits.
An elaborate plot was conceived to destroy the heirs of the Osages one by one by any means possible. Officially, the number of victims has reached at least twenty, but it is believed that even more has not been recorded.
The characters of DiCaprio, De Niro, Lily Gladstone and many others are written off from real people, many episodes of those crimes are shown in detail by the director, as well as the characters are described in detail. By the end of the first hour of the story, you can form your own idea about Ernest Burkhart or his uncle William King Hale.
Although according to the book on which the film was shot, hundreds of people were involved in the killings of the Osage Indians, not one organized group. The story of Molly Burkhart’s family, her sisters and mothers is only part of what actually happened and Scorsese focused on this, especially since it was the Burkhart and Hale case that was uncovered by FBI agents.
The story of Molly, told by Martin Scorsese, seems to hint at the fact that the director on behalf of the white population of America apologizes to the indigenous peoples for what the life of these very indigenous peoples has become. ‘Murderers of the Flower Moon’ is certainly not the director’s confession, nor is it an indictment of one race or an excuse for another. It’s just a statement of fact that even having a lot of money from the Indians didn’t make them free. The big white brother came to their land again and reconquered the native population.
I'm not trying to politicize my review, but the example of the white people in this film taking care of Indian finances, controlling their income and spending, nicely privately describes the quest for global domination. I think you know what I mean. Again, it is unlikely that Scorsese put in his picture just such a meaning, no! The film is based on real facts.
The film, with its approach to Osages, really looks like a tribute to those people who had to go through a lot and live in fear for a long time. Although it was negative for even indigenous people (actress Devery Jacobs: “The film did not portray Osage characters with ‘honor and dignity’, further dehumanized them by depicting their death, and more murdered indigenous women normalize the violence perpetrated against us”).
Which is quite strange, because the "Murderers of the Flower Moon" do not romanticize the events shown, do not laugh at evil at the "poor red people" from whom the "pipe of peace" was taken.
The film focuses on the problems of indigenous people. These problems were then and now they have not gone anywhere.
Facts:
- This is Scorsese's second film (after Nice Guys) where the protagonist points to Robert De Niro in the courtroom near the end of the film, testifying against him. In both scenes, De Niro reacts stoically without showing any emotion.
- For this film, Martin Scorsese received the 10th Academy Award nomination for Best Director. He has received more nominations in this category than any other director except William Wyler, who has 12 nominations. However, this is the fifth Scorsese film, nominated for several Oscars (including best film), but did not receive any, after Taxi Driver, Gang of New York, The Wolf of Wall Street and The Irishman.
- Working with a maestro like Scorsese, everyone gives everything to the full program, as confirmed by Lily Gladstone, who for the filming of scenes when she is bedridden due to illness, lost 30 pounds. This is confirmed by the fifth point of DiCaprio, which seriously got in one of the episodes - when the hero De Niro slapped the character Deo for guilt with a hefty flat bat!
According to screenwriter Eric Roth, DiCaprio insisted on rewriting the original script. In the first version, Leo was to play agent Tom White, who solved a series of murders. This original script was more like a detective thriller. However, DiCaprio persuaded him to take the role of Burkhart.
P.S.
Very cool and really fresh looked the last scene - a radio play, with which the director left the traditional credits that we see in the finale of the film and which tell about the fate of the characters. The radio performance in a verbal and main sound manner conveyed the life and fate of the heroes of those events in Osage County in the 10th and 20th years of the last century.
The final speech in the play was read by Scorsese himself and it was nice to see him in such a cameo role. Honestly, I don’t know if he had previously appeared in cameos in his own paintings, but here his appearance on the stage was both unexpected and epic. By the way, this scene was shot in the alma mater of Martin Scorsese High School in the Bronx, where the director is from.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
If one word defines what “Murderers of the Flower Moon” means, then this word is “hypocrisy” and not only in relation to the hero De Niro, seemingly a philanthropist and righteous man, in fact – a mass murderer, overwhelmed by unprecedented greed, but also about capitalism as a whole, built, as we know from Weber’s books, on Protestant ethics. Unlike The Wolf of Wall Street, set in the 1980s and 1990s, following the social and cultural upheavals of the 1960s, when Puritanism was replaced by hedonism, Murderers covers the 1920s, when Protestantism was still in force. Never before has DiCaprio played such a rude, uncouth schmuck as here, he is not just a naive guy, but clearly not far-fetched in terms of mental abilities, so his uncle (a true genius of evil and a social puppeteer) and twists them as he wants.
“Killers of the Flower Moon” is not only about the hypocrisy of the bourgeois, but also about the responsibility and moral degeneration of the common man. In the metamorphosis that occurred with Ernest in the final, you can certainly not believe, especially since the film, despite its footage, suffers from a lack of psychologicalism, paying much more time and attention to atmospheric scenes from the lives of Indians and their white exploiters than to the nuances of the thoughts and feelings of their characters. In three and a half hours, the viewer, as in The Irishman, moves from one incident to another, the plot develops rather sluggishly from one emotional outburst to another. “Killers ...” could be reduced, if not by half, then at least by a third.
The influence of the TV series aesthetic here, as in The Irishman, is also huge, but since the film is not gangster, Scorsese does not get stuck in it. It is also impossible to say that the tape is fascinating, before us is a kind of hybrid of melodrama and detective, in which the criminals are known in advance. What is new about Scorsese’s cinema is the aura of fading, the extinction of human life in each of the victims of the white bourgeois. The director, apparently, wants to show how the indigenous American population leaves the historical scene, he seems to recall in a voice the genocide of Indians on the American continent. In a sense, Killers of the Flower Moon is an allegory of the genocide that unfolded during the conquests of America by whites, and the oil theme is a symbol of the misappropriation by whites of what does not belong to them. In short, the last at the moment, the master’s film turned out to be redundant in detail, heavy in footage and quite simple in message.
Martin Scorsese, in Killers, seems to be trying for the last time to reanimate the aesthetics and conceptuality of New Hollywood, this once very successful convergence of mass and elite cinema, to which he was loyal throughout virtually his entire directorial life. As the reader managed to notice almost twenty paintings of the master from this analysis, he did not always succeed. However, those who believe that Scorsese as an author ended somewhere in the days of “Good Guys” and “Casino” are wrong, because later filmed “The Aviator” and “The Departed” are also a very high artistic bar. And whatever the scandal surrounding The Last Temptation of Christ meant, Scorsese has always been an old-fashioned moralist in the best sense of the word throughout his career.
Honestly, I’ve been rushing to watch a movie at the Oscars for a long time or wait for my hands to reach the full marathon of Martin Scorsese’s filmography and, as you can see, I chose the easy way with a one-time suffering of 3.5 hours. Whether the problem is in my expectations (although I have not even seen trailers) , or the picture is really very slow pace and from this viewing time feels like all 6 hours.
However, to give credit to the creators, let me take breaks while watching, returning, every time I completely immersed in the world of the picture and connected to its characters.
Speaking of characters. They seem to be, they are formally very much, they are easy to get confused, and play their famous and not very actors, but really follow and empathize only Molly performed by Lily Gladstone. She is a real discovery and the main new star of the film, who steals all the attention of the audience. Her heroine is the emotional core of the picture, incredibly beautiful in this image, and I was not surprised, but would only be glad if at the last Oscar ceremony she took the award for Best Actress (for Emma Stone is also happy, so subtly and interesting to show the character in "Poor-Unhappy" you also need to be able)
Leonardo DiCaprio is good, but good based. He has interesting moments, but for the most part his role doesn’t make such a stunning impression to qualify for an Oscar. Robert De Niro's nomination, in my opinion, also raises questions, although he also definitely fell into the image of the unpleasant but cunning Hale.
Operating work deserves some praise: from a minimum of excellent locations and landscapes managed to squeeze the maximum beauty and atmosphere. The final hour of the film is particularly powerful and emotional, ending the story on a high note.
As a result, there was another important canvas based on real events, about which many for a long time did not know and the film perfectly immerses in this terrible story, illuminating it for a large audience.
8 out of 10
I disagree with the assessments of foreign critics about the masterpiece of this picture. In my opinion, Scorsese ... very heavy, conventionally showed the cut and the foundation. White colonialism, accentuating and deciphering the culture of the Indians in the usual range with its masterful corporate narrative paraphernalia, but without delving into the social leitmotif and dux of a certain content. Even... "Black Panther: Wakanda" “Forever” in this regard is more interesting due to pedal strokes. It feels like And the cameraman, Rodrigo Prieto, who I adore (especially for Babylon). They made a big attack on the visual side, completely forgetting about semantics and emphase. It's emotional. As for acting, Scorsese is true to himself in the actors, already in Inviting Leo DiCaprio and the eleventh Robert de Niro in his paintings, Leo and Robert play together for the third time. No magic happened this time. The heart did not applaud anywhere, Leo is older than his hero and this is the main mistake of Scorsese. in my opinion. I only saw the dark eyebrows and that was it. And who's really hooked, is this? Lily Gladstone ... gemfully and scrupulously played. Objectively, she can take the Oscar for the lead female role. I can't say that Scorsese had an outflow of his power. But there is a kind of "decrease in volume." 5/ 10. The review was written on November 14, 2023 – Olya Grinevskaya (Alenushka).
The legendary Martin Scorsese is not the first to invite DiCaprio to the lead role in his film, and, as a rule, such a tandem is successful, as it was in the cases of the Gangs of New York, the Aviator, the Departed, the Island of the Damned and the Wolf of Wall Street. What to say about the tandem of Scorsese - Robert De Niro, examples of which are countless. Here we are waiting for a triple star combination, and it is expected to give its good fruits.
We meet Leo again in a film that revolves around Native Americans. The leisurely narrative inherent in Scorsese’s films, especially his later works, did not bypass this picture, and the overall timekeeping was as much as 3 hours and 20 minutes, which at first can scare off some impatient viewers. However, it is worth noting that, given the complexity of the plot and certain aspects of it, such a long timekeeping is quite justified. In particular, how methodically and consistently domineering and cold-blooded despot William Hale (Robert De Niro) gets rid of all obstacles on the way to the cherished goal, and it looks realistic thanks to the painstaking embodiment on the screen of each scene.
The film is quite cruel, cumbersome, emotional, and will not go far for everyone not only because of the timing, but also because of the anguishing visual, which, on the one hand, is designed to immerse the viewer as much as possible in the atmosphere of the Oseija reservation, but at the same time repels its grayness. This external dullness is compensated by the incredible play of the main characters. Robert De Niro with this role reaches the top of the acting game, his character is not just damn smart and cunning, he is also a brilliant strategist, a talented manipulator and a great orator who achieves his goals by any means, and all this hides under the mask of a philanthropist, a great friend of the Indians and a generous philanthropist.
In contrast, the character of DiCaprio is shown as a guileless layman, fearful of his oppressive uncle and meekly fulfilling all his errands. However, his love for his wife from the tribe of Indians, who is the main heir to the flower moon, which endures monstrous torments, but remains strong in spite of all the zigzags of fate, creates a painful imbalance in the soul of the hero, unable to fully decide on whose side he is on and whom he is ready to betray.
He has been haunted by mental anguish for a long time, but in this sense he irritates much more than the main antagonist, since his motives are not fully clear due to the absence of a clearly expressed position, the firmness and independence of which is constantly being processed. Thus, we get an insecure, unstable hero.
To my taste, this film can be divided into three unequal parts - a short first, a long second and a short third. To the first part of the acceleration there are no questions, everything was not clear yet. At the same time, I am happy to highlight the second long part, where the events, despite the slowness, are built logically, consistently and perfectly neatly, keep the screen in suspense and really intriguing. However, questions remain to the third part, since the final denouement is somewhat blurred, in places it is glued together, and the beautiful intrigue created in the middle of the film is revealed slightly weaker than expected, although it puts everything in its places, rewarding each hero according to his merits. I definitely recommend watching this picture, which occupies an important place in the film agenda of 2023.
Shortly after the First World War, Ernest Berkhart, who served in France as a cook, comes to Oklahoma, where there is a large reservation of the Osage Indians, suddenly rich because of the oil found on their land. There lives his uncle William Hale, nicknamed the King - a friend of the Indians and a big man. The king convinces Ernest to marry Molly Kyle, a young woman from a wealthy Indian family. The idea is that the land rights of this family will eventually pass to Berkhart (read Hale), and for this only Molly’s mother, her sisters and herself must die.
It is no secret that the path of “Killers of the Flower Moon” towards the viewer was quite complex and thorny. After buying the rights to David Grann’s novel of the same name, Scorsese has been unable to put the film into production for a long time. Including, personally launching one start of a full rewriting of the script from scratch after another with a new approach to the source. Not to mention the fact that the refusal of Paramount to fund such an expensive project almost put an end to this film. However, it was giving birth to this film in the agony of Scorsese managed to shoot perhaps one of the best films in his entire prolific career.
The basis of this film was the novel of the same name by David Grann, which in turn is based on real and extremely shameful pages in the history of the United States of America. When the white population of America very slowly and fruitfully exterminated the native population of the country for their lands and wealth, but most importantly - never received for it deserved punishment. Even years later, it was lost against the background of much more “stretched” pages of history and thereby only emphasizing the tragic nature of the events that took place. Once again reflecting on the screen the sad study of the essence of man in his thirst for wealth and greed, for which a person is ready to go on heads and sew corpses. It is symbolic that Martin Scorsese himself sums up the sad epilogue directly and with painlessly restrained tears in his eyes.
Steven Spielberg once said that a real artist is distinguished from others by the ability to throw out part of the footage for the benefit of his painting. Scorsese has been willingly neglecting this rule lately and making extremely long films. However, it is in this tape that the timing of almost three and a half hours seems more justified than ever. Deliberately ignoring the worn-out trout-crime format with the next investigation of a series of crimes, Scorsese much more strongly concentrates on reflecting the spiritual and cultural part of the Osage people and it is due to this that he builds a powerful dramaturgy that keeps the viewer in suspense and for a long time feels a certain residue in the back of his soul at the end of the viewing.
Definitely one of the main advantages of this tape are amazing acting work. Leonardo DiCaprio played one of the best roles in his career and almost lived his character on the screen. Robert De Niro once again proved that despite his age and participation in dubious comedies, he is still the strongest dramatic actor. Jesse Plemons also willingly bribes an extremely bright and interesting character, and also re-enters himself in the position of one of the most talented and underrated actors of our time. The real discovery can be called Lily Gladstone, who gave the most natural, strong and piercing game. I want to believe that after this tape her career will go only uphill.
10 out of 10
Killers of the Flower Moon is definitely one of the best works in the prolific work of Martin Scorsese and cinema with a capital letter, which is perceived exclusively as a real work of art and no less. Literally capturing the deepest, tragic and touching to the depths of the soul story, which actually happened and fascinated with magnificent acting works. Allowing you to sincerely believe everything that happens on the screen and thereby achieving that almost all three and a half hours literally fly by in a couple of moments, and the sediment from what you see is still in the soul for a long time.
First, it's all negativity. The whole film is murder, deception, suffering, betrayal. You don't have to make movies like that. Second, it's a very boring story. Characters not disclosed. The motives of the main character are not clear. That's bullshit. Filmed masterfully, but the script director was wrong.
The genius of Scorsese, played stupid ugly DiCaprio and quiet calm De Niro leave without question, for which 10 Oscar nominations.
Movies are a great way to raise awareness of pain (and problems). Through emotion, empathy, history, immersion of the viewer in context.
It was a difficult 3 hours about how white came for black gold to red. But not to squeeze the oil by force (although in my imagination it was only so), but to play cunningly for a long time: to marry the locals, to exchange pleasantries, blessings, to be friends, to love, to lie, to kill. The cruel greed and superiority of one over the other is kind of eternal and repeated always and everywhere, but still surprising. Why do we live and do this? Because we're human. Difficult and controversial.
DiCaprio’s feelings are unquestionable, only pity for his stupidity and weakness. He may have been happy, in love and loved in marriage, but his life was not his. Was there love? Was. But how can you love and betray? Love and hurt? Love and kill? Ernest ruined the only bright and good thing in his life. Forgiving love is not about this movie. When the truth is revealed, Molly does not express her feelings loudly, she calmly asks one single question. And then Ernest can tell the truth, and maybe get a chance to be forgiven for his remorse. But he's stupid and lying. The punishment is silence and loneliness.
I can't call it a "must-watch" or the main film of the year. During the holidays, she tried to catch up and looked at Oppenheimer in several approaches. The impression was many times stronger (I wanted to forget and review in one go and in the cinema). “Murderers of the Flower Moon” against the background of undermined consciousness seemed local, albeit on the eternal themes of cruelty, greed, stupidity.
Cinema, which worked not only modern classics of actors and directors, but in principle cinema. For example, the cameraman Rodrigo Prieto, recognized for numerous films, who worked with the old Scorsese more than once (I will later remember about Silence - another work of these two). The film opens a scene where one of the tribal elders also says that the children outside will learn a new language tomorrow. Just a couple of frames later show the symbolic dances of the Indians in the newly spit oil, marking the arrival of a new time for the indigenous people of this land. Every day we are farther away from God.
I liked how Scorsese once again plays with the viewer, throwing him ambiguous characters. In the finale of The Wolf of Wall Street, the camera turns into the auditorium, showing which of these villains makes heroes and which of these heroes makes villains. Here the same notes, but with the omission that the hero of DiCaprio is no longer any charismatic freeman of his life, but a stupid, returned from the front military cook, to whom you can sell any idea if it is properly presented. This whole image of a fool-simple complements the distinctive bite with a protruding lower jaw.
In general, the symbolism in the film is enough. Take the same owl appearing before Molly, who, according to her mother, foreshadows the coming of death and appears immediately after him in the same room Ernest, slowly but surely killing this very Molly. This kind of film is called the “big movie from the great master”. It’s hard to disagree with that.
The film is reminiscent of PTA’s Oil, which shows the flip side of this entire American dream and bloody liquid gold. Only the PTA speculates on Nietzsche’s ‘superman’ concept, and Scorsese explores the nature of human evil and perhaps chauvinism.
Returning to the aforementioned Silence, which Scorsese and Prieto worked on, the same characteristic camera work with a lazy and static camera is noticeable, and the very mood, the pace that Scorsese conveyed. There you feel all the bitterness of the churchman, from whom the last one is taken - faith, then you feel all the bitterness of the Indian, from whom the last one is taken - Mother Nature. In both films, the little-known story of a big theme, a specific minor period, a particular group of people being pushed out by a second group of people more aggressive and willing to own.
I didn’t like the soundtrack, which is accompanied by half the scenes with the action after the exposure. As I understand it, this motif was supposed to be part of the storytelling, but with me, unfortunately, it did not work, and already on the 3-4 loss of this blues game, I began to frown.
I am genuinely happy with the success of Lily Gladstone (Molly Boeckhart), but unhappy that she was not even nominated for BAFTA.
Martin Scorsese’s fresh western, an Oscar-nominated 2024 in many categories, is the case when 3.5 hours of timekeeping seemed to fly by without problems, and the script, along with the setting, is more loyal than the previous Irishman, but still there is a feeling that in form and drama we have a mini-series of five episodes stitched together with white threads in a full meter. Yes, Martin is still trying to make big movies, not small-screen content that can only qualify for an Emmy. I can’t say that I was absolutely delighted in the final credits and was ready to applaud standing up for nine minutes, like at the premiere in Cannes, but the language doesn’t turn to call Murderers a filler. A must-see work if you love and appreciate cinema, and also try to keep your finger on the pulse in order to be “in the material” of pop culture.
The author's film Scorsese, based on the novel by David Grann, can be praised primarily for the sweeping form and content in general: the gigantism of directing and the presence of life in the frame, the lyceum mastodons on acting works, the raised theme that "works" outside of time, so the movie will perfectly survive after fifty years, as well as the unending feeling that finally you are watching AAA production, and not "bi-movie" for a million dollars. The script is quite fascinating, but after 3.5 hours, there was a feeling that the first half was much more exciting than the second, while the story told to us is quite successful: the epic does not require knowledge of the context, exhibition events are nominal, so you should not worry about the fact that you may not understand something on viewing. The guiding idea is excellent: imperialism and the bourgeoisie in the Osage County killings based on real events. The film does not try to apologize to the indigenous population of America, although at first it seemed that Scorsese would do just that to get into the Oscars. What the director wants is to show the greed, cold calculation and greed of the Pindos capitalists of the early 20th century, who lost the face of morality and confused all the obvious and implicit shores. The parable is primarily about the fact that in addition to money and wealth, there are also universal concepts, and most importantly, what we have is a life that is one, and it does not matter what color of your skin and what religious denomination you belong to.
Acting works are beautiful: DiCaprio, De Niro, Gladstone - an excellent performance in the frame and chemistry that feels like a mile away. On the third plane flew Plemons and Fraser, which was nice to see in the framework of the story. As always, Martin’s camera work and installation are at a high level. Sound design and post-production ok.
'Killers of the Flower Moon' is hard to watch non-stop if you, like me, like to see a movie in one sitting. Prepare to take a break during the show, because three and a half hours of purely physical sitting is impossible. Yes, until the end there was a feeling that divided the picture into five forty-minute series and make a TV show for the same "Apple TV +", you, except for awards at festivals, will not lose anything, but this "move" of the author can be seen for a kilometer - the movie was conceived, filmed and released to everywhere and immediately hypa, covering as large an audience as possible. How to ‘Self-in-Itself’ is an interesting experience and fascinating story that was a pleasure to learn. Big, epic, necessary and coming out once in five years. Enjoy your visit.
Based on the book by American journalist David Grann, Killers of the Flower Moon. Oil. Money. Blood, the film describes the details of a series of murders of Oseiji Indians in Oklahoma at the beginning of the last century in the United States.
Suddenly, oil began to make its way to the surface of their cracked soil, making Oseiji the richest people per capita in the country. Envious and resentful white people suddenly wanted their money, land and oil wells, and the only way to do so was to marry their families. Thus began one of the darkest chapters in American history, hidden and unsanctified by the press for a century.
Originally, Killers of the Flower Moon had all the makings of a classic western. DiCaprio was to play Tom White, an incorruptible Texas Ranger turned FBI agent sent to Oklahoma in the early 1920s by Federal Bureau of Investigation Director John Edgar Hoover, to respond to the desperate call of the Native American nation, which began to die in alarming numbers and under highly suspicious circumstances.
Soon realizing that it would be inappropriate to present a Western about white saviors who also infiltrated Oseija’s ranks and took advantage of their naivety and apathy from corrupt local law enforcement and citizens, Scorsese and screenwriter Eric Roth decided to turn the story on its head and focus on one of the main suspects – Ernest Berkhart, the husband of a single wealthy woman from the Oseija tribe Molly Kyle, played by Lily Gladstone.
In one interview, Scorsese mentioned that he made the decision to make the marriage of Molly and Ernest the driving force of the film after talking to the couple's granddaughter Margie Berkhart, who claimed that Molly and Ernest really loved each other, despite the fact that their love was initially built on a monstrous plot by Ernest and his uncle to murder her entire family. Many women from the Oseiji tribe married white men who actually hunted them to obtain their rights and oil money, and Molly was one of them, and it was this paradox that made the story truly grim.
Robert De Niro plays William Hale, Ernest’s crafty uncle, who presents himself as a loving patriarch and Osagee ally, but involves his nephew in a nefarious plan to carry out his dark motives. Hale's plan is revealed in the first minutes of the film, the intrigue is almost absent. Ernest Berkhart acts according to an approved plan, the characters multiply, as well as carefully thought out, multi-layered, intricate and not always believable storylines. Everything in the film is painfully predictable, because of this, the dramatic outcome does not leave the desired effect, because the viewer initially guesses what the end of this story is. All the efforts of Martin Scorsese seem in vain, and exemplary camera work exhausting.
Wanting to make the story more fascinating, using a different angle, the director outplayed himself. The hero of Leonardo DiCaprio in the not quite usual role of a villain, is not at his plate, constantly misleading the viewer. The whole film feels dissonant, it seems that he is about to fight back Hale, but it does not happen. DiCaprio too presumptuously tried to combine in his character a loving husband, a caring father, an unbeatable idiot and not at all a convincing villain. And the thought creeps in that the film might have been much more entertaining had it been shot from the point of view of Molly and her family, victims of devious white Americans.
Ultimately, Killers of the Flower Moon is a movie you want to admire without getting much fun. Despite the obvious hard work, dedication and fidelity to the facts, Martin Scorsese's nearly four-hour film is tiring. This story could be told with the same effect, spending half the time.
It is boring to waste time, to interpret them in vain about the victory of the fallen and the joy of the doomed.
... " Thunderstorms are a great force. You need to be quiet, Molly says dispassionately at the beginning of the film, in the thirty-second minute. DiCaprio shrugs and reaches for a bottle, but she gently stops him. “What good is the harvest,” he said. - "Don't talk."
And while poor Leo tries not to fidget too much in the chair, not realizing what the joke is, the viewer begins to understand how he is invited to spend the next three hours. What is the joke, what is the great wisdom of these defeated, these Indians doomed to a new world - he too will not immediately explain. First you have to sit down and shut up. And only very later – slowly, imperceptibly – to realize that it is not a matter of jokes at all.
Step by step, a very monumental, very American history unfolds before us, tearing up the heavy pages of the history of the past and the political discussions of the present, inexorably lifting the dust of time from the earth. It is not just Scorsese’s years-long odyssey that flashes before the viewer, with undisturbed explorations of man’s place in the ocean of power struggles dictating to man what he must be to fight for it, or – which is almost the same in the indifferentness of the ocean – if he refuses to fight for it. The director asks how much man is lost, how much man is human in this inexorable loss of himself, which threatens us every hour, asks about the place of love and justice in the ocean of will, about the heavy tubers into which the supposedly unified truth, justice, law have clutched together. He raises undying spirits from all over the reservation of samples of American literature and cinema of different years, retelling Oil, Mysterious River, The Godfather, American Tragedy. And it is not surprising what delight came from this film live classic Francis Ford Coppola. And you never get tired of being amazed at how good a young DiCaprio would be in the role of Dreiser’s Clyde, and a hardened one in the role of Dreiser’s Cowperwood. But the smell of Cowperwood here exudes another character, in no less famous performance.
And on the one hand, De Niro's work is within expectation. But this is his best role in decades. In many ways, on the unflappable, refined mastery of his extremely smooth game, the viewer gets into that routine space of terrible words, each of which tries to reinstall the relationship of power. But behind this man of will, De Niro shows a man of weakness – not in the vulgar sense of pity, loss of control, etc. – but in a much more thorough, philosophical sense. This is the weakness of a strong man who has absolutely nothing to rely on in the face of the eternal, this is the inexorable fear of a fearless man, the inevitable defeat of the winner.
Strikingly, Scorsese manages to combine the history of the oppression of an entire people with a silent, chambered exposition of the only question, completely intimate and eternal: what is man. The case when there is nothing to talk about with those who did not like this boring, full of barely bearable voids, how nothing to talk about with those who are not ready to be silent with you in the face of a thunderstorm. The case when the film can be recorded from the very premiere in the classics for centuries. And the fact that such films, despite all world capitalism, are sometimes made, inspire a certain tentative hope that these centuries are still in the reserve of mankind.
Scorsese in the director's chair with another crime drama, and the main actor's duet will be DiCaprio and De Niro. How do you like that seed? I think it's just super. And to pass by such a “sign” is probably simply impossible.
Scorsese is true to himself, and the producers give the maestro full carte blanche, so we are waiting for a very long film, the timing of which will be about three and a half hours. And this film will be about how at a time when oil was found on Indian reservations, the greedy “white-faced” did everything to get income from this oil. And in this sense, this tape, I think, is a little different from the previous tapes of Scorsese. The fact is that in his past films, the director, I think, talked more about specific villains, highlighting their amazing cruelty as individual characters in specific situations. Here, the horror is that with what ordinaryity, what, presented all those terrible crimes that are committed. And this, of course, can not leave indifferent.
How can not leave indifferent the scale and scope, which is felt from the first minutes of the film. From the first shots it becomes clear that before you really very high-quality tape, which invested a lot of effort. And, of course, I did not live in those times and in those places, but the atmosphere, as I think, is simply amazing.
I can’t say I’m excited about this movie. Here's why. Despite the excellent acting (DiCaprio, in my opinion, played this role in general), which should be disposed to the characters, already closer to the middle of the film, these characters just get bored. Cinema is so measured narrates events, excluding some sharp twists of the plot that it becomes boring. And at the end of the movie, it's really boring. And the movie seems very long. With a lot of unnecessary scenes and episodes. And, by the way, a huge number of characters in this story also towards the end begins to annoy you, because at some point you begin to lose who is the wife, brother, matchmaker.
And probably what I didn’t like about this film is that the Indians have a secondary role. Scorsese could not resist and focused on his “criminal favorites”, and I would still like to learn more about the Indians in this film.
But, nevertheless, it is quite a good quality large-scale tape, which is worth reading. Especially because of DiCaprio’s game. A worthy Oscar nominee.
Perhaps you have to be an American to feel the guilt in front of the Indians, which, apparently, the director suggests to immerse the viewer, and then come out purified as a result of catharsis. But I'm not an American, and for three and a half hours of monotonously unfolding detective drama, I honestly waited for the film to take my heart. Everything was done well, the actors played professionally. And your heart's not warm. DiCaprio’s character is smeared in a superposition between a scoundrel and a lost sheep. By the end of the story, one begins to suspect that he is no (anti)hero at all, but just a scoundrel who has committed dastardly deeds, justifying himself in his heart by the fact that he is a victim of manipulation by a beloved uncle. I am amazed at the naiveté of the Indians (or writers?). It seems that all Oseiji are patiently waiting for them to be finished to the last. They shake their heads disapprovingly at “partisan assemblies,” but they continue to willingly marry white people. And here's the patient finally! Molly decides to suddenly get up, gets out of bed and at the risk of life (!) goes to personally meet with the President of the United States (and nothing happened to her, and what were you waiting for?). To wrap the finale in frame radio plays is an interesting and surprising move. But this metairony does not add value to the film, but, on the contrary, finally reduces all honest painstaking work on the picture to the level of a cardboard dork. The trailer is better than the movie itself. Too bad. I'm gonna go smoke Lucky Strike. By the way, what was it about the pipe funeral at the beginning?
Today, the last couple will be the history of the Osages. Lecture by Martin Scorsese
Scorsese is not the first time to shoot a film for three hours, it is difficult to be surprised and hard to sigh, lamenting how long the events are. I think it was possible to shoot a whole series here, for example, to consider the deaths of all relatives, to focus on the detective. But Martin chose a different path, creating a historical research document in his spirit, attracted antique cameras and lenses, costumes, speech and scenery, played a wedding, a funeral, showed in detail the customs of the Osage people of that time. These solutions are difficult to criticize, they look naturalistic, harmonious and fully involve us in the events of days gone by.
Yes, dramaturgically, I would have put the accents in those three-plus hours, removed a few little sidelines, and devoted the whole other half to the investigation. For the role of a detective, by the way (!), Leo was originally planned. There would be no questions here. We know his look on the face of an agent from Cursed Island. He would have done well, but for some reason insisted on the main role, making, as I believe, a mistake. DiCaprio and De Niro are the main miscasting of this film. They're great artists. But all the way around here, it feels like Marty got together with his friends and made a movie in the backyard, even though he spent $200 million on it. The face of Leo is not very intelligent, but the village fool, in my opinion, he plays not naturally, but very trying to be. About De Niro can not say literally the same, but their faces seem to have been pulled out of a parody-comedy film and inserted into a serious dramatic film canvas. Where their unquestionably great charisma draws too much on the blanket. It was not possible to pull 100%. Because the power of Lily Gladstone's eyes, facial expressions and voice is just amazing. This is the most powerful acting work, the discovery and pearl of this picture.
A boring, boring, long movie? And who did something similar in the subject and meaning? Who will recognize the historical mistakes of their country? Who can show them almost without notes? And who can't, the hint is clear. The anti-colonial pathos of this film is above all else. This is a clear and structured statement: exterminating indigenous peoples (or anyone else) for their own mercantile purposes is a malicious and unforgivable crime. The director shows it from the point of view of the white men of the occupiers, so you can only feel hatred and contempt for them. Perhaps that is why the film is in many ways annoying almost all the way, because there is no protagonist as such. But the author is free to choose the narrator. We are spectators with our heads on our shoulders. And after this film, we understand even more how much blood was shed during certain conquests, and how important it is to prevent them.
A thorny path to finding killers who have been known since the beginning.
Martin Scorsese’s new film “Killers of the Flower Moon” I watched as soon as I learned that some obscure, but still dubbing appeared in the digital version. To be honest, I am very fond of his films, although I would not say that he is my favorite director. Nor was the timing embarrassing – after an interesting, though not in all places clear to me “The Irishman”, I learned patience when watching Scorsese’s films. Unfortunately, not this time.
I say right away: I will not have any angry or positive feedback. Impressions after watching the picture remained completely mixed, so they can not even give themselves an idea whether in the future I will review the film to understand it more, or the picture is one of those for which once is enough.
The plot revolves around the Osage Indian tribe in the late XIX century. The Indians discovered oil on their land, rejoiced and became rich. But their neighbor, American William Hale (Robert De Niro) is not satisfied, and he decides to intermarry with the tribe, marrying his nephew (Leonardo DiCaprio) and take their wealth. The Indians always trusted Hale, so they didn't even suspect anything. Until murder began to occur on their land.
And that's where the story essentially ends. And no, this is not a spoiler – not to understand who these “killers of the flower moon” for all 3.5 hours could only fool.
I understand that here Scorsese reveals the peculiar naivety of the Indian tribe: they confided in white people, allowing them into their family, without even knowing what insidious plans may be hiding behind it. Strangely enough, however, when the murder cycle began to decline, reaching the closest of Molly (Lily Gladstone) to the wife of Hale’s nephew, humans, she never began to suspect anything. But this heroine in the picture is revealed perfectly: Molly is a true trick from the Indian tribe, she is independent and, at first glance, does not need either a husband or any other man. She does not give a break to her husband, almost never smiles throughout the tape and, even when sick, does not show a single emotion. The manifestation of her weakness suddenly becomes noticeable only at the very end - Molly fears that she cannot avoid death, even if she is not fast, but slow, through regular poisoning. But here's what's strange: if she's so vigilant about her husband, why has she never noticed anything strange behind him or his uncle?
Speaking of DiCaprio. Not happy in the picture and his character. His brutal appearance and unshavenness completely does not correspond to the character of the hero: he is cowardly and worthless, he is afraid of his wife and, as a result, more and more softening from her pressure, becomes a hen hen. But even the orders of his uncle, whom he calls the "King", he can not stop following. As a result, the hero DiCaprio the whole film is haunted by a kind of “bipolar” – so much so that even at the trial he first gives out all the culprits, and the next day suddenly insists that neither he nor anyone else is guilty and not involved.
And about the strangeness of too naive Indians - just look at the character of De Niro! After all, the whole film is a major old man who does nothing but smoke and speaks about the money of the Indians, not at all embarrassed by the fact that even kinship with them does not make these riches wholly or even partly of it. When death rages around, he keeps talking about deals with the same gaiety. “But no, of course, he is not involved in any way,” Osages believe.
“Killers of the Flower Moon” is a very aesthetic and beautiful film, and during viewing it even seems that it was shot for the sake of scenery and showing original Indian life. But there is no emotion in it, as well as the plot, which is revealed to the audience at the very beginning.
Scorsese and DiCaprio have a special relationship. Apparently, they are so comfortable working together that Leonardo appears in almost every second film of this legendary director. And I am glad that although the old man is over eighty, but he does not give up his position and continues to shoot masterpieces.
The film is based on real events. This is a measured, leisurely story about the Osage Indian tribe, who discovered oil on their lands - black money, which now flows to them by the river. Which, of course, did not suit the white people. For them, it is a blatant injustice for Indians to have money simply because they are lucky and for whites to work. Some people don't like that. Uncle William, or the King (Robert de Niro) is a kind of Don Corleone on an Indian reservation. Yes, yes, the white man is kind of in charge there, but unfortunately the uncle himself is not the richest. This situation will help to correct the beloved niece Ernest (Leonardo DiCaprio). Returning from the war, he can not do any hard work, so he got a job as a chauffeur - to carry the Indians fattosum. The uncle unobtrusively offers Ernest to marry Molly, a girl on the reservation and quietly take possession of all the oil possessions of her family. Ernest is a village fool, he is not a villain or a criminal, but a slave, he would not even think of killing for money, he kind of even has some feelings for Molly, but the fear of the almighty uncle outweighs. Leonardo DiCaprio is great in the role of a short-sighted guy: he looks into the eyes, slightly protrudes his lip, mumbles - it is very unfortunate that the nominations bypassed him, but he gave his best. Who knows, maybe if DiCaprio had accepted the role of detective, as originally planned, he would have had a better chance of getting on the list of nominees? And the picture, most likely, would not be so psychologically heavy.
It is wonderful that directors have the opportunity to hint to the American public about existing or existing problems in order to reflect on this topic, draw conclusions and not make any more such mistakes. This is a highly social film, because it is relevant to this day and not only because not all the perpetrators were punished. Scorsese criticizes the American society of a century ago, which was ready to literally bathe its hands in blood, just to get rich.
This work by Scorsese lasts more than two hundred minutes and is the longest picture to be nominated this year. Of course, it is very difficult to master such timekeeping at once, but with all the indynamicity and some slowness, the picture is not boring at all and does not get bored in three and a half hours. Yes, this is not Scorsese’s strongest work, but it is still worthy of attention.
The ruthless truth about the dark side of the American dream
Killers of the Flower Moon by Martin Scorsese The film is based on a true story and documentary by journalist David Grann. The film follows a series of mysterious murders of Osage Indians in Oklahoma in the 1920s that caught the attention of the FBI and became one of the agency’s first major cases.
In the center of the plot is Ernest Berkhart, a white veteran of the First World War who moves to Oklahoma, where the Osage tribe is located, whose residents suddenly became rich because of the oil found on their lands. His uncle William Hale, a wealthy and powerful businessman known as the King, persuades Berkhart to marry Molly, a young and beautiful Osage girl who owns a large plot of land rich in oil. Such a simple beginning unfolds into a grandiose epic. Soon, the mysterious murders of members of the Molly family begin to occur, and Berkhart is drawn into a conspiracy involving not only local criminals and authorities, but also Hale himself. To investigate the case arrives FBI agent Tom White, who tries to uncover the truth and punish the perpetrators.
The cast is something. DiCaprio and De Niro, two of Scorsese's favorite actors, have once again shown their skill, playing complex and ambiguous characters that balance between good and evil, love and betrayal, faith and doubt. Lily Gladstone, previously known only for small roles, makes a real breakthrough, creating the image of Molly – a strong, intelligent and sensual woman who tries to preserve her identity and dignity. Jesse Plemons also deserves credit for his role as Agent White, an honest and courageous law enforcement officer.
The picture is striking in its scale. Amazing camera work recreates the atmosphere of the era. The fascinating landscapes of Oklahoma contrast with the cruelty and violence that human nature harbors. The musical accompaniment reflects the cultural diversity of the characters, emphasizes the drama and tension.
“Murderers of the Flower Moon” is three and a half hours of Scorsese peering into the banality of evil, and it’s a very wise and sad look at our world. The director condemns America, which cannot repent of the original sin of genocide of indigenous peoples and their culture. The American dream that seems so appealing is actually based on greed, exploitation and violence.
“Murderers of the Flower Moon” is a large enchanting movie with an unexpectedly touching epilogue that leaves hope that humanity can still atone for its sins and find a way to peace and harmony.
Scorsese once again produced a long epic based on a true story, albeit adapted in a novel by David Grann, about the colonization of the Indian people in Oklahoma, the largest Indian reservation. What attracted capitalists and bureaucrats? The exhibition demonstrates the oil fields, thereby turning the all-seeing eye of Uncle Sam.
The film narrates the arrival of DiCaprio’s characters in this state, where the bureaucratic society of the country already works in full. One of the ancient tribes of the Osage Indians owns a huge territory with oil, and therefore the greedy uncle of the protagonist is trying to get the rights. We see how diligent Uncle Robert De Niro is, but you realize that behind all his actions lurks a lust for profit.
The film presents Leonardo as a weak, malleable man who can be manipulated. Authoritative De Niro decides to take his nephew into circulation, with his help to have the necessary impact on the Osages. The picture is beautiful, the development of the character DiCaprio immediately rushes from a coward and novice to an arrogant and determined person. We see how in a small town the criminal forces of authoritative people rule, and the Indians are oppressed. The capitalist system has been tripled in such a way, or rather, in such a way that a conspiracy of criminals has created it, that it is also possible to make money from the lives of the Indians.
Martin Scorsese slowly talks about bribery, about the influence of Americans on Indian families, and given the fact that these are large families, he demonstrates how to deal with the owners of profitable resources. It seems that everyone knows each other, the same establishments, but here and there hatched some corrupt criminal, ready to fulfill the order.
The tribe of the Flower Moon, according to the book about these Indians, is poisoned by the influence of the criminal American people, which is why we see the fool Leonardo, who follows the instructions of his uncle. Various forces decide the fate of the Indians, but the director wants to show not that, but the fact that the authorities do nothing. What to do when all the authorities are corrupt? Seeking help in the capital, Washington. But do not forget that each state has its own law, so it will not be easy to solve the issue of state priority.
Simultaneously, the picture shows a cruel awareness of the fate of her family from Molly Kyle, played by Lily Gladstone. A short-spoken Indian woman draws her conclusions, analyzes her finances. But to attack from the other side is a disease. And when your whole life depends on a husband working for a crime boss whose main plan is to privatize your land, then you begin to understand the big picture.
Overall, the plot is interesting. He perfectly conveys the spy game of bribing bandits, allows strong criminal bosses to do evil at the hands of stupid mercenaries who have every dollar in their account. The arrival of a private investigator to investigate the murder of Gladstone's sister, a visit by a federal police officer, while Robert De Niro's empire is trying to crush the natives with all its might, are increasingly drawing attention to lawlessness. The goal is simple: to exterminate all Osage Native Americans in order to own their resources. Here's the implementation. . .
The implementation of this plan takes 3 hours of timekeeping. We're shown everyone and everything, but Martin Scorsese could have shortened that action. Viewing becomes boring over time, as the true goals have long been known. Yes, the main actors are good, but too much. The third act of the story takes us to the bench of justice, where the family drama is mixed with respect and fear, showing that Leonardo's character still has human qualities. You don't justify his actions, he's a vile guy who did evil, but you realize he's a stupid, opinionless, naive man on a foreign land, living by his uncle's rules. What was he supposed to do, especially when one wrong decision - and your corpse is found somewhere in the ravine? This is my understanding of survival.
After the climax, the final credits tell about what happened to the characters of the picture. One was obvious, the other amazing. Scorsese shot an interesting story: a beautiful production, a great color scheme, pleasant actors on the screen (for Brendan Frazier, a separate thank you), and besides, the director himself starred in the episode that concludes this story, but this epic came out long.
At first glance, the tedious and ironic film captivates with its accents, and they are great in this film. American cinema has soared up into polyphonicity, it requires the viewer to prepare in “precaution” or knowledge of the source, creating on the basis of the well-known plot a whole artistic sketch, highlighting the main thing, according to the director, and leaving the hustle and bustle of the basic plot. As it was, for example, with Pride and Prejudice, 2005 with Keira Knightley.
Returning to “Killers of the Flower Moon”, the magnificent work of costumers is immediately striking: as befits a fairy tale, the film is designed in one style range of colors (American colonialism?), where Indian motifs are organically woven. The hero of Leonardo DiCaprio changes outfits, with perfect "comfort" as if in a separate barn Ernest keeps the shop of a sewing workshop. The heroine of the White (suddenly), Chernobrow, the temper of a meek one.., and through the criminal history we see that the Indians and whites are very similar, both externally, in the range of clothes and faces, which is emphasized more than once by the circular surveys of the camera of the tribe's meeting, then the collection of the family of William Hale. The whites in this movie are certainly not more attractive than the Indians. And the noble minister of law, Tom White, has the same small eyes and a wide nose, for example. So internally, equally either cunning or stupid and suffer from depression.
I couldn’t shake the impression that Leonardo DiCaprio put on the mask of a parody of Robert de Niro for his hero.
Indians leave their native land in the cinema en masse, but with dignity, despite the conditions of death - even under the ruins of a burned house, a body will be found in clean clothes and prayerfully folded hands.
In the end, evil will be punished, and the next American president will probably be a white woman with Native American roots.
Martin Scorsese loves making movies. Even more. Martin Scorsese cannot live without making a movie. That's the meaning of his life. The only thing he's done his whole life is honestly and frighteningly frank. The topics he chooses are never a simple conjuncture, an attempt to make money or become famous. Not without that, though. What do you want? How is it different in the land (and the world?) of the victorious Golden Calf?
But Martin Scorsese has life principles. Not many. But they are there, and he is not going to abandon them until the very last hour of his life. And above all, he makes his films based on his personal understanding, skill, capabilities, talent, regardless of time spent, expenses, or other people’s opinions about his creations. He does what really worries him. It's like a mission. If the topic matches his definition of importance, then he spares no effort or time to tell his story and bring it to a wide audience as soon as he alone can, using two levels of perception: making the person think and feel. And also trying to teach your viewer compassion for their heroes. Heroes who often have a far from heroic essence.
Martin Scorsese tells stories about specific people, interpreting them as widely as possible because man himself was so created by God. And you won't find an illogical ending in his stories. The tolerances may be different, but the logic of the narrative is always observed in him. Maybe that’s why he likes stories about real-life stories that have already been completed and cannot be changed. There is a point in their fate.
I am amazed by his sense of such stories. Stories that explain the structure of the modern world explain why events happen this way and not otherwise, and how people change the world in the course of their lives, making certain choices. It doesn’t matter whose life it is: Howard Hughes, Jordan Belford or Ernest Burhard. With their elections, they are changing the world order. Scorsese tells us about this, leaving us the opportunity to evaluate them. He doesn't judge them. He tries to understand them and justify their very existence. What were they born for? You could ask more broadly. Why were we born, each of us? Have we fulfilled our destiny, and what do we need to do to correct the situation, because in our life the finale has not yet come?
Martin Scorsese tries to justify God and man and is therefore entitled to an objective and fair assessment of the activities of his whole life. It is worth considering the reality in which he and other directors have to do it. The modern urban subculture taboos the expression of feelings. A man cannot express his feelings directly for a well-founded reason: if all men express them, the space around them will become one great madhouse, and therefore, out of love for his neighbor, everyone voluntarily restrains himself as much as possible.
But man is primarily a sentient being: a variety of emotions and feelings arise and accumulate throughout our lives. And the role of modern cinema is not so much enlightenment and entertainment, but help in getting rid of unnecessary destructive emotions, as in the ancient Greek tragedy, which invariably ends with a catharsis of all spectators, their purification for the further possibility of continuing such a difficult life path of each person and Humanity as a whole.
What makes a director great is that he is the first to declare something so important that he can change the views that are established and seem to everyone, and for the time being to himself, unshakable and the only possible ones.
We are used to movies telling us something by entertaining the masses. The more entertainment, the more success, fame, cash. That's right. But. Murder cannot entertain. Killers should not look stylish and charismatic. One should not experience catharsis and relief from the mass suffering of others.
The best actors don’t know how to play badly, but in this film they have to disfigure themselves and play worse, overplay, in order to try to stop this “bachanalia” at last, this feast glorifying violence of all kinds. We should not be happy and leave a "pleasant aftertaste" after watching a movie of this kind! The film doesn’t have to be interesting and brilliant when we talk about things like that.
It has to be boring. Terrifyingly banal. Stupid. Slutty. Stupid. For this is what such phenomena and real “inglourious bastards” look like in life, who are unwittingly glorified from all screens by directors and the best actors, competing with each other in talent and skill in order, at best, to draw attention to the existing problem.
There is a paradox. To attract the attention of the widest possible public, it is necessary to decorate and glorify evil and violence. To romanticize or ascribe super sinisterness to him with his talent and creativity, to give him meaning and necessity, to justify his very existence. Almost everyone does that. So did Martin Scorsese.
But in this film - "Killers of the Flower Moon" - Scorsese steps on the throat of his own song, and does not give the usual outlet for emotions in the audience. Moreover, with his appearance in the film's finale, he himself apologizes to us for being an important part of an industry that has elevated the violence, blood and pain of some real people to the amusement of the same real people, making evil attractive or justifying it as the natural course of life, romanticizing it in pursuit of the notorious box office and approval.
I wonder what it's like to be Martin Scorsese? Listen to all this, get different reactions to their films, stand under the onslaught of criticism, which even now, under the guise of recognition, is often sarcastic, sometimes even boorish. Get criticism from people who have done nothing in their lives. But for those for whom he does all this all this time, calling to reason through the senses, while himself remaining, first of all, a sinful person, fully aware of this, but a person not indifferent.
What's in the final? The show must go on.
Today you can place your bets, gentlemen.
So who will kill the moon this time, January 7, 2024
Barbie or Oppenheimer. ?
National minorities are a phrase that brings to mind communities of African-Americans, at least Asians, and at most Latinos. Of the Indians who clearly belong to such, think last, and in vain, since the natives of America were its predominant population, probably only before the discovery of the continent by Columbus. Martin Scorsese in his new monumental film “Murderers of the Flower Moon” addresses the far from unexpected theme of racism and injustice, but, thanks to the placing in the center of his history of one of the Indian tribes, views the problem that has become outdated from a slightly different angle than usual.
The location of a feature film often plays a significant role in it due to its unusualness, influence on the plot, and sometimes its color is so bright that the space surrounding the characters can be considered as a character. Perhaps most of this in the “Murderers” is not, but the choice for the film of a town where rich Indians and diverse whites live side by side is important for the picture due to the individual characteristics of the mentioned settlement, and, first of all, its isolation from the country to which it seems to belong. It is not a matter of physical remoteness, which does not exist, but the general indifference of “big America” to the city and its inhabitants, isolating from the outside world no worse than the fortress walls. It is the stuffiness of the enclosed space that contributes to the emergence of all sorts of “kings”, like the hero of Robert de Niro, and this, in turn, means inequality and devaluing the lives of other residents. The ruthless and uncompromising duration of the film of three and a half hours in itself becomes an artistic device, slowly and thoroughly immersed the viewer in the life of this community, where emotionally nothing happens, days change each other, months and years pass. In this atmosphere of universal fatigue, even murder becomes a routine that will not surprise anyone. Yes, the above circumstances give rise not so much and not only to evil, but to the banality of evil, its habituality and routine, in which inflicting pain on a neighbor is no more difficult than drinking whiskey or smoking a pipe. The “killers of the flower moon” thus become a grandiose and meticulous observation of a terrible social phenomenon, the more dangerous the less noticeable it is.
In the development of this topic, it is necessary to turn to the personality of the main character Ernest (Leonardo DiCaprio), whose most important characteristic is the barely mentioned participation in the First World War, and, consequently, immunity to death, which is why it was probably possible to create a villainy created by the hero without unnecessary worries. However, the matter is not only in him: a healthy society will cope with an individual scoundrel or will not allow him to become such, but in the proposed circumstances there was no one to resist evil. Belief in one’s own powerlessness led to inaction, which in turn led to impunity. The banality of evil does not arise where evil is approved, but where there are no ready to resist it, but who sufficiently accept it as a new and unchanging norm. The decision and action, which become turning points in the story told on the screen, once again pronounce the axiom that does not require proof: evil cannot be tolerated, and sometimes even a weak, last effort can lead to the triumph of good.
Finally, let’s talk about the race issue, for the sake of which everything seems to have been conceived. In the case of Killers of the Flower Moon, the problem is more complicated than is usually believed. Local racists and not racists in the usual sense of the word: they do not hate Indians, they do not so much perceive Native Americans as inferior people (though not without this), but use this perception of others. And this leads to the simple conclusion that real justice is possible not when people are given equal rights, but only when for people their sameness becomes a silence. The devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads! The way to true justice is to change the mentality, if you will, the perception of the single value of human life, regardless of who it belongs to. As long as, in the eyes of a person, everyone who does not look like him automatically seems to be worse at something, nothing will change. The reason for what is happening in “Killers” is not hatred, but inequality, not overcome even by money, which the picture conveys quite accurately.
Probably, “Killers of the Flower Moon” would suit the format of the series, since it is not easy to withstand the almost four-hour film. In addition, the picture is characterized by a large number of characters and attention to their relationships. I admit, Martin Scorsese somehow manages to get a significant number of pronounced names to remember, but it’s still not easy. Although there are a lot of murders in the picture, sometimes excessive, but now fashionable, naturalism, it is impossible to say that the “Murderers” are kept in suspense: for obvious reasons, the action here is tractive and slow, which is expected to make it sometimes even boring (let’s not cunning!). Of course, it is necessary to note the play of leading actors, and, first of all, Leonardo DiCaprio: his unusually inconspicuous hero is intentionally insensitive, but at some moments on his face seems to slip if not regret and remorse, then doubt, and love, until then only declared, pours into a grandiosely emotional scene at the end of the film. I think it is very difficult to play a character with such a colorless character.
“Killers of the Flower Moon” is not easy to perceive, and hardly suitable for a wide audience, and not only because of its duration. Today, there are many long films, however, fascinating and interesting, and “Killers” offer the viewer to watch. It is difficult to observe: the action is monotonous, the characters are unsympathetic, emotions are not too much. But this style is suitable for articulating what the film is trying to say, and only the decision of the viewer is to endure and understand what is said or to refuse and finish prematurely.
So, Martin Scorsese has released another film. The film was monumental, it went well in three hours. It is decorated with a wonderful game of famous and magnificent actors. The story told in it is quite dramatic. In general, the output was the block expected by the public. It's a little heavy. But this block is not made of marble or granite, as were earlier works of Mateen. It's more like a block of sandstone.
So, a little bit about the movie. The actors first. Robert DeNiro. Well played. A kind uncle. In fact, it is the very center of evil. The role (and character) is no weaker than any criminal don, however. Leonardo DiCaprio. Great part. In fact, this film is a real benefit of Leo. That's how you should have played it. A simple bad but kind man. Somewhere in the depths of my soul. This is not the classic Hollywood “bad guy with a heart of gold.” This is a simple, small person in essence. The poor man who gets the chance. He is a man who is not disdainful, but he also has a certain “red line”. Sometimes he's pathetic and petty. Sometimes not. A simple man. A victim of capitalism, you might say. But he wasn't starving. A simple, ordinary weak man. Not good or evil. But he is better and taller than his almost demonic uncle, that of some of his other colleagues (remember one conversation about insurance closer to the final picture). He knows how to appreciate and love. No matter what. Leo's hero was able to rise. He didn't live in a shack with a bunch of kids like some of his associates. But these are simple and pathetic people. They're sorry, too. But it is more pity for their victims.
What all this was... Lust for profit was crossed with racism about the first owners of this oil-bearing land. And so it went.
A terrible story is told in this film. The story of a brutal crime committed by an evil, intelligent and unflinching hand. A dark and scary story. But perhaps even more frightening is the many other inhabitants of this town. A decent local society. Together with all their "pillars". And only external intervention could unravel this huge frozen pile.
It is also worth noting the good performance of Jesse Plemons as a federal agent.
And so... Sad and scary story. Gloomy. Crime and life drama. And a western. Where the villains are not so much shooting, but thinking before it. A different generation of criminals. Another ancient evil in the lands is no longer the Wild West.
And a long, very long and very edgy movie. Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. I took coffee to the auditorium, but that’s why I didn’t fall asleep.
But nevertheless, Scorsese is magnificent. As a director. And it was nice to see him in a cameo. I'll mention Brendan Fraser. He played the third role, but he played it well.
So, resume. It's long, slick, and a good movie. Very heavy (I remembered "Flowers in the attic"). But for all real moviegoers, I definitely recommend it!
A long and rather heavy drama, which will probably receive some awards at film festivals. I think some of the scenes were too long. But at the same time, the entourage is so juicy and high-quality, and the play of the actors is so cool that it is not boring to watch. Although the dynamics of the plot is very strange and leaves some moral regret. That may have been the case.
The very subject of oppression of America’s indigenous people and white power, even over wealthy minorities, is transparent. But I certainly lacked liberalism. Scorsese curtseyed to a good government and did not focus too much on the globality of the situation, deliberately reducing the scale in favor of concentrating on everyday psychology and gently walking through the final credits that the criminals eventually cost quite a bit of blood.
Without going into details, the plot is like this. The true story of the Osage Indians who became very wealthy owners of oil fields. Naturally, there are many white settlers in this place. De Niro’s hero is a local power broker who is like a friend of the Indians, but weaves plans for the expropriation of Indian oil. The hero of DiCaprio is a simple guy and nephew of De Niro, whom he immediately takes into circulation and puts under a rich young Indian woman. And then it's easy. We must destroy all the relatives of the Indian woman and then her.
Judging by the real story, the gang consisted of dozens of people, which included the white elite of those places. Hundreds of Indians were injured. Such realities of the rise of white greatness in the United States, only corpses, only hardcore.
Killers of the Flower Moon has garnered a bunch of Golden Globe nominations. Here and “best film”, and “best director”, and “best script”, and “best actor”. The film really turned out to be epic and grandiose. Therefore, I can not agree with those who reproach him for boring and protracted. If someone can’t keep their attention on something, be it a screen, for more than an hour, what does the director have to do with it? Unfortunately, the leitmotif of modern life is “quickly,” if not “instantly.” Everything has to be fast – food, sex and even movies. The “gold standard” of entertainment has long been flashing pictures of Tiktok when a cat falls into the pool. However, fast – it often does not mean quality. And in the absence of quality, Scorsese is quite difficult to blame.
So what's so special about Martin Scorsese's latest work?
Two clearly traceable trends of modern cinema are large timekeeping and a mixture of genres. Not bypassed this trend and Scorsese. So, what did he present to the audience in the framework of the 3-hour film? Historical drama, western, crime, psychological thriller and even farce at the end of the film. And all this he very skillfully linked in the framework of one “inconvenient” theme – how the Indians lived out of the world, squeezing their rights to oil-bearing lands.
In addition, Scorsese adheres to another trend - to shoot his favorites DiCaprio and De Niro. American-Italian film mafia in all its glory. Two of my favorite films by Scorsese with DiCaprio are Island of the Damned and The Wolf of Wall Street.
DiCaprio's character is somewhat similar to Bradley Cooper's character from Nightmare Walk - both had it all. As they say, live and not bother. However, all this was sacrificed to His Majesty the dollar.
But what happened to Leo? Why does he look so sick? Why such red eyes, clearly extra pounds, puffy face and curved lip line? What did they do to his mouth? Put a kappa in? He seems to have even become smaller. If De Niro his noble gray hair and age are only painted (the actor is already 80 years old!), then Leo clearly does not manage to age beautifully. Alas. We can only hope that DiCaprio so unrecognizably changed exclusively for the role in “Murderers of the Flower Moon”, where he more resembles some primate creature than the polished handsome, which has always been.
Leo echoes Brendan Fraser, who continues to hold a monstrous excess weight, who played Hamilton’s lawyer in the film.
Uncle Hale’s speech, performed by the always inimitable De Niro about how much grief the Anglo-Saxons caused the Indians, is very correlated with historical realities on another continent, also a victim of Anglo-Saxon expansion and colonial policy of Great Britain. This is about Australia. All the same, only the name of the country and people is different, although also the letter "A". In the rest - the ruthless extermination of "savages", the seizure of land, the death of the indigenous population from imported diseases and the deterioration of their health by absorbing unhealthy, uncharacteristic of their genetic code of food. Diabetes is not only a scourge of Indians in North America, but also of the aborigines of Australia. And even King Hale's speech was strikingly reminiscent of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's obedience to the Aborigines. Not in the 1920s, but much later in 2008. The main thing is to apologize, and whether it is sincere or not, and what will follow the apology and whether it will follow at all is the tenth case. Elton John's song "Sorry seems to be the hardest word." Apologizing here is a spit.
How did the United States manage to occupy such a dominant position in the world and accumulate so much material resources? This is how it is, by the unprincipled plunder and physical elimination of other nations. Scorsese’s latest film is a spit in the face of both the American national idea and the American dream voiced by the main character Ernest Burkhart.
In Killers of the Flower Moon, Scorsese methodically explores the phenomenon of power. A faint-hearted and soft-bodied simpleton-niece, who is so easily led off the right path, against a cunning, two-faced, domineering, charismatic and cruel uncle. Why do some lead and others know? Why does someone allow himself to be controlled knowing that he is being pushed into something as illegal and at least immoral as possible, and someone does not? These are not the only questions raised in the film. Many scold Scorsese for the abundance of movie murders, but here the old director pursues his goal. This is the disgust of evil – even murder can become something everyday. Like normal fascism. So methodically exterminate cockroaches or flies - just because they interfere with life.
Personally, I was excited by one of the messages of the picture that the younger generation too quickly absorbs foreign culture and language, forgetting their own. Again, there is a clear parallel when representatives of the Russian-speaking community in Australia allow children to lose their culture and roots, indulge in overzealous assimilation and do not care much about the moral consequences of such a choice.
“As a writer, I want to believe that books have power,” says David Grann, author of the best-selling book of the same name (which won the Edgar Poe Prize for Best Tru-Crime) based on which Killers of the Flower Moon was filmed. So I believe in the power of literature, history and fiction. But I'm also a pragmatist and I understand that films, especially films made by people of this level, with such experience and talent, will reach a lot more people. And I hope that this will start discussions, that you will learn more about Osage culture and learn more about this story. I don't believe in the final versions. Knowledge grows out of discussion.
Those are wonderful words. In a world of big money, justice often fails. This does not mean that evil should be forgotten. Discussing Scorsese’s latest film, we bring back to memory those terrible events of the 20s of the last century, paying tribute to those who were brutally and in cold blood killed, who lost loved ones in the terrible war for oil. This is the noble power of art.
Martin Scorsese is a great director who has created many beautiful works.
Martin Scorsese is a mastodon! And his time, like these mammals, has passed.
Perhaps, feeling the passing of his own time, the maestro becomes merciless by the time of his viewer.
The latest works are incredibly long paintings. If in the Irishman the pain of contemplating the unsuccessful rejuvenated De Niro still somehow brightens up the development of the plot, then in the “Killers of the Flower Moon”, the view of a normal De Niro does not save from the complete absence of at least some plot.
Technically, there is. Greedy “fish” in the person of De Niro, DiCaprio and other henchmen ruthlessly kill a few naive representatives of the Oseiji tribe. All for petrodollars.
It would seem that there is a place for history. But instead, we've been watching these simple murders for the first 2.5 hours. Everything on the surface, no intrigue, no doubt, no remorse.
Over the past hour, we’ve seen the FBI quietly investigate a string of murders and pin down bad guys.
As in the first part of the film, the Native Americans with submissive lambs went to the slaughter, without showing any resistance and without having the slightest desire to put two and two together, so in the second part of the film, De Niro and Co continue to behave with the stubbornness of sheep, without trying to either resist the investigation, or escape, or arrange some kind of entrapment in the style of “burning it all with blue flames”, thereby turning into exactly the same obedient lambs.
DiCaprio's character is dumb as a cork, and that's how he remains from start to finish, if his pathetic displays of love for his Indian wife are the hero's arch - then it's one of the most pathetic and flat arches I've seen. He is not able to understand his actions, repent, or change in any way. All he wants is fear for his own skin. First he was afraid of his uncle, then the FBI.
The hero of De Niro is an irrevocably finished human, greedy, power-hungry, confident in his immunity. As it was at the beginning, so it remained at the end.
Watching this movie is boring. Watching this movie for 3.5 hours is painful. To realize that Scorsese’s time has passed is sad, but that’s life.
I wish they had made the show. I would have missed it with a calm soul, but faith in the big movie is still warm, so the film did not miss. But such pictures kill her just as poisons kill unfortunate Osages.
To write a neutral review of this film as if the hand does not rise. It is not neutral, of course it is positive. Otherwise, look at caste actors. DiCaprio and De Niro and others are no less famous. But, in my opinion, it played an unpleasant thing with the film, namely, a certain slimness and decorum of the narrative. Sterility, if you will.
It's like my mom's picking up a first-grader at school. Cloves, ironed shirt, white - all right. That's all right. It set a too predictable and standard vector of the narrative.
Sorry, for God's sake, but where we haven't seen it. The same Scorsese and in dozens of similar plot paintings. Perhaps it was necessary to take on the roles of little-known actors and devote more screen time to the Indians, their lives and inter-tribal relations. And so three hours only had to watch the dull face of the hero DiCaprio and the Korschun, already trademark look of the hero De Niro.
Do we know that they are masters of their work? Well, of course, they know that on the moon and on Mars. No one expects anything else. We knew that Scorsese was a virtuoso in his field. And make a cool movie? Absolutely. But here's the expectation of what's going to happen on the screen, with those expectations matching when you watch the movie. . .
Don’t get me wrong, I liked the movie. It just felt like I was listening to a new remix of an old hit. Like fresh notes and all that, but still. You know that's the classic hit you've listened to a thousand times before. Wake you up at night and you will know him. As a result, I saw just a very strong crime drama, which I will put.
7 out of 10
Honestly, I expected a big failure. I put off watching it many times. It seemed that I would not be able to cope with such timekeeping. But oddly enough, I had a great time with great directing and great acting.
I certainly didn't expect to say that. But still, 206 minutes flew quite quickly. When you look at this story, you quickly immerse yourself in the history of the pain and suffering of the Indians, which somehow you do not notice the rest, it was interesting. You look in one breath, you understand how deep and strong it is, of course, there were probably not enough emotions in places, but at the same time the acting work is very cool and cool. Scorsese showed the injustice of our world through the story of the Indians. Corruption, murder, cruelty, cynicism, hypocrisy, impunity are all shown very sincerely and naturally.
Martin Scorsese at the age of 81 gave a very decent film that was interesting to watch. He played very well in the episode. The topic about the Indians is of course beaten, but it was interesting to watch. I especially liked that he does not protect anyone, in his film all the main characters are shown without embellishment, such as they could be. Where the main persons will do anything for their own benefit and do so naturally and sincerely that even the suffering of the Indians does not even look so natural, although they tried very hard.
Despite the fact that the film lasts more than 3 hours, I would not say that the action was a lot, mostly kept in suspense the actors’ play, their actions, what they did and what they were going to. The denouement turned out to be predictable, but at the same time somehow very template, the tying and climax still looked more interesting.
Leonardo DiCaprio. Leo's performance is always amazing. It is not easy to believe him, you even support him at times, although there should be no sympathy for the hero, but it is always in my head that this is Leo DiCaprio and of course this changes a lot. At first, Ernest seems very calm and simple. The first meeting with your uncle changes everything, it will not be the same. It seems a little dull, and the further you look at him, the more interesting it is to watch Leo play. He managed to show a man who works on two fronts. And it does it very talented and natural. His tandem with De Niro was impressive, it was interesting to watch two great actors, their collaboration. Behind their plan and of course their hypocrisy. Leo managed to love his wife and love money. Leo is so unique that even not the most pleasant character shows so interesting that in your worldview a lot changes.
Robert De Niro. Killers of the Flower Moon is a quite decent and deep film about Indians, which you will not envy. The film perfectly shows the drama of the Indian people, shows all the hypocrisy and injustice. Leo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro play so natural and sincere that the emotions of the Indians fade into the background. The only thing to note from the minuses, the denouement could be made brighter and more emotional. It's all very cool.