The story is extremely vile. I understand that everyone needs to know about such a phenomenon of human baseness, but I cannot force you to watch it to the end.
At the moment when you find it difficult to keep your attention on what is happening, do not blame yourself, because 3 and a half hours of ragged storytelling is really hard.
But not for Martin Scorsese - the long meter master came out to the public with this picture, and not being an exception - it combines all the favorite techniques of the director.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro in the lead roles? Got it!
Discussions between different, in this case - ethical? Got it!
The abundance of references to previous works by the actor (what is the cost of a shaving scene, as in the Untouchables)? Got it!
And now imagine that the events unfold in the 20-30s of the twentieth century, during the oil rush (almost like gold) and bootlegging. One hundred years of Marquez’s loneliness – I cannot compare the narrative of the first part in another way.
In the end, there is a feeling of injustice and resentment for the whole people, who as a whole are not guilty of the events. Disgust and anger at De Niro's heroes and a bit of DiCaprio. And the general feeling of the film, as if 3 and a half hours - do not need to throw all the dirt on the viewer.
I can only recommend to watch, but do not wait for something extraordinary, there will be no action.
Of course, speaking about the main film events of the year, you can not ignore the "Killers of the Flower Moon". The names on the poster speak for themselves, and it is even strange that this is the first film where 80-year-old Martin Scorsese shot Robert de Niro and Leonardo Li Caprio together, given that he had previously shot De Niro 9 times, 5 times DiCaprio, and the actors themselves played together twice with other directors.
In 3.5 hours of timekeeping, Scorsese shows us a bloody and dark spot in the history of the United States - the terror on the Indian land of the Osage tribe in Oklahoma in the 20s of the last century. After oil was found on their land, the Osage people became the richest on the planet, which began to attract a lot of white people, among whom there were many scammers and criminals of various calibers. The result was a series of mysterious murders of indigenous people, accompanied by complete inaction of local authorities.
The story begins with the return from the war of Ernest Berkhart, a near and not the most pleasant person (diCaprio with a changed bite and posture opened a new facet of acting, so his viewer has not yet seen). Arriving with his uncle, rich and influential landowner William Hale (de Niro), he receives advice from him on how to arrange his life - to get close to a free and incredibly rich local resident Molly. Played her little-known actress Lily Gladstone - the main decoration of the film, so forgive me my favorite actor Leo DiCaprio. It is through the prism of the story of her heroine and through her acting that we see all the pain, all the despair, and all the monstrous tragedy of the Osage people.
Despite all the monumentality of the picture and the importance of the theme, it will definitely not be the crown of Scorsese’s career, and may not even enter the top ten films of the director. Because of the stretched timekeeping, the specifics of the topic and the extremely slow and monotonous narrative, it is more likely to appeal to critics than the mass audience. Killers of the Flower Moon is certainly a good movie to watch, but I can’t imagine a situation in which I would want to watch this film, not Island of the Damned or Taxi Driver.
7.5 out of 10
The other day I watched the film by M. Scorsese “Killers of the Flower Moon” and, despite the giant timekeeping, I liked it.
Using the example of the main character, Ernest Berkhart, the film shows how everyday, inconspicuous and ordinary evil can be; how the thirst for profit, narrow views and lack of inner moral core can turn an ordinary person into a murderer, a monster who does not realize the horror of his actions and lives in the neighborhood, as if with each of us. That’s what the movie is about.
In addition, the film examines the duality and ambiguity of the human person. In the film there are neither positive nor negative characters – everyone acts on the basis of personal beliefs, finding justification for all their actions. In other words, each of us wears a mask that a person changes based on circumstances. The uncle of the main character - William Hale, performed by the unsurpassed Robert De Niro, clearly demonstrates how hospitable, virtuous and at the same time disgusting a person can be: trying to seem like a decent person around him, he led a double life - he killed innocent Indians with his own hands and appropriated their wealth to himself.
Oklahoma – a city where merciless murders take place – is stunning with its scale and local color, which conveys magnificent long-range plans, as if descended from the spiritual canvases of great artists. The Osage Indian tribes that exist in this area seem to be in a completely different world from our own. He seems to be spiritualized and developing according to his laws. It is because of their immediacy that they simply cannot resist the merciless “games” of white people and try to achieve justice. What is happening to them seems absurd, unreasonable and simply wild. On the example of the wife of the protagonist, Molly Berkhart, you can see the absurdity of what is happening, which simply kills in her the desire to enjoy life, trust her neighbors and exist with an open soul, and the absolute, total evil that covered the hearts of those around her who came.
The only drawback for me is, I think, bloated timing. Although while watching, I was fascinated by what was happening on the screen, but I felt a certain fatigue from what I saw. There are many scenes in the film that could be removed without any problems: for example, the endless monotonous murders of Indians by “white” people, which in the end no longer cause any emotions.
As a result, the film came out deep, multilayered and never, as it seems to me, does not lose relevance.
9 out of 10
(This is a great movie that I will definitely be watching.)
Martin Scorsese will receive an Oscar nomination. This time for the film adaptation of David Grann’s novel “Killers of the Flower Moon”, the story of the extermination in the 20s of the twentieth century of the Oseiji tribe, who became suddenly the richest people on the planet as a result of the discovery of oil deposits on their land. To date, Scorsese has won 9 nominations, and only one of them brought him a statuette. After another nomination, the statuette for “The Departed”, I believe, will remain the only one, and here’s why. The narrative in the novel is largely about the history of the tribe and the detective investigation of crimes against the indigenous population of Oklahoma. Scorcese in his picture places a completely different emphasis on the acts of evil and its ordinary origin at that time and in those rich places. Committing atrocities by guys in cowboy hats occurs without remorse for the sake of profit and the golden calf, as a matter of course, not causing doubt and hesitation. Nothing personal, just business in all its glory and with a real American practical approach. The motto "In God We Trust", minted on coins, is displayed in the blood-gold "In Gold We Trust" in the hearts of bandits of all stripes who have arrived on the paradise continent. The director so thickens the colors that the historical crime drama turns into an American horror story, filmed as skillfully and inventively as Scorsese can, coupled with a truly terrible and magnificent play beloved director DiCaprio and De Niro. Thank you for the historical excursion for the ignorant and for reminding those who forget about the nature and roots of the existence and politics of the great, without irony, American state! The truth is worth sacrificing the second statuette and being content only with the nomination. Tenth in a row.
I remember that about 10-12 years ago Polansky, being at the same age as Scorsese, gave out cheerful "Venus in furs" and "Massacre", which surprised me quite a bit. Then I asked myself: what can inspire a person in the eighth ten? I didn’t even ask, I was just looking forward to it. However, after an hour of watching, I was only hoping for the finale, and in the final I just regretted three and a half hours. Scorsese certainly knows how to make movies and is a master of form, but he has almost nothing to say. This terrible story is told in such a one-dimensional and straightforward way, and in such a detachment from the present, that it feels like an awkward repentance for the sins of the fathers. The awkwardness of all this is especially added to the finale, in which the tragedy of the story was simply “pushed” by the ingenuity of the radio production and reduced to the cost of an entrance ticket to the cinema.
“Killer of the Flower Moon” turned out not to be a world work, but a domestic political, topical, albeit talented, but crafts that captures the contribution of a great director to the fight for everything good and against everything bad. And he makes this contribution very carefully: he looks away from the present and rises very low above private history. As they say, Indian lives matter! But who doubts that now?
P.S. In my opinion, the same Sheridan in Wind River was both sharper and more honest.
Long ago, at the beginning of his career, young, fledgling Leo DiCaprio admitted to De Niro that he was afraid of making a mistake in choosing his next role. What then already experienced colleague advised the young man to focus on cooperation with established directors, acquiring in their face companions to promote their career. Heeding the advice of a knowledgeable master, Leonardo became a partner of Scorsese, joining the already established tandem of Martin and De Niro.
The fruits of the joint work make up a list of their general filmography, the continuation of which was “Killers of the Flower Moon” – a true story taken from a bookshelf, equally convenient for both the director and his actors, revealing a simple, almost two-line plot, which came out of the protocols of a loud investigation of the newly created department of Edrag Hoover, which revealed very dark sides of the beautiful white people.
Scorsese knew what to take on: the chronicle of the wealth and calamities of the Osage tribe, as well as the exposure of white scoundrels, are painted in newspaper articles and preserved in court notes - here you do not need to guess who is who - all demonstrative and flaunting: the sinister plan of a cunning catcher with a series of murders that tied the top of the population of the county where William K. Hale reigned.
The authenticity of the events determines the manner and form of the presentation, which uses variable chromaticity, reflecting the connection with archival photographic copies, stylization for documentary films, which lacks only an increased pace - multiplying by 1.25 Scorsese could achieve the perfect timing for his picture.
And this time, the director makes a retaliatory bet on his loyal actors, putting forward the relationship of Uncle Hale and his nephew as the main object of research, which he is engaged in until the time when the deceptively simple-minded character Jesse Plemons takes over.
Those who have seen, recall the creative duel of De Niro and young DiCaprio in the 1993 film “Life of this guy”, anticipating the continuation of the banquet, but they risk being deceived in their expectations: the relationship of King Hale and his nephew Ernest Burkhart is devoid of rebellion and blazing rage, there is only submissiveness and cold calculation – instead of the tearing rivalry of these people (?) unites cooperation, on the margins of which the actors draw the profile of two villains: De Niro drills with greedy eyes from behind the glasses, while Leo clutches his lips with all his might, depicting a bulldog jaw as good as Marlon Brando himself.
In Burkhart’s old photos, there are no special external properties. Obviously, the appearance and behavior of the nephew of the “King” is entirely on the conscience of DiCaprio, whose character is in a state of continuous strain, indicating not the desire to jump out of the bloody rut, but the effort to break his own squeamishness to what is happening, following the ringing of gold coins promised to him by the almighty “King”.
Screenwriters do not give free rein to fantasy, preserving the chamber horror of what is happening, which distances the picture from the effectiveness of an entertaining show. Of course, the mixing of the brain branch in the skull can not fail to impress, but for Scorsese, it is not visible things that are horrifying, but the public opinion that allowed the whole tragedy to take place, the silent and factual conspiracy that united not one or two, but all white people who indifferently watched the local genocide, justifying themselves by the ethnic inferiority of the victims.
Captivated by this idea, Scorsese hastily squanders the moment of feedback of the Indians with the federal government, whose intervention resulted in a deafening investigation of the office of Edgar Hoover, known for his affiliation with the Freemasons. Obviously, to a different lodge than the “King” Hale, who took over civil power and law, declaring the Osage lands his territory.
And it is not by chance that in the finale, Brendon Fraser enters the arena, acting as the face of a farce, in which the prosecution of the guilty turns, showing the condescending attitude of society to crimes against racial outcasts, and the epilogue of the story is completely furnished with scenery of a satirical cabaret, where the director himself rises to the stage with a speech by entertainer, reading a regrettable text, looking from under glasses with brilliant tears.
All great filmmakers sooner or later fade. Steven Spielberg in recent years is interested only in nostalgia for the former cinema, Ridley Scott does what he wants, exorbitantly overestimating his HCV, Zemeckis so generally made a deal with the devil ... that is, with Disney. I would like to believe that Martin, whatever his, Scorsese will not repeat their fate. Until recently, almost everyone loved his paintings. But the Irishman happened. But, to be fair, this film can be tied as a kind of result of the career of the director over gangster films with his favorite old men in the person of De Niro, Pacino and Pesci. Unfortunately, this film will not do that. “Killers of the Flower Moon” has no indulgences and now it is already felt that Martin has lost his old fuse.
It feels like streaming has made Scorsese lazy and he no longer soars with the pace in his films, with the timing or even with the story. Who cares? The main thing, another Oscar to receive, the benefit of the topic of murders on the Indian reservation will fall under the current categories of awards. That's a shame. It is a pity that he became a hostage of dummies from festivals, although he did not think about it before and just created a movie. Well, let Scorsese give you 200 million dollars, because I'm Scorsese and I dare not contradict.
Okay, I'm talking about Scorsese, but I still haven't said anything about the movie. Why is that? Probably because there is nothing to say about him. Here we go. One of the main candidates for all Academy Awards and nothing to say about him. This is a common plot about human greed, the insidiousness of white Americans and other favorite topics. The perversion of capitalism and the viciousness of the system. It's just three and a half hours.
And if the film really delved into the characters, made the story multifaceted. The apostates, being a remake of the Hong Kong Double castling at the expense of an extra hour, specifically deepened history, mixing Eastern philosophy with the Catholic worldview of Scorsese himself. And, on the one hand, yes, here, too, in the background of the book, the plot is specifically changed. Instead of a typical detective story that would remind the audience of the Island of the Damned (only without a sophisticated twist), everything is told from the point of view of the main villains of the story. This is supposed to give the story depth. But what happens in practice?
If the film is intended to reveal the excesses of whites in relation to the Osages, then there is too much to tell, not show. Where are the 30 killed Indians the detective is talking about? Only members of the main character's family are killed in the frame, and the rest are out there somewhere. And the corruption of the authorities is also explained in words. Maybe a movie about Ernest and Molly? I'm not there. Their relationship in terms of chemistry is very weak, and most of their dialogue boils down to the fact that Ernest is constantly trying to deceive her, but she kind of suspects him, but kind of does not. Their racial differences somehow play out only in the beginning, and then neither the people around them, nor they themselves somehow do not pay attention to the fact that white and Indian women live together. Instead, again come the favorite Scorsese gangster showdown, only without the fuse of Scorsese thirty years ago.
Of the actors, only Lily Gladstone can be singled out. She was the only one who felt like a real person in the frame and was convincing. Maybe it's because in real life, a couple of white men want to make money off of it (okay, it's a joke). DiCaprio and De Niro seem to show off in the frame, playing themselves. It’s as if old Martin from a long-standing friendship allows them to play at their own discretion and those purely out of inertia play a copy of previous acting work in his films. There is nothing to say about such talented actors as John Lithgow, Jesse Plemons and Brendan Fraser, since their roles are small and with the same success they could be performed by extras. For the latter is especially pathetic, given that he at last year's Oscar literally rose aki phoenix. And this phoenix is not very well treated here.
And here it seems beautifully shot, camera work as always at the height and a number of installation and visual techniques are interesting, but firstly, for 200 million it is not impressive, and secondly, against the background of the general despondency of the picture, these chips do not help the overall perception.
Martin Scorsese has criticized modern commercialized Hollywood in recent years, especially Marvel, and while he is right on the one hand and the same type of one-off pictures are beginning to bite, on the other, does he back up his words with action? It is very doubtful that the same Irishman or this film will be actively discussed beyond the ardent fans of the master years later. In fact, these are the same one-time paintings with an unjustifiably inflated budget, only sharpened not for the heavenly results of the box office, but for extra figurines in the collection.
Honestly, it would be a bit of a shame if this film from Scorsese’s entire dizzying career in the award season would achieve the best results. Because the movie didn’t really deserve it. The same Oppenheimer came out really masterful tape with excellent narration and competent disclosure of a given topic, where 3 hours fly almost imperceptibly (and the budget is already 2 times less). And this movie, alas, did not cope with any of the tasks. Even such great directors, sooner or later, it would be time to give way to a young, ambitious generation with more interesting ideas worth their money.
The plot is quite clear and predictable, this is good.
The story is shown as deeply as possible, and it works perfectly throughout the entire timekeeping, and it is not small.
This film is based on a book,
Initially, Scorsese wanted to create it on behalf of the detective, but after reading the script, DiCaprio offered an alternative, and they stopped there (which was an excellent solution).
This film perfectly conveyed all the interracial prejudices of whites, cruelty, greed, cynicism.
Ideally recreated the era of that time, the relationship of “white” and indigenous people.
3.5 hours of timekeeping for me personally, fully justified.
During this time, you really understand and maybe even accept many characters.
In the words of the actors: DiCaprio is a great performance. It was brilliant, so to convey the most ambiguous character, difficult, for many unpleasant. It's bravo! Genius!!!
Gladstone also brilliantly coped with this role.
She believes in every frame, in every minute she has.
Definitely in the main favorites of the Oscar should be. (I will write about this below)
De Niro is unexpected, but he's surprised. It is unusual to see him in the role of a straight creature, but he was good, the viewer will definitely want to see him in the loop.
1 Act cheerful, immediately takes into this story.
2 The act may seem to many protracted and sometimes boring, but it is not. In this act, the entire essence of the characters of the picture is revealed as much as possible.
3 Act it is already detective, the only thing I can find fault with a little, is its implementation, I wanted a little more detail (but it is very subjective).
What an ending - (without spoilers) Scorsese!! Oh, old man, genius, what can I say?
If the viewer can really imbue with this story (of course heavy, dirty and unpleasant), then the ending will destroy him!
Martin consulted with Native Americans before filming to recreate the atmosphere and culture of the time.
Scorsese likes to cover such stories in the press and in his paintings.
This shameful page in American history has not been left out!
What we have on the way out: - This is definitely a masterpiece! One of Scorsese's best movies!
One of DiCaprio’s best, if not best, roles!
Ratings:
Actors' Game - 9.5
Picture - 9.3
Sound - 9
Operating work - 9
Costumes - 9.5
The overall impression is 9.3!
P. S is definitely the main favorite at the upcoming Oscars
Best film, best director, best actor and best actress.
The only option in which he won’t take away the film is the fear and shame of the voters, to cover the issue even more.
Give recognition to this child.
He's a head stronger than Oppenheimer, I think the rest of us are on the sidelines this year.
When viewing the new work of Martin Scorsese did not leave the feeling of déjà vu in terms of money spent, impressive timekeeping and the final result. Something similar happened more than 40 years ago with Michael Cimino in “Gates of Paradise”. But, to be fair, the rhythm of Scorsese is not an example of cooler, which does not negate the fact that for this plot structure, the film is too long, and such a concept could easily be laid in 2, well, at most 2.5 hours without much damage. In fact, the film itself, with its almost 3.5-hour timekeeping, in fact is a rather dry chronicle of events, as in the same “Gates of Paradise” and at the same time, from the point of view of the script, it is excessively monotonous, and in terms of the same structure here for the most part formalism. The exhibition takes almost 2 hours in the tape, and during this time the plot simply goes in circles from the series “plan-murder-funeral-plan-murder-funeral”. The feeling that Scorsese almost word for word transferred to the screen the source book of David Grann. For comparison, the same “Casino” with its 3 hours looked not in the example of cooler and it really was not to break away from him. There are no claims to the technical part of the film - chic camera work, scenery, costumes, entourage, cars, extras, panoramic shooting on nature - everything looks great and pleasing to the eye. The soundtrack is selected interestingly and works on tension. The actors are all in images and look normal, take more texture. The same Lily Gladstone here is absolutely nothing to play, as well as the mater Robert De Niro, who for the most part works out the usual role. The situation is different with DiCaprio. The actor eventually changed his mind to play an FBI agent in a small role and decided to take the main key position. There's a certain challenge for him to play a simpleton with throws. And the actor reincarnated as much as possible - facial expression, accent, manner of speech. But this is the biggest drawback - it is clear that the artist is trying too hard, and naturalness in this image is lacking. This type is easily worked out by textured cowboys like Sam Elliot or Tommy Lee Jones with Robert Duvall. But where necessary, Leo squeezes everything necessary, and overall he is good. In general, streaming, with its lack of control and big money, in my opinion, corrupts authors, which leads to such gigantomania. There must be a measure in everything and an adequate producer with a stick should stand behind him. The movie was good, the hand of the master is visible, but excessive creative freedom played a cruel joke with him.
We are all naive in our own way, and we all have different attitudes towards death. Smooth the corners or talk about your special attitude to it. A talented person chooses the second: epic, cruel, with the desire to impress an inexperienced audience. Standing on a mountain, it is simple, sympathetic and pathetic. When he left, he said goodbye to the audience: Decide for yourself, argue. Many will ask no questions and, as always, will be delighted with the speeches. To Scorsese, the Indians are Marcela. He knows that they have their own wealth, and they do not envy a stranger. They are free, and they do not want to obey others. They don't hate others. It is enough for them to make innocent speeches about cares and goats, and that their dreams do not extend beyond the surrounding mountains. They want to see the sky, but the viewer will say: We all knew that cruelty is stronger than faith, and that in old age a person becomes softer and more flexible. And once he cultivated something that old John would have liked.
Whites without conscience. But the director smooths corners and presents predators as obsessed. And not only the nephew, but all the other whites who follow the king's lead, do all his whims, and no one asks him questions, and take his word for it. Not only the white sixes that one Mason uses are naive, but also the same diabetic woman who doesn’t get an epiphany. But she has an owl. And more recently, she easily made contact with a stupid nephew, with whom she flirted in the beginning. If it were not for the horrific scenes of corpses, the whole story could be perceived as a black comedy. There's no empathy. Whites, like Indians, are too caricatured. Only big names and bright flames remain. God was silent when this genocide took place. He knew about the plans to build these lands, that whites would build skyscrapers, and everything would be ruled by a green paper. And even Marty will make a cartoon about this genocide, bathing in greenery.
I wonder if De Niro had been in Wayne's shoes and had been paid millions for Westerns of a slightly different direction, would he have stood up for the Indians? If it weren't for the people you criticize from the stage, $25,000 wouldn't be on the floor anymore, and you wouldn't be rich. After this movie, I'll go through the cleansing with a western with John Wayne. Scorsese has one film that can be rated at 9 points, the rest can be ranked from average to failure. I don’t even know where to put his latest film, but I’d like to say less. It was a quiet horror. But he's just as talkative. For three hours of quiet terror, he lacked the courage. One white man saw the omen. The eagle came to him, and he realized that the Lord was tired of all this. He's tired of everyone.
Creators are always in the cage of circumstances and times. I didn’t believe my nephew’s tears. I also stopped believing in big names. Yes, this text was written for the last paragraph. I remember that hypocrisy can be great.
So came the new long-awaited cooperation of Leo DiCaprio and Martin Maestro Scorsese. What can I say? Always beautiful! Perhaps many will be scared off by horse timekeeping (perhaps this is the biggest theatrical experience in the lives of many), but if you trust him, these guys have not failed. Moreover, in this film, Scorsese collected two of his favorites from different stages of his career, giving De Niro one of the main roles - the greedy and devilish uncle of the stupid hero DiCaprio.
The acting in the film is amazing (I don’t know who I’m going to be cheering for at this year’s Oscars – I think I’ll be torn between DiCaprio of the Killers and Murphy of Oppenheimer). As always, Leo is chic and again plays a new role for himself - an unbrilliant guy who returned from the war, and tossing between love for one of his family and cruel and vile instructions from another. De Niro, on the other hand, plays a nice-looking grandpa who takes care of every person he knows and doesn’t know... who is actually the head of the family giving instructions about killing all these people. Both actors gave excellent roles of antagonists and deserve at least nominations for various awards.
The plot of the film may not shine with much originality, but it immerses itself as it should, and all 3.5 hours fly unnoticed, as well as 3 hours in another hit this year’s “Oppenheimer”, even though the dynamics here are not as powerful as in the film Christopher Nolan. When the film passes 2/3, you begin to get a little bored because of the monotony of the actions of the characters, but after almost 5-10 minutes the action ceases to stagnate and the events abruptly pass to Act 3, which gives a new wave of interest in the film.
The only thing that left mixed feelings about the film was its ending, which turns the whole action into a radio production with our beloved maestro as host. This, of course, looks quite unusual, but at the same time you want a more classical ending to the story, and this approach is a little knocking out of the atmosphere.
However, in any case, this does not spoil the impression of the film, which every day begins to grow. Apparently, only the next day the brain has time to digest all 210 minutes of viewing to give a more objective assessment.
As a result, for me, this film stopped at 9/10 and 3-4 among the duo Leo and Martin after The Wolf of Wall Street, Island of the Damned and Gang of New York, and now I am again waiting for new masterpieces of this duo.
Around the end of the second hour of the film, I looked at my roommates and suddenly realized what it was like. And it seemed as if during a feast in a large circle of relatives, everyone’s beloved grandfather suddenly dived headlong into nostalgia and began slowly, in all details, to tell some story from ancient times. Relatives at first listened with honest interest, but the story dragged on and on, and the end is not in sight. And then the audience began to look at each other and cough, because it is not very interesting to listen, and the time is later, but everyone loves and respects his grandfather for his past merits, so it is somehow awkward to interrupt or rush him. . .
Three and a half hours is my absolute record: I never sat in the cinema for longer. And, alas, it was not an experience that can be called positive. I like Scorsese; if I created the top 20 favorite directors, Martin would definitely find a place there, and not at the bottom lines. But the story he decided to share this time is not able to keep the audience interested for all the 210 minutes it took Scorsese to tell it.
And when the plot, being quite interesting in the form of a synopsis, unfolds as a film, it is found that there are not so many really fascinating moments in it. There are no bright acting performances and characters, there are no scenes that cut into memory and subsequently serve as the basis for the death of the film. This is a measured, monotonous canvas, which almost documentary scrupulously paints the viewer a picture of how vile whites destroy indigenous Indians in order to get their wealth.
Probably, the previous paragraph will cause many bewilderment: how can the phrase “no bright acting performances” be applied to a film in which DiCaprio and De Niro play? I would be surprised to read this, so I will explain it. Leo is as good as ever. He perfectly succeeded in the role of a near redneck who is torn between love of money and love of family. He's definitely the best performer in the movie. However, the script does not give him much to turn around, for three and a half hours he is forced to play back the repeated spectrum of emotions of his character. As for De Niro, hand on heart, he played here exclusively on the color of his personality. If it were not for the greatness and status of the legend, Robert could easily be replaced by another older actor – and get about the same result.
It’s absolutely Oscar-winning: heavyweight, racially diverse and on a serious topic. I am 100% sure that the film will definitely take a statuette. But from the point of view of a person who wants not only to enrich himself spiritually and broaden his horizons, but also to immerse himself in a story that will not break away from him, I was disappointed.
Martin Scorsese is a living classic of world cinema, literally every project of which becomes a film-event. The classic shot 71 films, at least 5 of which are in the Top 250 best films of all time according to the international portal imdb.com, one (but not the fact that the best) deservedly took the statuette and became the best film-2006, and how many acting Oscars brought cooperation with Scorsese! In general, this filmmaker is a person who has the right to criticize Marvel for their artificial attractions, and those are not the fact that they have the right to snap. Scorsese is a serious creative person, and Feige is a serious businessman. Scorsese shoots for an emotionally and intellectually developed viewer who values cinema as art, and MARVEL films are designed for a one-time trip to the cinema for a spectacular attraction, no more (the time of relatively serious and representing at least some artistic value of Iron Man and the early Avengers has long passed).
So what am I talking about? In the yard of 2023, the film market is stifling an endless stream of more and more talentless Marvel films and low-quality sequels to old and well-deserved film franchises, and besides Oppenheimer, perhaps, serious cinema can not wait at all. But here, as always expected, Scorsese himself bursts in with his historical drama Killers of the Flower Moon (2023), based on a pseudo-documentary novel by David Grann.
The beginning of the twentieth century, Oklahoma. The Osage Indians, forcibly relocated to these lands and almost without rights, became fabulously rich after oil was discovered on their plots. The local white people often worked as Indian chauffeurs. This could not go on for long, and in the 1920s a wave of murders of Indians swept – several dozen cases that were investigated over the sleeves or were not investigated at all and were issued as natural death / accidents. So far, the newly formed FBI (former Bureau of Investigation) under the leadership of the young J. Edgar Hoover has not taken up this case.
It is against this background, in short, the events of the film develop. At first, it might seem like it’s just another investigative film, with Leonardo DiCaprio playing Hoover’s brave subordinate. But it wasn't. Scorsese is a man known for his love of exploring the darkest hidden corners of the human soul, such as greed, betrayal, vanity, which he regularly savors in detail in the shell of crime movies (from the horror “Cape of Fear” to the great “Casino” and “Departed”). Here, the master decides once again (after the relatively recent “Wolf of Wall Street”, where the problem was discussed more in a comedic manner) to address such a topic as greed, and at the same time familiarize society with such a black page in the history of America as the massacre of indigenous people in Oklahoma, in the wrapper of a mainstream project.
Such an ambiguous and somewhat unexpected choice of material should be praised by the author of the original literary basis David Grann, whose book so impressed the elderly classic. But it should be noted that not such a choice and unexpected - Scorsese changes the emphasis from the investigation to the process, trying to look into the eyes, thoughts and souls of famous greedy killers, and then he again sets foot on familiar territory. The main characters of this story are just as despicable criminals as most of the characters of other criminal paintings of the maestro. Starting with the protagonist Ernest Berkhart (whose spinelessness perfectly conveys Leonardo DiCaprio) and ending with his uncle, antagonist William "King" Hale (who is always brilliantly played by Robert De Niro, one of these roles justifying his periodic participation in second-rate comedy slag).
Killers of the Flower Moon is only the third collaboration between two of Scorsese's favorite artists, the first under his direction. That's it! DiCaprio and De Niro form a very interesting villainous tandem, where one leads and the second leads, where the one-time Oscar winner becomes the "six" of the two-time. Literally all the episodes where two honored artists meet in the same frame - this is a real theatrical art, a kind of duel, the result of which sometimes even seems not so foregone. How DiCaprio is unexpectedly accurate as the spineless conduit of an uncle’s “powerful world” in the name of stuffed pockets (he can’t decide whether he loves his wife, money or his wife’s money). The purely ironic intonation chosen by Scorsese allows the artist to simultaneously organically get used to the skin of the weak-willed performer and mock the involuntaryness of the protagonist. DiCaprio and De Niro are hypnotized by the repulsive confidence, lack of doubt, and charismatic nature of evil. Is it the only positive heroine, Lily Gladstone, who played the role of the heiress of the Indian family Molly Kyle? It should be the emotional core of the picture. It has a seemingly impossible mission to repel the pain of the lost generation of Oseiji Indians. The mission, which Gladstone with a rather modest experience of the first plan copes filigree - the nomination and victory at the Oscar in the category "best female role" is almost guaranteed to her.
It will take some time to enter the Killers and penetrate them, and this is absolutely true. Scorsese begins here very, very monotonously, first admiring the landscapes and nature of wild America of the early 1920s, explaining the historical background of future events with black and white “inserts” and voiceover, and only then, gradually, beginning to acquaint the viewer with the main characters. Which are revealed in dialogues and individual episodes even before the beginning of the main events (in the end, the author will devote only a third of the total length of the tape to the investigation itself) - after all, the 200-minute timekeeping allows Scorsese to walk around properly.
Another thing is that despite the titanic timekeeping, almost all the action of the picture is reduced to the study of greed, greed and meanness of the petty souls of two regular scammers and murderers hiding behind the masks of decency and respect in society. And somewhere in that moment, the tragedy of the lost Native American family is lost, the historical memory for which, in theory, the film was created - to show one event that is only part of the full-scale Indian genocide by the colonizers. Monochrome pictures, textured faces of the Osages and miserly obituaries sounding behind the scenes, the methodical ritual of the life of the tribe - Scorsese admires the indigenous people with reverence and sorrowful regret, but as if he avoids their tragedy, not daring to discuss it in sufficient detail.
So it turns out that Scorsese produced a new full-scale film novel worthy of his past works akin to his best works, which, despite its proper tragicity, acquired rather some ironic shades. It is difficult to judge whether they are appropriate, but watching the current film market, it becomes somehow warm and joyful that there are still such hardworking filmmakers who give us, at least once every couple of years, a real movie. Which is even more valuable.
The maestro’s previous film, viewed at quarantine, seemed clearly unsuccessful and left a disappointing impression. Thanks to this, having learned in the summer about the new project of the maestro, I immediately realized that it is exactly necessary to see and began to wait for it with impatience, which was reinforced by the failure with the Irishman and the bet on the rehabilitation of the director in my eyes.
I personally believe that a good film is one that leaves behind an impression and emotion, whether positive or negative.
Speaking of negative. If you are looking for a movie where you could empathize with the main characters or would like to associate yourself with the protagonist, then Killers of the Flower Moon completely breaks this notion. Scorsese masterfully shows people on the screen, to put it mildly, not the best without the slightest hint of idealization. Unlike many other crime films where the characters often evoke sympathy either vividly or with charisma, the characters of this film cause nothing but rejection. These are the most ordinary scoundrels, hiding in plain sight, which makes the film terribly realistic.
The most common claim I've seen is his timekeeping, and unlike The Wolf of Wall Street, it's not compensated by a dynamic narrative. The film has no action, no ingenious criminal schemes, no grand plot twists. But despite all the above, watching how smoothly and leisurely Scorsese immerses you in the gloomy and tense atmosphere of the really “wild” west and allows you to live in the American outback for a short time is damn nice.
In turn, he did not find any anti-colonial message or ideological bias in the film. To me, the film is not more critical of bad white oppressors, but rather of the collective stereotype of the so-called American Dream and how low the human person can fall to fulfill it. In my opinion, the film is more psychological, exploring and most naturalistically showing the base qualities of the individual, such as greed, greed, driven willlessness and complete, servile submission to the dominant authority of the powerful uncle. The film literally dumps it on the viewer without the slightest embellishment, which causes violent emotions that in our pampered time can not but please, and someone even shock.
Thus, it turned out extremely good, gloomy and cruel neo-western from the recognized master of cinema and with full confidence we can say that the powder in the powderboxes has not yet been damp.
Best Cameo of the Year: Paul Van Dyk – For an Angel
So, there were 10 more spectators in the audience, who (perhaps) were attracted by the names of DiCaprio, De Niro and asa Scorsese. Probably someone wanted to see a rattling mixture of "The Wolf of Wall Street" and "Grandfathers of easy behavior". Someone just wanted to kill clearly time on a weekend Saturday, while the kids and grandparents in the amusement park. The third lacked a nice sleep, as many people at home decided to go to a very long movie in the theater. But the fact remains that six people left the hall for good, without waiting for the long-awaited ending. And it was worth it, because Martin Scorsese very original decided to finish the story with the help of an audio performance or whatever you can call it. Finally, a grand cameo awaits everyone there!
The father of the "Taxi Driver" or "Cape of Fear" has long had nothing to prove to anyone. For the third decade in a row, he’s done whatever he wants. Any budget, advanced Hollywood stars, the best conditions for shooting. A lot of people would be jealous, right? All right, there's a lot of excitement about any budget, because 200 million greens for serious conversational dramas about long gone eras without powerful visuals can now only be highlighted by streaming giants. First, Netflix got the right amount from its piggy bank for the Irishman, now Apple itself is generous. Next time we're waiting for Amazon. Full creative control also provides that Martin Scorsese is happy to prepare his new film for monstrous timing.
206 minutes in theaters is a nightmare. Modern viewers and an hour and a half barely endure, because still then you can watch in tick-current, rails or online platforms, so there are automatically even fewer sessions, so it is better to write more time for local anti-funny comedies. On the other hand, cinemas need to understand, they also want to earn, they are not up to sentiment when it comes to the magic of cinema and the indescribable experience of watching on the big screen in a dark hall, so thank you at least on this. Personally, we ourselves got a real pleasure from the grandiose epic, not regretting 3.5 hours of our life. In the foreseeable future, probably, this will not work, because the buzz of cinema will migrate to your online.
All right, squirm, and that's enough. The killers of the flower moon talk about such a human vice as greed. When you want money passionately, and no matter what way, as long as it leads to an endless source. Interestingly, Martin Scorsese does not use a deliberately thickening tone to demonstrate human weaknesses. Editing and music do not act in a formulaic way to show a bloodthirsty evil sowing its field with the lives of Indians. The director made everything look as cool as possible, without unnecessary emotions, somewhat everyday. As if to put it, nothing is superfluous, only business, which, as we know, is not always quite environmentally friendly. How do you have to be duplicitous and heartless to send people to the next world in order to make money?
There is evil, but there is no horror here to embellish it. Greed is a deadly sin. Boring and protracted for many, the film quite straightforwardly proves that this greedy craving for the material will not lead to anything good. Leonardo DiCaprio not in vain noticed the potential for himself in the role of Ernest, since the mind of such a weak-willed fool character is easy to cloud. Once Robert De Niro played Mephistopheles in the film by Alan Parker, so, we can say, he again portrayed the devil, but in the good-natured guise of an infirm old man who knows how to whisper bad thoughts into the ears of people around. Without brilliant dialogues, brutal violence, loud fanfare, the great director issued a wonderful film to the audience that...
Money is not happiness.
But how do you stop thinking that money gives you access to happiness?
Like most older men, Scorsese can’t go small. But he enjoys going big. The latest films last three hours or longer. Dear master, brevity sister ... well, for you, just a sister.
Scorsese is often criticized for his lack of handwriting. I strongly disagree. All Scorsese films are about thirst. A thirst for profit, for sex, for drugs, and for old, good violence. So all of Scorsese's films represent a long, drawn-out ode to capitalism. For what is capitalism but a thirst for profit, for sex? . .
That is why the beautiful master was fascinated by the book that formed the basis of the film. The logic of people's actions is determined by the socio-economic conditions of their existence. "Deaf," "insensitive," "flower moon killers." Drop this hypocrisy citizens. The history of the Osage tribe is the history of America in miniature. Hernan Cortez and Francisco Pissarro behaved just like De Niro's hero. History is as simple as a faceted glass.
Enlightened Europeans invaded America and assumed the heavy "white man's burden," as author Mowgli called it. The burden of educating the backward savages, by some misunderstanding, who inhabited these lands. The education process was successful. Most of the savages were simply killed. The rest were evicted on the reservation with a clear message - please die quickly. We've infected you with diseases that you're not immune to, we've taught you to drink (oh, you're a white man's burden) and you're still here?
The era of initial accumulation is over. The descendants of the conquistadors changed their lats to civil suits, and the Indians did not just die, but began to demand something. Okay, here's the land, somewhere far away, but the introductory stays the same - quick! And here on the land of the Osages find a catalyst for the reaction - oil. And the process of disposing of incomprehensible savages went faster.
Critics will find in this film hidden from the eyes of an amateur dignity (long - long shots, skillful play of light and shadow - everything about the Osages is filmed brightly, colorfully, sunny, white always in the shadows do their dirty deeds, and their faces are degenerative), but I am an amateur, and I either like the film or not.
DiCaprio is beautiful as the scanty primate of Ernest. In this film, he has a red face of a typical redneck, a hefty ryah of the Oklahoma hillbilly (he was overfed with borscht, or what?), protruding lower jaw, a wrinkled forehead. He even answers questions with a delay, you can hear the brains creaking, like a rural fool, deprived of all these rudiments: conscience, empathy, intelligence. Beautiful idiot, just beautiful!
The heavenly appearance of Lily Gladstone is simply written off from the paintings of Renaissance masters. Watch the courtship scene carefully, she smiles like a Gioconda. De Niro over the years became like some leathery lizard, a kind of Hollywood pterodactyl. A saggy phallic nose, vertical wrinkles, a perpetual mine of a constipated bore. He's great, and out of an old habit (from his first job together) he kicked DiCaprio's ass.
So everything about the director’s work, the actors’ play – everything is fine, individually. And the movie didn't work. The first half-hour looks good, but then the plot sags, mise-en-scene stalls, becomes boring. DiCaprio treats and treats his wife, De Niro treats and treats DiCaprio, drunk Indian women, dancing on the lawns, blown brains - all this is beautiful, but not interesting. There is no romanticism, Komsomol zeal "Good guys", everything is somehow old-fashioned, croaking, with strain.
In movies, as in sex, old merit doesn't work. I don't see any reason to kiss the director in the furry buttocks just because his name is Scorsese. The film is overly protracted, the pace of storytelling is lost at the very beginning, most of the film is frankly boring.
The movie is repentance? Come on! Repent to the real Americans, give them back America! Do you know that Oseiji has lost most of their land? Yes, anti-capitalist pathos are present, but it is a timid voice, the last moan of a dying beast in the heart of a heartless world. The Titanic sails on, the upper decks will be saved on lifeboats, and the rest are waiting for the fate of DiCaprio from the film of the same name.
About the new film Scorsese “Killers of the Flower Moon” with DiCaprio and De Niro, I knew only that it runs three and a half hours – so many cinemas in the world arranged intermissions in the middle of the film, which was very unsatisfied with Scorsese, apparently forgetting Hitchcock’s commandment that the duration of the film should correspond to the size of the viewer’s bladder. After watching the film in the Almaty cinema, I can say: give Scorsese free will, he would make a movie for 5 hours. In fact, the film ends “at the most interesting place”, and in the epilogue of the viewer is waiting for a nostalgic radio production (among the readers who tell how it ended, the director himself noted).
Well, Scorsese is a genius, he can. And the story is about the events of a century ago about the Osage Indian tribe, on the lands of which oil was found. In the blink of an eye, yesterday’s outcasts, bred by the white men beyond the brackets of life, become rich, and whites have to go to them as drivers and servants. Oil money did not bring much happiness to the Indians - dissatisfied with such a social anomaly, the whites find ways to seize the lands and money of the Redskins. How? It's very simple. A good Indian is a dead Indian.
The Killers of the Flower Moon is based on David Grann’s documentary book, so the story could be hyped from different angles. The most obvious solution, which began the project, was a detective-thriller story about a good guy - FBI Tom White (yes, the hero is all in white) performed by DiCaprio - who investigates a case of mass murder (in fact, this is the first case of the FBI) and gradually comes to the conclusion, paraphrasing a Soviet satirist, that "plywood was stolen by everyone." But such a banal story did not suit DiCaprio, who wanted a more difficult task - and the FBI he had already played - the head of the FBI Edgar J. Hoover! In the rewritten script, White is given a secondary role (he was played by Jesse Plemons), and the new role of DiCaprio and the center of the story becomes Ernest Berkhart, a simple and unsophisticated man, to whom an authoritative uncle (who misses the roles of infernal devils in the flesh of De Niro) gives simple tasks. Go chauffeur. Marry a rich Indian woman. Kill her sister. Kill her other sister and husband. Kill her mother. Kill everyone in the Osage clan who inherits the oil money. And in the end, it's my wife's turn. And the unsophisticated little man follows the plan. And in a parallel way, he loves his Indian wife. As he says at the beginning of the film, “I love money too.” And then the plan goes wrong. . .
Do you remember DiCaprio as such a bastard? Yes, he played charismatic crooks, unclean businessmen, even slave owners, but always bright, smiling, eccentric. The main attraction of three and a half hours of “Killers of the Flower Moon” is the mystical transformation of the guy with the Titanic into a dull, faded, repulsive type with bags under the eyes and always lowered down corners of the lips, who for all the extreme timing of the film never smiles, but to follow which is insanely interesting. What's in this man's head? How can he combine a sincere love for his wife and children (a girl, a boy and a girl) with such a high-pitched indifference? He's not a villain like an uncle, he's not going to add 2 plus 2 and build an insidious plan. He's just -- obedient. Uncle knows better. Brother knows better. My case is small. You should. And he slowly poisons his wife with such... love that the hair stands on end.
At the same time, I cannot say that the film has a famously twisted plot. History is as straightforward as a railroad on the prairie - murder, more murder, more murder, more, more... Poison, knife, pistol, bomb ... no, no, our obedient hero does not commit villainy himself (well, except for poison for his wife) - he delegates, only the leadership qualities of his uncle he does not have one iota, and therefore he delegates dirty business to bulldogs and white scum who are so stupid that the task of staging suicide is executed by a shot in the back of the head.
Not for nothing in the title of the film "Murderers" - in the plural. Almost everything is marooned (as in that Soviet story with plywood), and therefore no one is in a hurry to report it. In one of the most eerie scenes of the film, the hero gets to the “council” where citizens decide how to remove suspicion from the all-powerful uncle, and you see that almost all the white residents of the town gathered there. Killers are not strangers. They are neighbors, friends and family members of the victims themselves. As Scorsese himself said, it's not a story, 'Who killed?' This is the story of 'Hasn't anyone killed?'
It is not surprising that Paramount studio disowned the movie (the film was shot under the wing of Apple), and the film failed at the box office. Watching good people get killed by bad people one by one, and nothing (well, before, and often after, the FBI’s intervention) is emotionally hard. In a series of brutal deaths, only a comical scene with the spanking of the hero DiCaprio by the hero De Niro stands out (this pair lights up on the screen for the third time, after “This Guy’s Life” and “Marvin’s Room”), and even closer to the finale, Brendan Fraser and Jonathan Lithgow, who rose from the ashes, flash even closer to the small roles of a lawyer and a prosecutor. But the screen still can not come off, and intermission nowhere to paste. This is a movie that is no longer made - with a huge non-computer extras, scenery in the style of Western, with close-ups of real actors and actresses, with emotions, drama, splashes of blood and oil. And the bladder can wait -- sorry, Hitchcock!
Killers of the Flower Moon is a movie that has been waiting for more than three years. After the premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, he was unanimously called a monumental, shocking, exciting and almost masterpiece statement of eighty-year-old Martin Scorsese about the bloody page in the history of the United States.
The film is based on the eponymous non-fiction book by David Grann, telling the real story of the murders of the indigenous population of America in the state of Oklahoma in the mid-20s of the last century. Oil deposits were found on this territory and its inhabitants (the Osage tribe) instantly became the richest and most influential people in the United States.
Throughout his career, Scorsese has explored the history of his native country, in Killers of the Flower Moon, he explores the origins of capitalism, power, greed and monstrous inhumanity. Doing so with filigree precision and directing endurance, he paints a dry portrait of the era. But, unfortunately, the artist became so full that he became a “robot”.
This is an impeccable picture (documentarily accurate, shot as if from a textbook), devoid of the sharpness and audacity of his early works. The Killers have a wonderful first two acts, but in the third the pace sags and the picture slides into a very obvious but fair judicial drama (otherwise unravelling the tangle), the outcome of which is impossible not to predict to a sane person.
Traditionally "Scorsese" actors - DiCaprio and De Niro - play full scumbags who do not change at all in three hours of screen time - this is a truly outstanding move, nevertheless seemingly foreign and unnatural. But here is the main problem - in this multi-genre epic (Western, thriller, detective, court drama) there was absolutely no place for feelings. This is a movie in which there is no love, there is only evil enveloping the heart. . .
Killers of the Flower Moon is a film by Martin Scorsese based on the popular science book by David Grann, Killers of the Flower Moon. Oil. Money. Blood. After watching the film, I became interested in the background and established my understanding of the film. The book is popular science and the film is also semi-documentary. Movie reasoning, film analysis and rethinking. Even a remorse movie. Repentance on behalf of the white race, repentance on behalf of all mankind for what we are. In front of God? I guess so. Age, experience. Scorsese has something to say, but from the height of his understanding, it is pointless to say in words, you need to hold your hand through this, you need to point it out, you need to expose it. I don’t remember and don’t want to peek, but Scorsese’s penultimate film alerted me in this regard. And in The Irishman, I clearly felt the mood I mentioned above. "Killers..." is the climax. Bye. I really hope that Scorsese will surprise us with a new masterpiece. I just saw that the master is now busy shooting as many as three films! In principle, I believe that this is a new word in cinematography – film-thinking, with a note of documentary. Moreover, I can not say that I am delighted with the film and the genre, it is long, the plot is predictable completely. But this, I think, the director emphasizes that the action here is not the main thing. The main thing in the global sense is to stop, look back and without haste objectively overestimate and experience your past. Not fragments, flashes of memories, but deep reflection. The past is not in the plan of a person, but of a community, of a nation, of humanity. This honesty can help to avoid future mistakes, to understand their essence. Well, I did too. Let's move on.
The Osage Indians called the full moon in May, when it was full spring, and their mountains were covered with a carpet of amazing flowers. From their fertile lands, they were once relocated to a much less cozy place. But they learned to consider it their home. Unfortunately for the tribe, oil was discovered in their new land. Once again, unfortunately for themselves, they managed to defend their right to it (the white man everywhere hides himself with the formal Law, which, as I understand it, they crawled into). And here on the head of naive children of nature literally "falled" another world. A world with different values, mores, new temptations, dryings. Obviously, Oseiji is not ready for this. Moreover, the White Man will not simply leave them the right to oil, but will want to clean up everything for themselves by any means, murder, insidious intrigue, false promises, dishonest play. But they do not yet understand this and for a long time can not believe it. They do not understand that their worst enemy is the closest and most compassionate friend who takes care of them in public and shows love in every possible way. Even the language learned them perfectly. Not disdaining murder when he meets an obstacle, the White Man in his person, hiding behind his Law, came up with a completely legal scheme to take money from the Indians - white men hypocritically married Indian women, swaggering in front of them and pleasing them if the "case" so requires. And when they became the heirs of oil wealth, the “gray” scheme was turned on – they gradually began to poison their wives. One, two, three cases. Then more. Accident, suicide... The death was recorded, no investigation was conducted. That's hard to believe. As if the White Man was a friend, he gave the Indians money, whiskey, the best cars and a bewildering "respect." But who knew who knew who...
Why does Scorsese show us this world through the image of Ernest Berkhart, DiCaprio’s hero? He is, in my opinion, limited, stupid, weak and greedy for money. By the way, I wrote in my review of “New York, New York” that Scorsese somewhere at the beginning of the film, through the lips of one of his characters, in a nutshell, actually tells what the film will be about. I think it happened here as well. Ernest came to Oklahoma to see his uncle William Hale (Robert De Niro), who was nicknamed the King for his business acumen. In the first conversation, the King “probes” the nephew and he says about himself: “Money I would like, sir ... I don’t care, I am greedy.” This is how Ernest signs his sentence, and begins the journey from man to beast. Money, power and pressure from above - that's what ruined the guy. But his uncle is already an accomplished and cunning Beast. For profit, he will move and kill everyone. At the same time, he noticed an interesting feature of his - wanting to order something vile, he first says a quite pious version-screen, and then hints or directly indicates what he really wants. Sometimes he explains again that it is only in the name of good and pleasing purposes. He is the great and terrible “friend” of the Indians.
By the way, I think or did you notice DiCaprio's makeup? Don't you think he looks suspiciously like Vito Corleone by Marlon Brando? By accident? An allusion to the Beast's path? Here, I think, it is important to note that Scorsese often highlights the negative qualities of men with the help of their women. Think Casino or New York, New York! Just like this. Molly, Ernest’s wife, is a very strong and whole person, and Ernest is even more pathetic against her background.
The ending of the film is semi-documentary. Including the director himself speaks monologue from the stage. Is the timing broken, or is this the idea? Knowing Scorsese, of course, is an idea. What is the close-up from the top at the end? Master!
What do I say in the end? Scorsese is not my director. But "Raging Bull," "Taxi Driver," "The Departed," "Casino," "Good Guys," "Gangs of New York." Stop. No, he's my director! This is his new movie, too, but with less enthusiasm. So I'm waiting. Long years to you, Master Martin!
Great in duration (2 hours 30 minutes) picture. It tells how in the United States in the early 20th century, white Americans, pretending to be friends of Indians, destroyed them, appropriated their plots on which oil was extracted. The method was this: whites married Indian women, then after their death, appropriated their land. I did not play a spoiler, because the viewer becomes aware of this in the first 10 minutes of viewing. Interesting how it was done. The main character is DiCaprio. According to the story, he is not more than thirty years old. Therefore, he looks a little strange, but plays in such a way that you do not immediately recognize him: like he is not him. But the list of actors says it's him. It would seem that the plot is intriguing, and the director has where to turn. But the film was unreasonably long and therefore boring.
Martin Scorsese’s films are always welcome for me, as he is my favorite director, but for the second time in a row, my high expectations for his new projects play a cruel joke with me. First there was the Irishman, who gathered the entire old guard of gangster cinema for the last time and, in fact, puts an end to a genre so close to Scorsese himself and to me, but who had problems with the visual part and caused resentment because of his excessive timekeeping in 3.5 hours (although I was satisfied - I like long films if they justify their duration, and Scorsese never had problems with this); and now here is the Flower Moon Killers, who, becoming the first film to unite in his excessive timekeeping in one career, did not cause Desserosov and the entire career.
It would seem that everything had to work out: the dream cast and the original source in the form of a book, with which Scorsese always masterfully managed. And if the actors did their job perfectly, then the plot of the book was decided to change. According to various sources, DiCaprio appeared, who, working with Scorsese for almost 20 years, also became the producer of his film and significantly changed the script. Initially, the story was to be conducted on behalf of an FBI agent investigating the murder of Indians – such a story would retain the intrigue and detective component. But Leo wanted to play the “bad guy” – just one of the killers, but at the same time, of course, retain the main role, which means that the story will now go through the eyes of the antagonist, which destroys all interest, because we see from the very beginning who the villain is and how he committed his crimes.
However, Scorsese, trusting one of his favorites, ventured to redraw the story in this direction, and we got the Flower Moon Killers, alas, not what they originally intended and could be. I think that's the problem. If you change the angle of view, the story would play with new colors, and so we have a still exciting, masterfully filmed, but very smooth and unremarkable story about how the villains first systematically commit all their atrocities, and then absolutely predictably receive punishment. On the one hand, many of Scorsese's films are about the bad guys, but on the other, I'd like to see the original version of the film, in which DiCaprio confronts De Niro, rather than being humiliated in front of him, as here.
Yeah, De Niro's dominating DiCaprio here, they're not equal. There's even a scene in the film where De Niro literally hits Leo on the ass, punishing him for a misdemeanor. And this is their only joint film not only with Scorsese, but in general! I can’t say that I’m disappointed – both actors did a hurrah, and De Niro in his 80s gave out one of the best antagonists of his career, but still not what I expected from the tandem of the two main actors of my favorite director. Although my expectations are my problems, of course.
But what can be said for sure - DiCaprio here is clearly not the best role in his life, as many tabloids wrote after the premiere. He played a short-sighted and rather repulsive man, whom it is not very pleasant to watch and, especially, to empathize with him. Maybe that’s what he was trying to do by rewriting the script? Again, their first collaboration with Martin in 10 years I imagined differently.
By the way, in preparation for the review, as usual, I read some materials about the film, and learned that in reality the person played by 48-year-old DiCaprio was 19 years old at the beginning of the story and 33 years old at the end (this explains why the FBI agent, played in the end Jesse Plemons, who is 13 years younger than Leo, calls him a son, and then in the cinema I was puzzled), and the character, who embodied 80-year-old De Niro, was 38 years old at the beginning of the story and 52 years at the end (this refers to the Irishman, who was not even a middle-aged man here). That is, DiCaprio would not even have to play a detective, but his uncle by age.
But for the sake of justice and not to seem that I only scold the film, list the pluses - this is excellent authenticity (the shooting took place in real places where the events took place), attention to detail, great respect for the Indians and their tragedy, the atmosphere of the era is conveyed tangiblely, sometimes beautiful camera work, and in the cast, which I have already praised in the person of De Niro and DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone, who played the role of the wife of the main character, best showed herself. I felt the most sympathy for her and I think that this is a good bid for the upcoming Oscar, although in the remaining nominations, I am sure that Scorsese will beat Nolan with his Oppenheimer - he certainly has the film of the year.
As for the chrone, which again amounted to an unbearable for many 3.5 hours, I am not sure that the film needed it. Half an hour, or even an hour, could have been removed. And, although I did not get bored during the viewing, I saw people coming out of the hall during the session, and I could not condemn them for it. The same Irishman, as for me, in such a long time felt more confident.
In the end, when I give a score, I’m torn between 7 and 8, but since I’m still a fan of directors and actors, I’ll give an 8, even though it would be a perfect 7.5. Again, I'm sorry that you can't put half a point on the Movie Search. As for my favorite director, the feeling that he will not create anything great is becoming more and more persistent. But at his age, it’s good that he’s still making films. Besides, he has already done enough and has nothing to prove for a long time. And Killers of the Flower Moon is not a bad movie and deserve at least one view - certainly from connoisseurs. And I will wait for the next project of the master, which he announced as many as three! What a restless grandfather. Well, for many years he has immense respect, no matter what other films he did.
8 out of 10
The fact that Martin Scorsese will shoot “Killers of the Flower Moon” became widely known in 2020. Since then, viewers have been looking forward to its release and finally waited until the end of 2023.
Even before viewing the tape, it is known that this is a real-life story about how cunning cruel whites killed members of an Indian tribe enriched in oil-bearing land. The topic is painful, interesting and intriguing. And Martin Scorsese as director and Leonardo DiCaprio with Robert De Niro in the lead roles promised a magnificent embodiment.
Ratings and reviews for “Killer of the Flower Moon” are completely enthusiastic – 8.2 in IMDB and 92% from critics in Rotten Tomatoes. If you watch it, you will probably be disappointed.
For three and a half hours, viewers are invited to watch the rather flat story of Ernest Berkhart, who comes to Osage County to see his uncle. Uncle's in power and money, but clearly wants more. Ernest, at the request of a relative, marries a member of a tribe whose inheritance is potentially huge. But to get to it you need to get rid of her mother, sisters and their husbands.
Ernest would be like a double agent. On the one hand, he will directly help kill the Indians. And on the other hand, lead a normal family life and raise children born in marriage to a Native American woman.
By and large, Killers of the Flower Moon is a very simple story about greed. Someone wanted something that belonged to others and was willing to kill for it. He was not one, immoral types, easily killing (for the sake of even not very much money) people around the Osage tribe gathered a lot. And they killed, believing in their integrity, until they were visited by FBI agents with their own federal laws and regulations. That’s the whole point of this story.
80-year-old Scorsese of course made a decent film, which is interesting to watch. And DiCaprio and De Niro tried. But the film, which cost the creators $200 million, was trivial and boring. Perhaps if the same story had been told through the eyes of the Indians and there was a place for emotion in the narrative, then the audience would indeed have been waiting for the promised powerful and sensational spectacle. But Scorsese offered the audience a lean story of white people, in which absolutely all the characters are almost devoid of emotion. Yes, the unhappy wife cries over the bodies of murdered relatives, and Ernest sweats nervously when he realizes that he is about to be exposed. However, in general, watching “Killers of the Flower Moon” is like watching a three-hour news special about the tragedy, which is told by indifferent presenters.
I can only explain the excitement around “Killer of the Flower Moon” by the fact that this is a film of the great Martin Scorsese, who cannot be scolded (and for nothing). Plus, it’s a film about Indian oppression — it’s a painful subject that has always been the golden ticket for filmmakers. Cinema on this topic is always praised and not praised as if it is impossible.
In short, Killers of the Flower Moon is a worth watching movie. But not a sensation, and certainly not a masterpiece.
“Bear the burden of whites.”
And the best sons.
For the hard work, send
For the thirteen seas;
In the service of the conquered
To the grim tribes,
To serve half-children,
Or maybe the devil!
Kipling translated by M. Froman
Scorsese, in a new film 120 years later, drew a line and showed how Kipling’s call to bear the “white man’s burden” ended. The poem was neatly written during the unknown American-Philippine war in Russia, during which the Americans, following this covenant and their English teachers, brutally dealt with the Filipinos.
“Flower Moon” is not only and not so much a metaphor for the spring primroses of the Indian land, the main character of the film Molly (Lily Gladstone), whose eyes show us the event series, and not even the fate of all the Osages of Oklahoma, as it may seem at first glance, but much, much broader – it is a symbol of the burden of all non-European peoples around the world, to whom for centuries continental Europeans and Anglo-Americans have carried this Kipling’s covenant with fire and sword.
Molly’s tears and withering are the tears and withering of all the conquered peoples and tribes that have been genocidated for centuries, driven into concentration camp reservations, children into boarding schools, and the land with its natural riches has been taken and exploited.
The plot seems simple, tediously drawn for three and a half hours and completely uncomplicated, but this is only at first superficial glance, if you do not distinguish the symbolism and do not understand the broad historical context in which the circumstances of a particular Molly family and her unfortunate tribesmen unfold before the viewer, suddenly at the turn of the century fabulously rich, but ironically immediately experienced both the gift of fate and her own curse.
Ernest Burckhardt (Leonardo DiCaprio) is, as you might guess, also a symbol and metaphor of all of us “warm” – the inhabitants living selfishly and consumeristically, hungry for profit, and dreaming of one day to break a big jackpot and then indulge in philistine pleasures all their lives. In a conversation with his cold-blooded uncle, William Hale (Robert De Niro), Ernest does not hide this, naively revealing the “American dream”, which still seduces the human majority. It is the warm swamp of indifference and weakness of most people that leads to the power of Uncle Hale.
And what it turns out to be - watch the Scorsese film, this is a reminder and a warning to all of us, warm philistines, indifferent and selfishly living, while the universal and for each its own personal "Flower Moon" is about to wither.
Wolves and sheep are movies. The hypocrites and the blind, trusting as children. On the clothes in which evil is dressed, rattling with pomposity.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, two stars that define the beauty of the canvas. One complements the other. One head, the other paws of the octopus possessed by greed.
Martin Scorsese is good. Unbelievably good. Maturity masters have the opportunity to contemplate admirers of talent. The Patriarch knows his business. Weighted, measured, detailed current film. Eighty-one year old "father" of gangster tapes today. Gone are the youthful winds of bandit romance. There's almost nothing left of them. Okay, a little echo, some distance away. Fleur. That's all. Without the blatant nonsense of bloodthirsty scenes of settling scores, revenge, the pleasure of murder now. Almost without that. The maestro doesn't flirt with the public. Doesn't flirt. So, a little sprinkles the roof of the three-hour canvas, but very moderately. And for fans of meat grinders and in general, modestly everything here.
Another movie in front of us? Yeah. The current movie-- think about it. Over a lot. Over American ideals. First and foremost. Get rich? Oh, yeah. It's American. Any other nation - the Yankees will give a considerable head start on this issue. Money, money, money... Power, power, power... Wealth, wealth, wealth... And for that...anything. Kill anyone? You can nail it. Sew? For money? You're welcome.
What the hell is going on? Where? Well, where are you going? In the coffin, what are you going to take with you? Or is it a hobby of money? More, more, more. Little, little, little. Here, here, here. ..
Demobilized from the army, Ernest Berkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) arrives in Oklahoma with his wealthy Jewish uncle, William Hale (Robert De Niro). For turnover and skill - he is a landowner, and a cattleman, and even a patron for many local indigenous Indians, he is called the King. Racking everything that has any value, takes a relative under the wing. The nearest prospect is the marriage of yesterday's soldier to a wealthy aboriginal woman. Eliminating her family by hatching a plan to lay paws on the oil subsoil in the future.
The script trio of the picture is a devilish temptation before our eyes unfolds. The path from man to beast? An inclined plane with a fall into the abyss? Is that what the director is presenting today? The abyss, the abyss, the abyss... Each of us has to choose whom to serve. And refuse? Can I? Maybe? Is there a chance to go from darkness to light?
Thanks to the director’s revelation, we are transported to the beginning of the last century. In Europe, only recently the First World War broke out. And here, in faraway America, there is a war going on. Another war. People are killed, shot like ducks, contract killings are widely practiced. And all this over the Osage people. The sheriff is silent, justice seems to be absent at all. Ideas die like flies. Black gold is a sentence from a white man.
It's a long movie... Of course it is. But this is for the audience accustomed to action. The degree of the story, a reflection for us - did any of the characters doubt for a moment about what they did? Have you repented in the process of the crimes committed even one iota? Or is evil so intoxicating? Have you invented a medicine for drugs?
Money, money, money... Power, power, power... Wealth, wealth, wealth... More, more, more. ..
Honestly, I'm partly to blame for what I didn't like. I bought the name Scorsese, believed the announcements about the best role in DiCaprio’s career, and most importantly – I didn’t see the length of the film that I will see.
Three and a half hours, friends. You will feel every minute of your time flowing through your fingers. At the third hour of the timekeeping, you will already make a list of 100 things that you could successfully do right in the hall to somehow entertain yourself. This is provided that you do not fall asleep.
Maybe I’m just not smart enough for this movie. Maybe the popcorn blockbuster industry ruined me. But I thought this film was just a mockery of the viewer and disrespect for him.
A good film should be able to show actions, feelings and events, not tell them. Now, 'Flower Moon Killers' do both!
In reality, there is a scene in the film where the character confesses to the crime, tells how he committed it - and then we are shown another 2 minutes what and how he did it. Why?! I didn’t get new information in those 2 minutes, I didn’t dive into watching, I just wasted time because the director decided so.
And the saddest thing is that even the best cast was unable to save this thrust. DiCaprio played brilliantly - but his character is so weak-willed and no one that you do not feel any feelings for him even for 3.5 hours. So the best role for Leo just doesn't smell like it. Take any other movie with him, and watching the actor will be much more interesting than here. Here he just walks, plots and falsely smiles at his wife, pretending that everything is fine.
De Niro, Fraser, Isbell, Henson – all of them became hostages of absolutely uninteresting characters, which you do not want to look at.
At one point it seemed to me that the film would not end at all. That I'm locked in a movie room forever. That Scorsese fell asleep on the keyboard. This shouldn’t be the case with a good movie: if you can’t tell a good story and give it a dynamic, then make a show. The Lord of the Rings has always had something to look at for 3.5 hours, but there is nothing to look at and empathize with. No matter how terrible and sad the story may be.
6 out of 10
If you want to think of me as a slave to the popcorn industry in Hollywood, I just can't give you a higher grade.
Scorsese can be criticized for a long time for allegedly romanticizing the mafia, scammers, drug addicts and other criminal figures, but not this time. Here the director directly shows that crimes should not just be forgotten and pass without a trace.
The Indians called the full visible disk of the satellite in May, when the flowering season came. Unfortunately, a beautiful epithet today refers to the extermination of representatives of the Osage tribe, who received a share of the mining of the local petralium. The localized name of the original source “Killers...” is a quite accurate and brief retelling of the picture. Greedy "whites" one by one cut, poison, blow up, and hole the brains of the unfortunate natives of Oklahoma. It sounds like a seed for watching horror movies, only you will be frightened not by scarlet puddles from under corpses, but by the everyday faces of bandits led by the character of Robert de Niro, who do not lament what they have done, and their ambition transcends the boundaries of conscience and morality. The exception is the hero DiCaprio, torn between two targets of his love: his wife, thoroughbred Osage, and dirty money.
Cinema is more “creative” than spectacular. Beautiful and understandable metaphors about the coming of death; the streets on which the Indians thin out and the Ku Klux Klan marches; oil coming out of the fountain from the Earth and ready to stain the screen; ubiquitous fire and heroes sitting in the cinema hall, where they spin a documentary about racial oppression - such a typical allusion to us, indifferent spectators.
However, do not worry that these three hours will be sad. Screenplay, staging, and acting will not get bored. There is everything that many people revere the filmography of the American Italian, his handwriting. To this was only added his firm position about the genocide of those who got the land by right of birth, and the blood-stained history of the whole continent.
P.S. As noted by one of the previous reviewers, the budget of the thriller-drama really pretentious. The same “Oppenheimer” cost the studio $ 100 million, i.e. twice cheaper, but the special effects there are more impressive than the scenery and entourage here. It is strange to write off actors’ fees, in both projects stars of the first echelon starred. In general, the picture risks going into the negative, since its promotional company was rather weak, it is promoted at the expense of the loud name of the director. Apparently, Apple+ believes that it will pay back production thanks to users of the platform; it looks ... unreliable.
8 out of 10
Yeah, too.
It seems that Martin Scorsese has crossed the line of age when he is no longer able to critically evaluate his works, and in his environment there is no authoritative person who can point out some of his shortcomings. From here came “Silence” (2 hours 40 minutes), “The Irishman” (3 hours 29 minutes), and “Killers of the Flower Moon” (3 hours 26 minutes). Yes, it is difficult to cut episodes born in agony, but sometimes it is simply necessary if you want to convey an idea. And the idea in the movie “Killers of the Flower Moon” is for sure, only it was so lost under the heap of timekeeping that Scorsese had to say it literally personally at the very end of the picture.
In the center of the plot is the Osage Indian tribe, who in the late 19th century were lucky to discover oil on their lands, which eventually made them the richest people on the planet. Only where there is a lot of money, a lot of vultures. And soon there are brazen, unprecedented murders that no one is investigating. The story is based on real events.
Starring Scorsese's favorites are Leonardo Dicaprio and Robert De Niro (both terribly overplay). And the director was so focused on their characters that he seems to have completely forgotten why he made this film. I personally didn’t have the time to immerse myself in Native American culture, even though Scorsese had 3 and a half hours. At the same time, Mel Gibson did almost the impossible in the movie Apocalypse. He told the story of several Indian peoples without using a single English word. The idea I mentioned at the beginning is not new. It was raised back in 2016 in the magnificent film “Wind River”, but did it much more clearly and compactly.
“Killers of the Flower Moon” is a good, good movie that is worth watching. But this is the new Scorsese, who is trying to look beyond the horizon and understand the intricacies of the human soul. How well he does it is up to you to judge. And from me:
What a shame that Russian cinemas were left without such a film. Oh, old Martin did that. Speaking of Martin, I'm not a big fan of his work. There are much better directors who shoot for less money and more interesting films. Of course, this movie is quite bold. Probably the most courageous in the career of a director, so I will not say anything bad about the director. He’s a legend, I recognize that and respect what he’s done in his long career.
So, what is so brave about this film? I would say that it is something like Leviathan Zvyagintsev only with Dicaprio and a budget of $ 200m. Who gave him that much money to make a movie about white Americans killing Native Americans? I don't know. Someone needs it. What do I mean, and to the fact that it is unlikely that Trump will write about this film on Twitter haha.
If you're still reading, dear friend, let me put some Anton Dolin in my review and describe the plot then. The Indians got rich because they found oil on their land. Yes, they became so rich that white people began to fall under them in every possible way, literally and figuratively. Money was not gold, but zeros and units in bank accounts, but it was enough for people to fear you, respect you, want to kill you. This is what is happening to rich Indians. They're getting killed, even though that's not the weirdest thing that's going on. White men begin to lie under red women and slowly poison them.
This is the last paragraph, I’m tired of writing it all. Karoch, there's everything, probably Scorsese's most interesting film visually. I read that he was inspired by Ari Astaire, no, but from a bit of a yes, there are some really cool shots here, like in a fire or the final shot on top. That's good. Dicaprio has a strange jaw fixation, he plays, of course, as always with his own money - powerful. There is a gender and racial agenda, a man literally lies under a woman for her money. Originally, yes, but not interesting. That’s why you can scold the movie, probably for the fact that it’s not worth $ 200m. Of course, I don’t think so, just where and why? Anyway, the movie is almost 4 hours long and there are strong moments.