For me it transcends being a "film". It is art, it is humanity at its worst, it is history. I cried watching this movie and i never do. Best movie in a long time if not ever for me.
It was shot on film though, you literally showed a clip of the movie being filmed (at 4:04) with an Arricam LT, a film camera. Scorsese has shot everything he’s done on film except The Irishman was mostly digital and certain scenes here and there in his films since the 2010s have used Arri digital cameras. Hugo was probably mostly digital too. Otherwise it’s all 35mm, pretty sure Flower Moon was all or at least majority a film production.
It doesn't really matter, since most theaters have digital projectors. Even the "historical" shots, which were filmed on an old camera, looked dreadful converted to digital. KITFM were beautifully shot, but it all gets lost when converted to digital. There's so much noise in the frames, especially when there's high contrast. I really wish film got a renaissance, because it is far superior and it always will be. Period pieces like this in particular are set back greatly by being shown in digital.
I hate it, too long(terrible pacing), and contrary to what you said, I wasn't invested in the characters, and I found it too cold and distant. How could you care for a killer like Ernst? They made the movie about him, what a big mistake. They should have made it about Mollie, that is someone you can care about and empathize with. Normally, if the story is good, you keep watching, like Goodfellas, for example, Henry Hill was a horrible person. Also, the elements Scorsese borrowed from Goodfellas and the Irishman are part of his trademark, and they were awfully misused. I think he wasn't sure what the mood was supposed to be. For example, when they found the body of thw dead osage in the ruins after the explosion, her brain spilling out was quite unnecessary, or how the jewerly store robbery attempt was depicted, seemed ridiculous; it wasn't shocking, just out of place. I could go on for hours talking about the issues this movie has, it was a big boring mess that didn't know what to make of itself. Terrible. It is a shame because the production value is great and it has strong perfomances too.
Ha! You may be right or you may be wrong, idk I haven't seen the film. But this is what people critics have historically said about all of Scorsese's films. "How can you make a movie about Jake La Motta? He's deplorable. Why would I want to watch such a horrible person for 2 hours" etc. etc.
It isn't about despicable characters, I enjoyed Goodfellas and Raging Bull, both of the main characters were horrible persons, but the movies were good, the pacing was good, the story was good, etc. @@adamcortright494
What're your thoughts on Martin Scorsese's 'Killers of the Flower Moon'?
For me it transcends being a "film". It is art, it is humanity at its worst, it is history. I cried watching this movie and i never do. Best movie in a long time if not ever for me.
It was shot on film though, you literally showed a clip of the movie being filmed (at 4:04) with an Arricam LT, a film camera. Scorsese has shot everything he’s done on film except The Irishman was mostly digital and certain scenes here and there in his films since the 2010s have used Arri digital cameras. Hugo was probably mostly digital too. Otherwise it’s all 35mm, pretty sure Flower Moon was all or at least majority a film production.
It doesn't really matter, since most theaters have digital projectors. Even the "historical" shots, which were filmed on an old camera, looked dreadful converted to digital. KITFM were beautifully shot, but it all gets lost when converted to digital. There's so much noise in the frames, especially when there's high contrast. I really wish film got a renaissance, because it is far superior and it always will be. Period pieces like this in particular are set back greatly by being shown in digital.
glad you enjoyed the film.
The best movie.
DiCaprio is an actor of a human soul❤❤❤
I really thought this video would have hundreds of thousands of views
The film is so well done
Amazing
I hate it, too long(terrible pacing), and contrary to what you said, I wasn't invested in the characters, and I found it too cold and distant. How could you care for a killer like Ernst? They made the movie about him, what a big mistake. They should have made it about Mollie, that is someone you can care about and empathize with. Normally, if the story is good, you keep watching, like Goodfellas, for example, Henry Hill was a horrible person.
Also, the elements Scorsese borrowed from Goodfellas and the Irishman are part of his trademark, and they were awfully misused. I think he wasn't sure what the mood was supposed to be. For example, when they found the body of thw dead osage in the ruins after the explosion, her brain spilling out was quite unnecessary, or how the jewerly store robbery attempt was depicted, seemed ridiculous; it wasn't shocking, just out of place.
I could go on for hours talking about the issues this movie has, it was a big boring mess that didn't know what to make of itself. Terrible. It is a shame because the production value is great and it has strong perfomances too.
Ha! You may be right or you may be wrong, idk I haven't seen the film. But this is what people critics have historically said about all of Scorsese's films. "How can you make a movie about Jake La Motta? He's deplorable. Why would I want to watch such a horrible person for 2 hours" etc. etc.
It isn't about despicable characters, I enjoyed Goodfellas and Raging Bull, both of the main characters were horrible persons, but the movies were good, the pacing was good, the story was good, etc. @@adamcortright494