Killers of the Flower Moon| Movie Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- My review of Killers of the flower movie starring Leonardo Dicapiro, Lilly Gladstone, DeNiro about the the series of murders plaguing the Osage community. Scorsese did the Osage dirty by painting them as ignorant victims; the movie plays out like a true crime docuseries but with only the live re-enactments.
► d i s c o r d | / discord
------------------------------------------
📲 SOCIAL MEDIA | CONTACT INFO :
► t w i t t e r | / alachia
► i n s t a g r a m | / alachia
► t w i t c h | / alachia
► y o u t u b e | / queenalachia
► s p o t i f y | open.spotify.co...
► w e b s i t e | www.alachia.com/
►d i s c o r d | / discord
► t h r e a d s | @alachia
► s h o p | alachia.myspre...
Oppenheimer and Barbie proved that movie theaters aren’t dead. Movie etiquette IS though.
A-motherfuckin-men
I think Scorsese's approach is: how could Hale betray his neighbors and how could Burkhart betray his wife and the mother of his children? It was truly diabolical, on top of how the government treated the Osage. It wasn't just a film about the Osage and their culture -- it was about these crimes, who committed them. And to expose those who went unpunished, such as the doctors.
Im glad they focus on the relationship so that people can get a real sense of the level of betrayal that so many families endured. I see a lot of critics saying he loved her, but he helped kill her family, and was poisoning her. That betrayal of our community is the story that needs to be told.
I love theaters, but I hate going. People just don't know how to act.
I had the best possible viewing experience I just saw it in a completely empty AMC theater and all of the emotional pauses really hit hard
Its not only the Osage that was victimized. The Asians and the Pacific islanders were also victimized by greedy whites. Also the Africans as well . These people indigenous to the land did not understand capitalism and profit because their culture is based on sharing and unity within the community.
I agree with Review. Spot on. I did come out the theatre thinking the Osage were out smarted by hillbilly conmen.
I think you're right that Ernest character was pretty one note in the movie. And I agree that the bulk of it felt too narrow, that it was just recounting the murders without much else. But you entirely missed the point of the ending. Scorcese is reenacting an actual live radio show that was done in 1933 about the murders and is acknowledging that mainstream history in this case was written by white people first in this tone deaf radio show and then again in a better attempt to honor the Osage by himself, yet he still is an outsider, a white man. It's actually a brilliant ending.
I got what he was doing, I just didn't like it
I absolutely love going to movies. went Sunday to see this film, popcorn, relaxed & comfortable. No cell phone. just 3+ hours of outstanding entertainment. can't beat the big screen.
After watching the film for myself I have to agree with you, I felt so disappointed once the credits started rolling, I expected so much more from Mr. Scorsese.
The director has to make a choice on what they think will sell
@@nosuchthing8Can you write a script direct perform film ? Anything at all ? Then shut up...
It was excellent.
Why though? Scorsese only ever tells stories from the white male pov
He the goat but is currently falling off the bone.
The Osage community was very heavily involved in this project from the very start. Chief Standing Bear, principal chief of the Osage nation, said after the screening at Cannes, "Through the years, every agreement, every treaty the Osage ever had with white men were broken, and our trust betrayed. With this film, Mr. Scorsese has earned and restored our trust." Molly Burkhart's granddaughter has also given her complete approval. A number of Osage have seen it as an honest and accurate representation. So, I'm sorry, but Mr. Scorsese did NOT "do them dirty".
Agreed
So true, people are so quick to make assumptions or draw to conclusions instead of doing some simple research. It is true Scorsese didn't do the Osage or Native Americans "dirty" with this film. I think the who people are not satisfied with this film are the ones who want to believe that every white person is so pure and innocent. And I've noticed it's other minority groups that are kinda critical against this film. So sad it had to take a white man to put on screen the real history of what the osage people went through.
"Theaters are dead and they don't know it".
What a horrible take.
The movie experience will NEVER be surpassed.
@@nicholassullivan1239 That's your opinion. Just as credible as any other. Do you have volumes of data showing the movie experience will NEVER be surpassed? I'm thinking no. Classic case of wishful thinking.
@@hailoweenhailoween5264 I've seen her same argument several times, now, and I think it's a case of misdirected anger. They are angry about the historical events being portrayed (accurately) as they watch the film (hint: you're SUPPOSED to get angry), and they then redirect the anger at Scorsese instead of applauding him showing it in all its ugliness. In effect, they are shooting the messenger.
I agree wholeheartedly with you on what I wanted to see in this movie. More of the story through Molly’s eyes, her mother’s and sisters’ stories and the Osage men, regardless of their unawareness of the horrific plots against them. We already knew that the white man had evil intentions, as history has depicted, but the tribal leader’s speech was not enough to make me feel like the tribe was doing whatever they could to outsmart the atrocities against them. Maybe the tribe did not want that much of their story out there. I just wanted to see that they put up a fight somehow. And I hated the radio show skit at the end, what a way to add insult to injury. The director’s comments at the end did nothing to help the Osage cause.
I'd like to offer an opinion: I think that Scorsese agrees with the Osage consultant, going by the ending. He's basically saying that their tragedy is still being exploited by America and that most tragedies are exploited by media. It also implies that Scorsese might be a part of that problem.
Scorsese kept his favorites in this film. I saw it. I have a problem that the character of Ernest was 19 in real life, (Leo 49) when he came to live with his uncle (De Niro 81) when William Hale, was 41. That the actors were both twice the age of their characters does change how the viewers would perceive their actions. I liked the film. Yet, the age difference changes the story.
_"A guy wondering around, being shitty."_
Thank you!
The theater experience being dead may very well depend on where you live because I saw this film at 6:15 and it was fine. And no thumping bass from Tay Tay either. 😂😂😂😂 That snore part killed me! 😂
Yeah. I have had a great theater experience the last three movies I watched but this one was just horrible.
You completely described in full detail my main criticism of the film. This is coming from a guy that went in blind, without having read the book. My friends gave me a BIG rundown of what the film left out afterwards and a better adaptation could definatly been made.
I want to know from both of you 'what it is you want EXPLAINED'?
I believe you know every well - why - this happened, and why the Osage were doomed.
I also think it's clearly *shown* in the film - even if it is not delivered in exposition.
And this I think leaves some in the audience in denial of what the movie is saying.
Is there an audiobook you can listen to?
Here comes Tarantino with an alternative reality movie where the white men get slaughtered by the Osage people.
Glorious Basterds?
Totally agree! Hard to find a review that has any critique of this movie.
Just finished watching this film and it was GOOD! Molly stole the scenes she was in and Leo was great as usual.
This story needed to be told! We already know Americans don't get taught about in schools. Why would they? Any critisism of the "great" USA isn't allowed... Great film, the Osage are happy with it and their story has finally been told.
7,4❤
THANK YOU! I saw Killers of the Flower Moon Friday night, and came away with exactly the same impression as you. This is a bloated, meanding, mess of a movie. It drags on aimlessly for nearly 3 1/2 hours and yet somehow manages to not answer some of the most important questions about what happened. How? Why? Instead we get lots of pretty cinematography, two dimensional characters, and that ridiculous radio play epilogue. I was dismayed to see all the RUclips reviews just vomiting praise on Scorsese, typical access media sycophants. Subscribed.
Thank you! ♥️♥️
Molly should have been the main character.
And , I still get a thrill going to see a movie on the big screen. It will be a sad day if theaters close
Thank you so much for articulating how I’ve been feeling in the last several weeks after I saw it opening weekend. The only thing I could bring myself to say about it was “It didn’t seem long enough.” What I was trying to say was exactly what you’ve articulated: not enough focus was on the really complicated internal issues happening with the characters. I wanted to know more about Molly’s experience. I wanted to know more of how the investigation was conducted. If the story was going to center on the marriage, what kind of inner-conflict was at play? Since I saw the movie I’ve been struggling with how to explain my reaction to it and whether or not I should recommend it to people. Thank you so much for helping me clarify how I feel about it! I’m going to recommend this video to people who have seen it and are struggling to make sense of their reactions.
I love the film but feel that Apple should have developed the project as a 7-1 0 episode mini series.
OMG - you experienced the essence of America, Native American Genocide, but Taylor Swift says...shake it off! Sheer poetry.
I like Scorsese's film by the way, but I agree with a part of your and others criticism.
I will tell you this: *Virtually every film made in America about white supremacy* [or are we not even allowed to say - the topic - of this film (?) - most reviewers are scared and don't.] fails.
This is because as long as the film's are made by White Americans they are almost 100% guaranteed to be fundamentally limited by perspective and lifetime of cultural conditioning which they *cannot* transcend.
They can reflect - guilt, often, or resentment, or sadness, or confusion, or pity.
But there is something missing........ RAGE.
That's what this film needs and that is a place Scorsese cannot go.
The best American film ever made about racism - is Spike Lee's *Do the Right Thing* which at the time predictably was snubbed by the Oscars in favor of "Driving Miss Daisy."
The one where the nice knee-grows [which Morgan Freeman knowingly Tom's for - for his entire career] accept their subordinate place in the white mans country. [which is how most of white America prefers to see the country and woe unto anyone who threatens that delusion].
LBJ - like me - knew and lived this reality 1st hand and is one of the few American leaders to speak the quiet part out loud:
_"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."_
The Osage were doomed because the entirety of white American could not abide an upper class of Native Americans who reduced whites to implicit servitude as is the logical imperative of their own - money based - capitalist ideology.
The police - the courts - the media and public would rather just kill the Osage and take what's rightly 'theirs' due their race and skin color.
The Osage did fight. In Ohio, in Mississippi. They lost.
Oklahoma proved just as Tulsa [where Black Wall Street was bombed in a terrorist attack BY PLANE by - white America - because America must only be for whites], that even if the Osage had money and power - white America would destroy them.
Sometimes the bad guys win. That's not too hard to understand.
But what is impossible for Scorsese and most American critics to admit is this:
*Sometimes the BAD GUY is not a guy at all, not an individual, but rather an ENTIRE, NATION, CULTURE AND PEOPLE.*
I'll add something on to LBJ's truthful observation.
If you give white American Barack Obama.....they will reveal themselves to be - Donald Trump.
Still - good movie, and Scorsese's best since Goodfellas.
😢I hear white people say "get over it." Like the government still don't put laws and regulations design to work against natives today.
I work in a town on Navajo Nation near Monument Valley. Tourist don't get why my people are poor, live in shacks, and serve no alcohol.😅
@@Strangerz64
Your rant is so off
Blah blah
Stop blaming whites for certain groups downfall!
Why are they still on the bottom rungs of society after being given so many goodies and opportunities.
No ones under a crumbled building during an earthquake.
Look at yourselves!
Leo: *poisoning his own wife*
The walls of the theatre: MARRY ME JULIET 🗣🗣🗣
And I swear there was also snoring in my theatre!!!
It was so jarring hearing Taylor Swift as the sounding for this movie of all movies
Alachia given the noise in the theater where you watched, I don't know how or whether you could appreciate Robertson's soundtrack of this film - there was a quiet drumbeat that was mesmerizing.
I don't agree that Ernest didnt have a story to tell, I think it was just not a story you were expecting/not one you preferred to see(which makes perfect sense!). Having had no knowledge of these events before the movie, I found that the presentation of Ernest as the protagonist led me to consider throughout: at what point is he no longer simply doing what hes told, or willfully ignorant, or intimidated? Where along the line are he, or the doctors, or the financial guardian in terms of responsibility for these atrocities?
By the end of the film its plain that all of them are jointly involved and should all shoulder responsibility for what happened. The story of the film for me felt like a perfect device for commentary to the audience to look at ourselves and what unspoken things we may turn a blind eye to today, and to consider what systems exist that we benefit from which extracts value from others. And by showing you this story through the eyes of the conspirators you feel how Ernest lies to himself about everything. The same types of lies we tell ourselves every day we use products made from exploited labor for example. To do so while bringing these tragedies to light for entire generations of people is special, even if certain elements of the execution leave a lot to be desired. In particular I very much agree that the movie leaves you to question why these women married the white men in the first place, or seemed powerless to identify what was happening around them and I dislike that a lot.
I think a lot of what you wanted was part of the story in unwritten ways. Did it deserve a D? No way. Strongly disagree. I also loved that the direct ancestors of people killed were involved in this film.
This is by far the most important thing.
thanks for the in depth review and I'm glad you're making so many reviews again :) it's a head scratcher that 3 other review channels gave pretty glowing reviews of this movie, channels that are not inclined to give false/fake praise ... your review seems grounded and well thought out though
Interesting review and I do agree with you, i would LOVE to see the movie you were expecting cause that what I was expecting and wanted to see as well..HOWEVER Scorsese, IMO, can't make that movie. Plus, i'm happy that this story is coming about and to see so many Osage people behind it and on the red carpet. Is it a great movie in that sense? hell no. but I think it takes an osage to tell and film the story that i want to see. I wanted to see more of Molly and less of Ernest, without a doubt. But I do feel scorsese tried to show the complexity of the evil coming from inside those homes, and I think its much more interesting that the version of the perspective of the fbi - i think that would be way worse.
Finally a review that calls out that weird ending radio play. The movie was about serious events and then they end it with some silly performance like that with funny sound effects and all followed by a real native dance which made it feel even more bizarre and out of place.
This was a film about the brutality of white supremacy and white supremacist violence. I would love to see a film made by an Osage director that focuses on the Osage people themselves, but that wasn't the story that Scorcese could tell. This film shows the horrors of white complicity to white supremacy. This film wasn't the film that you wanted to see, but I think that this blinded you to the power of the film that you did see.
Oddly enough I just had a similar experience at the movies with the sleeping ,snoring person,but I love the Theatre experience you just have to choose better locations,good review of the movie one thing I took from the movie is The dominant group that exist today really haven't changed much they are down with OPA,other people's assets by any means necessary
This movie is all hype. Leonardo and Robert DeNiro were mis-cast. Complex relationships were absent, it is a shallow version of love, murder, and mystery. Leonardo is 49 years old and he is playing a young guy coming home from war. Also, DeNiro is New Yorker, he has no business in Oklahoma. The movie feels empty.
No no no no no no no no, Alachia. The theatrical experience is the only reason I watch movies. I HATE streaming platforms and their agenda of enslaving us to a TV screen, out of the outer world, in the Matrix. But I love you channel and I’m watching your review.
You may be correct…streaming has caused a decline and maybe the demise of the movie/theater industry. Now that people are so accustomed to watching films in their own home, they feel quite free to behave in the same way when they are out in a public place. Phones light up, children run through the theater, people talk out loud at any moment with no regard for others etc…That said. I’m happy when I pay next to nothing to see a film on TV I would not otherwise see. If it’s a dog, I can turn it off.
You are correct, and any other opinion on this is incorrect.
I love the big screen, too. In order to avoid some of the crazy stuff at movie theaters, I have stared going to the earliest show time. A lot fewer people there then.
Also, Scorsese portrayed the Osage people as simpletons, composites, abstractions. In the end, it is just Hollywood waste, another movie without quality story telling.
He didn’t include it because once again he’s a white man directing a story about a community of colour . Me being a person of colour myself .
I just seen an interview with Margie Burkhart, Mollie Burkhart’s granddaughter. She said she seen it twice and it’s gotten her approval. She was a consultant on the film. So if she approves it, who are we to criticize.
I think its great to have the granddaughter give the stamp approval. But it does not by all mean a compelling story. For someone that don't know anything about OSAGE murder, it is just another crime drama. Well directed crime drama.
LMAO, one person does not represent the entire community. Also, Hollywood has been known to pressure minorites to "green light" stories they are not comfortable with, or disagree with. I work in entertainment, this crap happens all the time.
That one person's opinion holds more weight than many others.
The tribe and family endorse this film.
@@nicholassullivan1239 the granddaughter part…..guess they didn’t see that.
@@nicholassullivan1239 LMAO it absolutely does not. That's like Obama or Oprah being the spokes person for black people. Absolutely not. None of these ethnic groups are a monolith.
I definitely feel like it’s very much like a true crime series like Dahmer in a lot of ways. You have a great actor play the lead role which has a lot of pressure due to the stance that he is the villain of the story while being the protagonist. As well as dialing up on showing the brutality of the murders. This is also Marty at his angriest and you can tell. I don’t think he maliciously intended for the Osage to be victimized to the point where they were just another victim and that’s why he takes it upon himself to tell us how they’re still being taken advantage of to this day. I do agree with your assessment on the bit roles by Frazier and Plemmons and definitely wished we would’ve seen more but it’s already 3 1/2 hours. Overall, it’s definitely a great film, but it does have its flaws and probably the most Scorsese film in a while.
Good review, as a non-American who has never heard of the Osage previously it's disappointing that the focus isn't where it needs to be. I'm still looking forward to watching, but will do a bit more research on the side to get the full picture.
The film is excellent. Saw it 3x in theatres.
As an aboriginal canadian I found this portrayal entirely accurate. Right down to the diabetes
I feel the perspective was very much showing the “white” Americans and their different contributions to the harms and their power at the time. It was less heavy handed than “There Might Be Blood” or similar pieces from American history. I am no expert in the book or the history, but I felt like I was looking at ancestors or relatives of my grandparents as they might have been playing a role in the events that harmed the Osage people. It was amazing to watch the literal nonplussed conversations about doing harm to people because the criminals did not consider the victims human in the same way. It was very deep on that level: the racist speech of the grandparents in that one scene about Molly’s children, the discussion of the Osage people at the start that almost seemed to honor and respect their language and culture, the interactions with doctors. All these moments capture the experience of non white Americans who have seen things that well meaning white people of today cannot imagine participating in, including in the professions that have ethics based on the unethical actions of these times. All the conversations about incompetency and guardianship were in the movie: I have not fully explored what the ramifications were, but I know how powerful those terms are today.
There is so much there about power and lack of power. The moments where the Osage people gathered and talked about not having an enemy to fight or a way to protect or stand up for their people were so powerful. There was tremendous subtlety that critiqued the American experience for the Osage people and the powerful majority who became enraptured with the story according to the introduction of Alachia. It is not for me to say whether this is the best way to tell a story for the Osage people, but I appreciate that there were lessons for us white people who have dreamed of having a connection to Native peoples by blood. We may not even realize how insidious it was at one time for people to have even tried to use this concept through murder and crime for power and wealth.
First off, I LOVE the communal experience of seeing a movie in a theater, so disagree with you on that. I just got back from the movie knowing nothing about the story. My takeaway was that Scorsese is a master and probably our greatest living director. As for the story and how it was told, I now want to read the book. I have so many questions, #1 of which is, WHY would these wealthy Indigenous women marry a bunch of loser-ass white dudes knowing they were after their money?! The matriarch brings it up, but it’s never addressed. And why was Molly so willing to stand by her man for so long? Longer than any sane person would have, knowing what she knew. So yeah, it did make the Osage people seem implausibly gullible. I would love to know the story from their POV.
Thanks for your excellent review. I was with a group of 5 people and all of us had negative opinions of the movie. I agree with most of your review. They made a huge mistake with ignoring the real heart of the Osage story. I would also say that i was really disappointed with Bobby Deniro and his overacting, basically playing "evil" and creating a character that was 1 dimensional.
Bobby and many of the other actors played caricatures of their characters.
I was extremely disappointed with this movie
Great review. I didn't like it, but couldn't put my finger on why I found the story so boring as it seems great on paper. I think your history lesson explains why I felt like something was missing. Ta!
@9:16 I think that this is one thing about the movie that really deserved criticism, which is why it is hard for me to blame anyone who left the theater boggled/confused and therefore ending up not liking/enjoying the movie. I mean, I know that one shouldn't assume and treat their audience to be dumb and have every bit of information spoon-fed to them, but with the movie already being 3.5 hours long, you'd think that this problem would've been avoided.
I was fortunate that I happened to watch a few documentaries about the Osage (here in YT) before I even found out about this movie this year.
❤ thank you so much for this review, I completely agree with everything said. Great review!
...same in the UK it is terrible going to the cinema in 2023 and so expensive too. Great review, cannot wait to see it, at home!
What was missing from the film for me was why did Molly and her sisters all marry White Guys? And you explained it in your spoiler review, Malachi. They all went to East Coast boarding schools, and were taught that marrying White was their ticket for inclusion into White American Society. They were supposed to be the hip new generation of indigenous people who could negotiate the culture divide, but they couldn't. And Scorcese could have showed us that, but he didn't.
Other than the 10 minute scene of Mollie and Ernest talking before the storm, there was practically no character development at all in relation to any of the Osage. The book did a far better job with this. It was a sadly missed opportunity.
This film was hard to watch as an indigenous person. Not because of the content but because of its perspective. Stop trying to make me sympathise with these white men. I want an indigenous perspective that's more Schindler's List as in white colonisers should be portrayed as evil as the Nazis. Because that's what it was actually like.
DiCaprio spends the entire movie auditioning for the role of Grumpy Cat. Which I guess makes sense, given he has the exact same expression on all posters and other media advertising this film.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that annoying. I wonder if it had to do with the false teeth or if it was an active choice
I felt the cinematography and acting were exceptional, yet the film could've been trimmed down a bit...Especially the repetition of insulin use
Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker are a wonderful team, I just think they needed to cut the fat of this and give a bit more for Molly to display because she was excellent
I am so shocked at the reception for the fbi radio show recreation at the end. People seem to love it but I was disgusted by it. We don't need true crime social commentary (if that's what people are considering it) to bookend a movie about attempted genocide.
I’m glad you said it cause that’s exactly why it ended that way. The white people have always taken advantage/exploit/sensationalized trauma of other cultures for personal gain. That’s exactly why the movie ended the way it did I’m glad you caught it but the message wasn’t received on your end obviously.
A dialog is more likely to result from this.
That's far better than not😊
I believe there are much more important dialogue's that could be taking place rather than one of how complacent Scorsese is for sensationalizing this story by making it about a white man@@nicholassullivan1239
I completely agree with everything you said. I think it would’ve been a good idea to follow the Burkharts but he didn’t commit. In the end, he might as well have told the white savior movie. Either way, he probably would’ve mucked that up if he didn’t talk about how the FBI used this one win to gain legitimacy for their fucked up corrupt future practices.
Although he brought in a lot of Osage consultants, I don’t know if there is a way he could’ve focused on Mollie’s POV being a white male director? I feel like people wouldn’t have liked that either. But I agree that it would’ve been a much more compelling story and added some much needed context.
See INDIAN HORSE for an example of a white director who beautifully worked with the First Nations writer of the novel of the same name.
And if they felt generic it was because the Osage had become generic. The film shows how colonial settler capitalism deeply muddied the Osage, we had Indigenous peoples who were themselves floundering as many adopted the traps that come with huge money. They had lost their ways, their ceremonies, traditions. That was highlighted very well. You had the beautiful scenes where Molly’s mother discussed things with Molly, accusing the daughters of letting the white men into their lives.
And you mentioned that the story was talked about in American society at the time - how do you think people learned about it? Newspapers, and in the radio plays that were popular at the time. They were the equivalent of the plethora of true crime A&E / 2020 documentaries that air on TV today.
Netflix also had nothing to do with the project. Apple owns it.
Movies are still a good experience as long as you get a good audience. Like many, I try to catch matinees because of the smaller, more restrained crowd. Still nothing like munching on hot popcorn while watching a good flick.
Thank you for this review. It was very insightful. I've seen so many critics raving about how amazing this epic Scorsese film is. It is definitely not one of his best movies. It would have been amazing, if they focused more about the Osage families, and how they became victims. I feel this movie was too long, and probably would have been better as a mini-series. The editing in the 2nd half became more confusing. (Spoiler Alert:) Can someone explain this to me? There was a series of scenes where King was tying up loose ends, and the one bad guy was driving in his car, and started bleeding from under his hat, and then he crashed the car. How did that happen?? Also, with all of the characters/names, it became more confusing, and empty towards the end. I also feel nonplussed about Oppenheimer. I believe Poor Things & The Holdovers are better films.
I finally got around to watching it & I was disappointed too. I think if it was edited & the script tightened up it could've been okay, but the pacing as is was dragging/bloated. Very disappointed, I was expecting much better. It took me 2 days to finish this.
But I think I'll read the book. It sounds interesting.
Never felt during the three times I saw this movie, never felt like I didn’t understand what happened - never felt that they were generic “Indian” victims. Having read the book though, this may have been better adapted as a long form mini series, of 7-10 episodes, 60-90m long.
Two good films you should see about how horrible Indigenous people were treated in different countries: INDIAN HORSE, as well as RABBIT PROOF FENCE.
Apparently the Osage murders continued into the 1980s.
It is unique how a white guy Martin Scorsese handed this tragedy. The plot could have been structured as no more than your average suspenseful crime drama but instead the real murders themselves were handled so much differently. The murders were given no more importance than the killing of annoying mice infesting a house. That jarringly uncomfortable yet entertaining radio play was the perfect epilogue to tie the moral of the whole play together. Our culture was incapable of seeing the humanity that was that was right there before our eyes.
If you’re looking for your run of the mill crime drama you will find this film it to be a supreme disappointment. Your disappointment simply shows how much you missed the point of this play. The problem is that this film is so much larger than your bland patented drama that will bore you to death. The story is about inhumanity. My prediction. In time this film will probably not be given a rating of A. This film will be rated as an American classic.
I know where you are coming from. I think if one comes from a historical point of view, it can be a disappointing experience. You have to keep in mind that this is not a documentary; it's a movie, a drama.
To me, the decision was okay to switch from the FBI side to the Osage side. But of course, if you are very interested in that part, it's disappointing. Scorceses said that the osage emphasized that he shouldn't forget that Ernest and Molly were in love; it's kind of a love story, and that he wanted to explore how they could have been in love and that this tragedy was about love, trust, and betrayal. So if you see it from this perspective, it makes sense. It wasn't meant as an exploration of the Osage culture. It was meant to show the relationship between Molly and Ernest and the things around them.
I think it's not the film's purpose or duty to explain everything accurately in the sense of a documentary or like a true crime series. It's a drama that explores the emotional center of a tragedy with some artistic freedom. It makes people think about the topic, read about it, and put it back in their heads.
I would have more to say, but I don't want to spam this whole comment section xD Last but not least, don't forget it's a scorcese film.
Therefore, it feels like a scorcese film and some parts are more empathized than others. :)
Saw this film 3x in theatres. So good!
Thank you so very much. I’ve waded through so many fawning reviews, I wanted a non-white take on this because watching it made me feel so sickeningly uncomfortable watching the humanisation of the white characters, and an audience that was sated of any historical complicity, as well as being told he really loved her.
White guilt assuaged again.
I respectfully have to disagree that white guilt was assuaged in this movie. The white murderers were despicable.
Everytime a historical movie comes out everyone complains about "why wasn't there more of this and this and that." Why didn't this movie have all the things I care about and none of the things I don't care about!?! Well, two reasons. One, because it's not a seven season tv series. It's already a very long movie to include as much detail as it did. And two because spending 200 million dollars to perfectly craft a movie for you specifically in order to gain your $10 and only your $10 would be idiotic and the fact that you're so myopic that you can't understand the folly of spending that kind of money to make what is essentially a documentatry is itself idiotic.
The only honest review about this film. Everyone is so afraid to criticize Scorsese. The Irishman was garbage too.
I guess if you take Scorsese out of Long Island or Las Vegas he just falls apart.
Great review. Made some great points but I still thought the movie was very good 8.5 out of 10 for me. Still a depressing and oppressive movie that saddened me. It is a movie that opened my eyes to a part of history I didn't know about. It was well acted and I was never bored. Your valid issues didn't ruin the movie for me. It could have been so much better though.
The last good movie going experience I had was first premier for the Lord of the Rings. By "good" I mean where no one bother anyone else, no phones, no distractions. It was just a few hundred nerds sitting in reverence, enjoying the movie fully. Literally _every_ other showing there has been something that severely detracted from movie watching experience. It just doesnt work any more, everyone has their own idea of how you "watch" a movie. Theatres are well past dead in my book.
When I heard Scorsese was going to direct this GREAT story i KNEW he would focus on the sh*thead villains rather than the main content and theme of the book. He's ADDICTED to bad guys.... what a waste. This could've been an all-time great western film, but they hired the wrong director.
Bad guys are usually the most interesting
I've had a few bad experiences with the theatre. Mostly people talking about loud, kids can be annoying if they're pre-teens or early teens. My last bad one was the fire alarm going off watching A Sound Of Freedom but after 10 or so minutes, everything was fine. Yeah, maybe a total of 7 bad experiences and I went to a lot of movies. For me, I love going to see movies if they're good of course. I can focus more for some reason. There was one time when me and my friends were trying to see Donnie Brasco, it was sold out and we ended up going to see the re-release of one of the Star Wars movies instead. Good thing considering there was a gang shooting/murder during that showtime where the guy was killed in the front seat and the killer came through the fire exit that was intentionally left open for him to do the deed. Chaos ensued of course. A friend of mine had a nephew that was able to get tickets and he said they all ran for the door, screaming etc. Amazingly that one target gang member was the only one shot.
Holy crap!!
That seems to be the biggest complaint about the film. Even the Osage consultants said the same thing. One of them stated that the Osage Murders would be better told by an actual Osage filmmaker.
And how would the story look like.
It'll look no different from Marty's original plot.
The hero's journey.
@@Unsweetened8618 I don’t know, I’m not Osage
@@toneriggz But you some how assume.
They'll give a better perspective?
It'll be the same thing, you got what this film.
Different is.
Mollie would be the lead.
"But she didn't crack the case. Tom White did. She was clueless."
I don't wont to watch a film about a clueless person.
I rather watch a film about the hero's journey or a criminal.
@@Unsweetened8618 I didn’t assume anything. I mentioned that it was a common complaint and that the actual consultants agreed.
Apparently this movie has been more well received than not by the tribe and family members?
Peope arw entitled to incorrect opinions, but I'm going to defer to the tribe and the families that are the subject of this film😊
The type of cinema hall that shows the film really affects the experience. It’s not always possible to find a decent theater experience in every town.
I just got unlucky with this viewing.
I get entertained by non native start to act as natives first of all... You comments are only opinions, they change from day to day. Bottom line, Native's are always here with both tragic/romantic/longevity in the land of our America. As for other cultures to comentate.... Compensate your own culture first. I give you a 4 thumbs down..
Best review of this movie I have seen. I completely relate, too many others are just M.S. fanboys. I was also very annoyed about how the Osage perspective is largely missing.
Fun fact: Did you know during the Trail of Tears the Natives were in fact humming "Shake It Off"
Kept morale up i heard
Should have asked for a refund for that experience.
I considered it
But what did you actually think of the movie? All of your critiques of the movie boil down to what you wanted the movie to be and what you expected to watch on screen. This person said she’d rather see the white savior version of this movie. I am not joking she really said this. Also disagree with what she thought of Lily Gladstone performance. I think she is in incredible and I disagree she definitely does a lot in this movie, it’s just subtle so it goes over peoples heads. the ending is not disrespectful as she says she just didn’t get the ending lol. Anyways go watch the movie for yourselves.
Wow Alachia, we had the same experience here in the UK with the Taylor Swift movie soundtrack blaring in the neighboring studio. It made the whole experience completely annoying, plus it took you out of the film. At the end loads of us complained and the manager gave us all refunds.
I should have asked for a refund..
Yes you should of 😅 Glad you're doing more reviews. Always appreciate your perspective.
maybe the choice of the Taylor Swift soundtrack was to highlight the dystopian theme?
I had the same thought that this story would have made more sense from the perspective of the (then new) FBI. It’s hard to say for sure without knowing what that version would have looked like, but yeah-suffice it say you’re not wrong.
Yes, but what about the real tragedy:
The time the air-conditioning went out in my Mercedes when I drove by the Osage territory!
The worst week of my life.
I love going to theaters - I avoid cheapo theaters generally, because I want the best experience. Places like Chinese Theater in LA are an awesome place to see a show,
Thank you very much for your kind words 🙏🏼
It was pretty obvious to me that the Osage were marginalized in a racist society that knew natives dying under suspicious circumstances was unlikely to garner attention. They have to go to Washington to get something done about it, it’s not like they were completely helpless. Also you seem to miss the point of the ending, it shows how horrendous tragedies like these get trivialized through mass entertainment. To each their own, though.
Everything said about the movie is exactly how I felt. Your disappointment's are precisely accurate and truthful. What was put out there what the movie is about was nothing I saw. It was a different movie than what was portrayed to be. Lily Gladstone for best supporting actress is accurate because of what she was given. I learned much more from Lily Gladstone speaking about Osage outside from the movie than anything Not provided by the movie. I appreciate that.
Interesting review. Going to see it this weekend. Marty chose to tell the story of the Burkharts because he said that their marriage was a metaphor for the relationship between natives and white settlers, which is valid and an interesting story to tell. Perhaps the best to be told about this tragedy. I did here it more focuses on Ernest rather than Mollie, which is disappointing. Scorsese loves morally conflicted people dealing with guilt and redemption, and that goes back to his Catholic upbringing. So i can see the reason for the focus on Ernest. Disappointed to learn that how the Osage fell victim to the whites is not explored much.
Lawyers and politicians did get laws passed making them guardians and trustees over the Osage oil rights, and many used this to scam the Osage out of millions via fraud. The guardianship is shown several times in the movie (e.g. an Osage worth 50 million, living on 500 acres, has to ask her guardian for $400!). The government eventually took over an managed their 'oil leases' and had to pay a $400 million dollar settlement. (Not shown). Do you know how utterly silly and boring a movie about defrauding the Osage would be vs. the incarnate evil (showing the ONLY solved Osage murders by the pre-FBI) in the movie? Scorcese (and the book it's based on) made the right decision and present a great movie and compelling drama. The Osage tradition is fully presented (births (you are given a name that will be used in the hereafter), wedding and funerals are shown; a haunting sequence featuring an Owl is shown. Morning prayers by the River. Traditions of Sun, (flower) Moon, Fire etc. are explained. Native Osage dialect is spoken liberally all through the movie, sometimes with NO subtitles). They were the richest per capita people o earth and are also shown shopping until they drop and dressing 'American' and driving expensive cars. Lily Gladstone is equal or better to DeCaprio and DeNiro. All three should be nominated. The ending using a old time movie radio show to explain what happened to everyone, is brilliant and fits in with the era perfectly. Scrolling the results would have destroyed the mood created. Ignore this and go see the movie that 94% like on R. Tomatoes.
I appreciate your comment but totally disagree
Not to be rude but in my theater, I had people just Tooting up a storm. A serious moment would happen then I hear the loudest POOT. Like seriously people, have some decorum.
I love the films, but I understand your frustration. Particularly about why the Osage people come off as dumb. I felt like I’d need to read the book to fill in the gaps. I’ve heard other critics express the same thing about the Osage nation taking a literal backseat in their historical film because (let’s be real) Scorsese would’ve struggled to get a decent budget if he did have Leonardo DiCaprio.
If they come off as dumb then that’s more on audiences and the western education system failing to teach the real histories, and how basically governments in the USA, Canada, NZ, and Australia among others were all basically working to exterminate and culturally erase Indigenous peoples. The film portrays the different ways Indigenous peoples responded to what happened, slowly over a long period of time - to name one example, you had the one guy, addicted to alcohol and without any connection to life outside of that. My heart broke for him. He was most definitely representative of how many First Nations ended up (and I know Indian as a term is openly used in the USA but most countries outside of that, it’s not an acceptable term to use. In Canada it’s rarely used, or if it is, it’s in two contexts - the law, as we still have the racist legislation called the Indian act on our books - or if an Indigenous person uses it with another Indigenous person / kind of like how the N word was taken back by blacks only for use by them).
Awesome and honest! Thank you for this review Alachia! Everyone always schills for Martin Scorsese, and while I loved his older films...the newer ones not so much. I was skeptical on this one but went anyway and you confirmed all of my opinions as well. I found it very disappointing and was very annoyed by the ending as well.
Being a massive fan of the book that inspired it, I was pleased by the ending of Killers of the Flower Moon. No spoilers but it does a good job emphasizing how such a terrible crime against the Osage was diluted by history. Little too long, but Scorsese killed it yet again.
Sounds like Marty was trying to tell it with the closest he could get to a gangster spin.
Personally I like Scorsese the most when he’s making something that’s not in his comfort zone. My favorite movie of his is After Hours, would love to hear your take on that one. It’s a dark comedy.
I have given up the theater. It’s supposed to be fun and there as so many glaring technical problems (lights on, rattling shot speakers, cropped off image etc.) and annoying people (running around taking flash photos, talking etc.) that it was just stressful.
By the way I hear Scorsese is a Swiftie 😜
You are right- the theatrical experience is dead even though they have the cushy seats. When I went to the theatre last week to see this movie, there were only 5 people in there.
I thought the movie sucked for essentially all the same reasons. Why is everyone so in love with it? They botched an epic story.
The main problems with cinemas is the presence of other people, and the cost of the SNACKS! I only go see what I am really keen on and think will be a safe bet now.
Thank you! I just order the book instead! :)
Maybe you should stick with Disney's Star Wars.... that seems to be your wavelength of enjoyment.
Oh the irony
I am going to watch this movie a hour from now on IMAX. I hope the Swifties don’t ruined the moment.
Hopefully there are now showings of the concert next to your theater like mine!!
@@Alachiahappened to me too! Could hear epic clapping and music from the adjacent theater
Two points of disagreement:
-like it or not, just as in real life, the antagonists are the most interesting dynamic characters so it makes sense to tell stories from their point of view. Michael Corleone is the most interesting person in the Godfather. Patrick Bateman is the most interesting person in American Psycho. Travis Bickel is the most interesting person in Taxi Driver.
-saying that the full Osage story wasn’t told in this movie is like watching Do the Right Thing and complaining about why Spike Lee didn’t fully explore Italian/black race relations in 1908s New York. A director’s sole purpose is the bring his/her artistic vision onto the screen without bowing to the changeable fickle pressures of the audience. In this case, Scorsese chose to tell the story from the villains’ despicable point of view and that was his artistic intent.
Totally agree with your assessment of the movie.
The movie was great. This review deserves a D.