What do people think of "Killers of the Flower Moon"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a fan of Leo on a personal level, but I think he’s amazing in almost everything he’s been in.

+1 except for titanic where he’s awful. He’s great in wolf of Wall Street and catch me if you can. He’s also good in aviator and inception.

I thought I was the only one who ever noticed this. I literally walked out of Titanic I thought it was so bad.

I hated that whole movie and laughed out loud while people were crying. I have no shame.

[Anonymous]

I think Leo is a good actor, but all his latest roles were him keeping his mouth down in some contortion.
He looks like any beer-drinking German today.
I think he should have taken on a role in some huge action or superhero movie. It would have made him more money and he would have kept his looks longer.
And yes, this might be bigotted, but he lives off his looks. Why not sue both?

[Anonymous]

Painfully boring. Worst movie I’ve ever seen. And I love Leo.

[Anonymous]

If the white men were sooooo evil why did the Indian women keep marrying them over and over year after year?

[Anonymous]

What is off putting about Leo IRL? I don’t follow him, but am aware he is often photographed on boats with bikini clad models (for PR?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw it last night and disappointed. Loved the book so maybe that was inevitable. To give Scorsese some credit, I think he tried to move it away from the focus on the FBI investigation but unfortunately I think the book’s twisty detailed plot is largely what made it a compelling read. The focus on the Mollie/Ernest relationship felt a bit contrived (imagine they didn’t have much material on it) and the Ernest character wasn’t so interesting. Some of the imagery was beautiful and interesting but there wasn’t much depth to the Osage characters.

+1

I don’t understand why there isn’t more criticism for focusing on Leo and DeNiro’s characters and never fleshing out more of the Osage characters other than Mollie? They are portrayed so one dimensionally- they are either drunk or sad/sick. It was so disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Saw it today. I think it should become a staple in high schools as much as Schindler's list is for the teaching of the holocaust. It tells such a bleak and ugly part of American history so well.

It was jarring at first to see these rich native Americans living seemingly healthily among rich whites in that time frame, almost utopian. Of course it was all an illusion.

What struck me most was the darkness of De Neros character and his long term subtle manipulation tactics. He is an excellent wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I am glad to have seen it in the cinema, the cinematography is gorgeous However, It was produced by Apple + for ultimately Apple + and the run time reflects that. It will be perfect as a 3 x 1 hour streaming experience.

Agree with this. Such an important story that should be taught in all schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the white men were sooooo evil why did the Indian women keep marrying them over and over year after year?

Internalized racism. But also plenty of people marry people they don’t realize are evil.

[Anonymous]

I like historical films but this was hands down the most boring movie I’ve watched in years. Made it through the first 30 minutes and called it quits.

[Anonymous]

I would’ve gladly watched a movie about Mollie and her sisters hanging out and talking sht instead of De Niro playing a gangster for the 1000th time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the white men were sooooo evil why did the Indian women keep marrying them over and over year after year?

You seemed to have missed the whole point of the movie, that the Indian women were oppressed and under the thumb of the white men and the corrupt scheme to take Osage money and land. Is that so hard to grasp?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the white men were sooooo evil why did the Indian women keep marrying them over and over year after year?

Internalized racism. But also plenty of people marry people they don’t realize are evil.

I believe if they were married to white people they didn’t have to have a guardianship controlled by a government official. Many Natives were declared incompetent intentionally to give them a tax advantage on their wealth derived from the oil/land value. If they weren’t the US imposed massive taxes on their money so many Natives willingly signed guardianship documents. This means every time they wanted to spend money they needed to ask a guardian and there was a long bureaucratic process. If they were married to a white person they could act as their guardian giving them more freedom as they were married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw it last night and disappointed. Loved the book so maybe that was inevitable. To give Scorsese some credit, I think he tried to move it away from the focus on the FBI investigation but unfortunately I think the book’s twisty detailed plot is largely what made it a compelling read. The focus on the Mollie/Ernest relationship felt a bit contrived (imagine they didn’t have much material on it) and the Ernest character wasn’t so interesting. Some of the imagery was beautiful and interesting but there wasn’t much depth to the Osage characters.

+1

I don’t understand why there isn’t more criticism for focusing on Leo and DeNiro’s characters and never fleshing out more of the Osage characters other than Mollie? They are portrayed so one dimensionally- they are either drunk or sad/sick. It was so disappointing.

There were some complaints from the Osage nation if i am not mistaken but they were brushed off. They had mixed feelings which is understandable imo.

[Anonymous]

I am a big movie fan but hated this one! Bad storyline, convoluted and hard to follow, bad casting and way too long.

[Anonymous]

Had about an hours worth of film that could have gone in the Deleted Scenes in the bonus features dvd