The Hidden Villain in Killers of The Flower Moon 

What? That whole last scene was both awkward and cringeworthy, I have no idea what Scorsese was thinking with that one.

@@gurratell7326best scene in the movie

I teared up seeing him. That scene was brilliant!

​@@gurratell7326I have to agree on this. I totally get what Scorsese was trying to achieve with the scene and his cameo but for me it just failed for being so abruptly and unexpectedly cut into the film that the whole bit took me out of the immersion and distanced me from the events instead of feeling compassion.

I read the story a while before watching the movie and when I heard Di Caprio was on it, I was sure that he'd lay the Sheriff and be the protagonist. It was to me a shock to see that we'd be following the bad guys instead

On the other side of the coin, even before you know about the angle Scorcese considered and rejected, it's a really effective choice to portray the Bureau men so unsentimentally. It's good that they shut the murders down, but really they just turn up and get to work. They don't grandstand (and the movie doesn't confer grandeur on them), they don't mete out moral judgements (except for sardonic references to the "epidemic" which the community is shrugging off). They're just men doing their jobs. Which makes you consider how much complicity it required from the other authorities in the area itself.

I didn't take in the bit with the oil execs in the film, didn't hit home the scale of this sort of moral corruption though probably knew it was happening subconsciously. That sort of stuff was definitely happening nationwide in the states at the time

@@blokey8 , funny how The Wolf of Wall Street did something similar too. As it would be easy to clarify FBI Agent Denham as the villain, only until we see Jordan Belfort fall more into doing immoral things, that when Denham brings him in, most started to think that he's the hero. Except Scorsese portrayed him as neither. Just another guy doing his job.

It's pointless to show it, nothing have really changed

​@@stellviahohenheimHow has nothing changed? They have more self-determination.

@@johnnotrealname8168I disagree with the original commenter that it’s pointless to show it, but I do think they have a point that nothings changed. Indigenous people are still murdered and experience violence at much much higher rates than other groups. 4 in 5 Native people experience violence in their lifetime, and half have experienced sexual violence. That means if you know more than a couple native people, it’s extremely likely that at least one has experienced violence. It’s an ongoing, serious problem.

@@Eeeemomo Oh well that is similar to the Aboriginals. My point was regarding U.S. policy. I am sure they can badly govern themselves as much as any other group.

I was sure it would win best picture. I was really disappointed it didn't win anything. It deserved a lot more

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. We remember great movies, not Oscar winners. Many of the greatest movies didn't win awards. CODA won BP and it's already forgotten.

@@nickludwig5It definitely deserved best picture in my opinion, but it wasn’t going to win. Not over Oppenheimer. If released in a different year or maybe even earlier in the year, that might have been different. That being said, Scorsese’s last 4 films have all come back from the Oscars with nothing, unfortunately.

​@@CarlHH777you saying CODA wasn't good?

@@aussieseal9979 No, I'm saying it wasn't a special movie. A perfectly good and forgettable feelgood movie. On top of that, it's just a remake of a recent French film.

Personally I thought it was too long. And it took away the fun for me. It's not a reason for me never to watch it again, but then again watching a 3½ hour film doesn't happen every day for me. And there are a lot of other movies waiting in line before this one. The problem for me is it feels too predictable along the way. You know you need to go through all these murders and killings and it doesn't come with enough emotional thrills and scene stealers for me to be very invested. Either I don't feel the impact of these tragedies or I get numbed by the sheer amount. Where can the story take me when I already got the point 1½ hour in? Not even the characters are that interesting for me to care despite them being portrayed by some of the best actors the silver screen has ever seen. On a technical level everything is so perfectly executed (of course), and as a moviegoer you know you're being taken good care of. That is apart from the script. I think the problem lies in the script. It's too long, it's got too many characters, and lacks some extra magical moments for the long runtime. I would imagine some of it has to do with the turnaround of the adaptation that happened late in the production (of the script). Also I think it's no coincidence that the two longest Scorsese movies has been produced with streaming services that are longing for quality content. These big directors seems to be able to do whatever they like without studio executives interfering. And I don't think that's a good thing. Not even when it's Martin Scorsese. Compromises are not a bad thing for creativity and without them you often end up "going full retard." That's not to suggest this movie is retarded, but just that too much of anything isn't good. At the end of the day I'm having a hard time seeing what the film would ultimately lose from being 3 hours instead of 3½ hours.

@@jespersichlau4343you lost nothing either. If you actually “got” the point, then you *would have* been okay with feeling the idea for another hour or two. There is no “too long”.

@@Zythryl Well either I got the point early or I didn't get the point at all. Either way the longer running time didn't help. But please do enlighten me with the point if I happended to miss it. And yes there is such a thing as "too long" and you can bet your sweet juicy ass that's part of why it didn't win a single Oscar.

@@Zythrylstop being pretentious, there was nothing to “get,” it was a straightforward film based on true events. I liked it but didn’t love it and I also thought the movie was too long just not entertaining enough to warrant its runtime. Lots of repetitive scenes all displaying the same idea that didn’t drive the narrative forward which got tiring. Good movie but to me it’s one of Scorsese’s weaker films

​@@MM-jc7uvYeah definitely, there's absolutely nothing to get, it all seems to be going somewhere and they were building it up but then you realize, they've got nothing to show for all this buildup and patience they've demanded of us. It's all just a smoke show with no satisfying conclusion to the whole tragedy. You just end up questioning why it was told like this in the first place and why did it have to be soo damn long??

Yeah but that means he also convicted the criminals who carried out the murders.

Scorsese got paid a huge amount of money to profit of this tragedy. He's a pig.

So is he going to give all the money he made off of it back? Or just kick the ladder down so the next guy can't do what he profited off of?

​@@I-ONLY-BUILD-MECHS-AND-DUSTERSI think this is most definitely not what Martin Charles Scorsese was doing. He was showing that the community was still disregarded. Even after the trial Justice was perverted and hidden. The point is that the usual victory after the Court-Case did not happen.

That's debatable. It's possible that without Hitchcock we wouldn't have Spielberg or Scorsese

Not knocking your entire point here - but I think saying that Scorsese "has done much more for cinema than Hitchcock ever did" is a stretch. Hitchcock started making films in the silent era, and basically wrote the book on a certain type of cinematic language. I don't think we could even imagine what the film landscape would look like as a whole without Hitchcock's influence. Again, Scorsese has been massively influential in his own right, I just don't think the impact is as wide-reaching.

@@timsopinion Well, I totally agree, and my point is that Scorsese has influenced not only filmmaking, but film criticism, film preservation, restoration, curation, and so on, areas in which Hitchcock didn't work.

Good comparison, I think Alfred and Marty are toe to toe though

idk how people are even debating this. scorsese has been one of the most important, if not the most important, leaders in film preservation and restoration. his mark on cinema is far beyond just his work.

🤣🤣🤣

This aged well

hahaha, I'm pretty sure Thomas is not the first person to see the layers in this movie

Yeah way to wash away the murders of hundreds of Indians.

I agree, and as a Japanese lit major from many, many years ago, I recommend the excellent novel by Shusaku Endo upon which Scorcese based his film.

Very well said.

Technology is generally neutral, who wields it and what it is wielded for makes it good or bad. I say generally because things like oil extraction is objectively making our planet worse

That's actually the true meaning of "money is the root of all evil." It's not money that's evil, but valuing it above human life. Humanity should come above all.

Nah, Emma deserved it. Honestly this years best actress category was incredibly stacked in general.

@K.C-2049 she was fantastic

@@majinweabuu6679this is so true man god bless these talented women

its too long because you can cut probably 30 mins out of it and the film will be the same

I’ve read the book and get your complaints though disagree. They were initially going to make Tom the protagonist but worried that it would come off like a white savior story and that as a person, he really didn’t have any flaws. He was a straight shooter and works if you wanna tell the story of the origin of the FBI but would distract even more from the native POV. The Molly/Ernest focus is meant to be a microcosm of the community trauma and while I think it works, it can definitely vary. I feel like they narrowed the focus because it’s such a big story in scope that broadening out the character focus would get us lost

I do wish Scorcese filmed more from Molly's narrowed perspective, similar to Rosemary's Baby or Get Out, not just because the lack of information would add to the tension, but because it further forces the audience in the mindset of Molly and the Osage, living through a nightmare caused by those who are physically and sometimes intimately closest to them. That said, I do get the point of Ernest's perspective in showing the casualness and mundanity of it all to the white people of Osage. What is shocking and unthinkable to the Osage people and modern audiences was considered so normal and justified via a matter of fact belief in white supremacy that they barely thought of masking their actions and intentions. And Ernest being boring is also part of the narrative from my perspective: he wasn't some interesting guy with a particularly warped view. He's dumb and mediocre. Average at best. That shows how accessible and attractive white supremacy was and can be, even for those who don't consider themselves true believers. A part of me wishes that the film was split to more clearly evoke that dissonance: part 1 from Molly's perspective, part 2 going over the same events from Ernest's perspective as the reveal, and part 3 the trial/aftermath once the feds get involved.

@@CapitalFProductions yes, I saw that their first draft of the script more closely resembled Grann’s approach to the book. And while this would have been interesting, I actually agree with your point that focusing solely on Tom and his team would have been a mistake. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have built his character out a bit more and given us a bit more time with him and his team (particularly during their investigation and the trials later on - this all goes way too fast, in my opinion). I wish they’d found a way to blend the two versions of the script into something that still felt original and achieved their goal of keeping the story so personal, but also helped us appreciate some of the others involved in the story (both the oppressors and the oppressed). I actually did my own video and article on this, so if you get a chance, I’d love to hear your thoughts on them 👍🏽

@@realtalk13 I really like your points here, dude. Particularly the part about splitting the film into different perspectives - this is how I was hoping they’d done it. Maybe starting at the end during the trial and showing the various events through each of the characters subjective viewpoints, gradually revealing the atrocities as each account was dissected. Something like this would have been a riveting and original way to tell the story whilst capturing all the nuance and conflict (in my opinion, anyway 😂)

@@realtalk13 If the scope of the story was much more narrow, an approach like Get Out or RB could work but the goal was to encapsulate a really wide story set over many years. The examples mentioned are much briefer in time but at the end of the day, it's really about who's telling the story. I think a lot of the people commenting on the movie (mainly twitter) tended to get obsessed with what THEY would've done and because Scorsese didn't do it, shade was thrown. Which is a big reason I love the ending as much as I do, that it does acknowledge how limiting cinema can be when telling a story as raw as this

And not a minute wasted!

@@凯思 such hyperbole

That Garfield avatar though. I just rewatched "What the internet did to Garfield" :/