Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Killers of the Flower Moon - Martin Scorsese - AppleTV+

Options
135

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,130 ✭✭✭Did you smash it


    But there are some? Quite a lot? I’d be watching in a country that I don’t understand the native Langauge too well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,088 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    No not too many ossage language scenes. The majority of the movie is in English. All the important scenes are in English.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭homerun_homer


    I went to see this today and my bladder managed better than Oppenheimer, ha!

    I liked the film, wanted to love it. Don’t know how much a few factors affected it such as its length and the cinema experience. It absolutely does not need to be as long as it is. With that length of a film & given the amount of death and loss in the film for Mollie I wanted an emotional punch that never came by the time credits rolled, especially after spending that much time in the story.

    The story is compelling, though at times I was trying to play mental catch up with character names when they’d get mentioned throughout.

    Which brings me to my Cineworld complaint. If the ads and trailers sound was at volume 10, the film was at 5, and this had my ears stressing to hear conversations. It was screen 13 which has been refurbed, but they don’t even appear to have the surround sound turned on, all volume comes from the front. It’s a farce. A couple at the end of the row behind me low mumble chatted throughout and were on par with the movie volume. I had to shush them three times and they never stopped. It had me so annoyed the longer it went on. I genuinely am considering cancelling my Cineworld card as the only screen they seem to have good sound is the Imax screen. Does anyone else think the same?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭kirk.


    Hard to take seriously if you thought the Irishman was poor

    I've watched it 3 times it's a fantastic Scorsese movie

    Maybe watch another director or short films



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,444 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    The sound in several Cineworld screens I’ve been to is dire - straight-up broken audio. I try to avoid that cinema as much as it’s really random chance in my experience whether you get an acceptable sound quality (IMAX aside).



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,632 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    My 2 cents:

    SPOILER alert:

    Was looking forward to this for ages when I saw Scorsese, De Niro and Di Caprio involved.

    Overall - a disappointment and far too long at 3 hours 30.

    Lots - especially in the middle section when the wife was in bed sick - could easily have been cut.

    I found it all a bit “thriller by numbers” and one dimensional.

    The characters were a bit flat - exception maybe for Molly. Oscar worthy performance there.

    At one stage they introduced a raft of criminal associates who were there for specific plot reasons then gone again. Was hard to keep tabs on that section of the film.

    Di Caprio spent the entire movie doing a squint and scowl (supposedly to convey he was unhappy with what “King” was asking him to do?)

    Yet we see his character eagerly participating in violent robberies and hold ups? Him roaring about loving money but seems to find a conscience when “King” asks him to do bad stuff. Lots of inconsistencies.

    Oddly for such a long film they really rushed important sections. Like how he flipped during the trial.

    De Niro was decent, made the most out of his role.

    The court scenes were good but that bit near the end of the “radio theatre” was jarring and almost comedic (people in the cinema were breaking their holes laughing at how they were producing the sounds of typewriters, horses etc).

    Seemed odd after so many violent deaths and then the sombre court scene.

    Maybe that was the point, the entire saga was reduced to gimmicky entertainment for middle America.

    Overall I didn’t find the film very memorable, it all felt a bit flat.

    If anything I was annoyed at wasting so much time of my weekend watching it.

    Post edited by Beechwoodspark on


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,004 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    When the film is that long, I feel like you need an intermission. I'd go see it in the cinema with one, but without, I can't really manage it without missing some of it



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,440 ✭✭✭The Davestator


    I'm a big fan of the Run Pee app, and its handy for a movie of this length. Tells you the best time for a pee and gives a synopsis to read of what you are missing!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭santana75


    You sound offended..........I loved raging Bull, Silence, mean streets, the wolf of wall street, Casino, Goodfellas. They were great movies, the irishman is not and neither is Killers of the flower moon.







  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,404 ✭✭✭Aisling(",)


    I was a big fan of the book but I was a bit disappointed with this film. I went to see if in the Stella so comfy seats, snacks during the film and no one so much as looked at their phones. I had probably set my expectations too high for the film.

    The run time felt a bit long .I think the first third could have been tightened and Ernest's redemption(was flipping really a redemption) arc at the end was a bit hard to swallow. He didn't do it out of the good of his heart or for his family. Lily Gladstone was excellent, De Niro made Hale his own but I think Leo wasn't as good as he had been in other recent projects.

    I know it was a directorial choice but I didn't like how the film set everything from Ernest's perspective, I think it would have been better had it included more about the Osage themselves. The only one who seemed to get fleshed out at all was Molly, Anna got a little bit of time but Rita was barely acknowledged.

    I didn't hate it and if it comes on TV I'll probably give it a second chance but it was only middling to me.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,476 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    You know that's just your opinion which you are entitled to of course but you may not be correct.

    The general consensus at the time was that The Irishman was a very good film upon release. 95% on RT, 8.8 on IMDB. 10 Oscar nominations and 1 Golden Globe win for best picture.

    I would trust that broad range of opinion more than you just saying it was great based on nothing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,643 ✭✭✭flasher0030


    I really enjoyed The Irishman. Didn't see it in the cinema. But had a day to myself in the comfort of my home. Threw it on and had a couple of beers. Loo breaks whenever I wanted. Couple of ciggie breaks. I don't think I would have enjoyed it as a cinema watch though. It is that bit too long for sitting in the one spot. I'll be doing the same with Killers ....



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭Shred


    I caught this tonight and really liked it, I'll definitely be watching it again once it lands on Apple TV+. I had wanted to go in the afternoon due to the runtime but couldn't make that work. I was a little tired this evening and concerned I'd feel the runtime more but it whizzed by tbh. I'd highly recommend it, just under 4 hours away from stoopid phones to just chill out and enjoy it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,102 ✭✭✭Brief_Lives




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,440 ✭✭✭The Davestator


    Yep! One of my faves. Tells you if there is anything after the credits of every movie too. Used to have to watch ads to see the info, but all free now.

    Apparently the best pee time for this movie is when a man says 'I sold him a 30,000 fire policy' (at 2:27)

    I have the bladder of a housefly so hence my love of it



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,507 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Looks like Vue in the UK has seen a positive response from adding an intermission to this; claiming 74% positive feedback from patrons who tried this.

    Like I said, 20 years ago there were intermissions here for Lord of the Rings; though if it were a film like ... I dunno, Uncut Gems I'm not sure breaking the magic would be a great idea lol.




  • Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭SheepsClothing


    It looks like cinemas who inserted an intermission are getting in hot water over this.


    Personally, I don't really see an issue. Are stage performances ruined, because of a mid show intermission? Not in my opinion, and I think if you're going to make a film that's longer than 3 hours, you should understand that for various reasons, medical or otherwise, people are going to need a break at some point.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,444 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    The problem is an intermission only really works when it's edited into the film. Lawrence of Arabia has a natural break in the storytelling to give everyone a break, as do stage performances that have act structures so there are in-built pauses for the performers and audience. Killers... doesn't, so by putting in an intermission at an arbitrary spot you're inevitably disrupting the flow and editing of the film. Hence why Scorsese and Schoonmaker aren't super happy about cinemas doing this.

    You can certainly reasonably argue you'd prefer if there had been an intermission break in there - I definitely get and respect the accessibility argument. But it's not that long a film in the general scheme of things (it's a bit shorter than The Irishman!) so I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to screen it straight without a break. I totally sympathize with people who have legitimate reasons for wanting a break at some point, but I equally sympathize with the filmmakers who want the film to screen as they intended it. And hey, it's not like they're locking the doors if someone does really need to pee :)



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,004 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Id go see it in the cinema if there was an intermission. Without it, it's just not worth it to me



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭tesla_newbie




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,377 ✭✭✭McGrath5


    Saw it last night in Rathmines, loved it. The runtime flew by for me.

    Lily Gladstone is fantastic, her on screen presence is brilliant. The usual very solid performances from DiCaprio and De Niro. Not sure if they did something to DiCaprio's chin, it looked a bit off for the entire film.



  • Registered Users Posts: 907 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    Oh thank God. I'm deeply reassured to see I'm not the only one having this problem. Haven't seen this film yet but I did go to see The Creator recently and couldn't believe how low the volume was. Was tempted to run out and complain to one of the staff but by the time they'd have faffed about trying to sort it I figured the film would have been half over. Plus I've had hearing issues over the last few years so was wondering if it actually was the cinema or my dodgy hearing at fault.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭homerun_homer


    They are awful for any level of consistency. Especially given it is one of the few refurbished screens too, why isn't sound also a priority. It's such a dialogue heavy film, and then some music or loud elements would be far louder. Like when you'd watch something at home while others are asleep, and you'd need to put up and down the volume constantly. It's like they're using tv speakers only with wrong sound setting.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,213 ✭✭✭✭Liam O


    This is a good summation of it I think.

    From the word go you can see Marty's skill behind the camera but there was something missing and it felt slightly empty. Almost as if it lacked judgement of what was unfolding and didn't want to take a stance one way or the other.

    As above very few Osage had their characters developed and this is a strange decision considering they were the ones we should be sympathetic to. As it was presented a lot of them were just there for the bullet.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭paddyisreal


    Excellent film thought it flew past. Some great performances especially Gladstone and De Niro. Thought di caprio was quiet good also. I never read the book and I do fine sometimes the film will never live up to your expectations if you enjoyed the book. I would rate it quiet highly in Scorsese catalog below goodfellas, raging bull, hugo etc but above cape affair, wolf of wall street.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭steve_r


    Having read the book, I went into this with high expectations but was ultimately let down.

    The book is circa 350 pages by a journalist so it is very readable and it flows well. The book also focuses more on the FBI team investigating them and gives more time to the victims. It also gives a wider and more sinister context to the events, basically saying that this was a lot more widespread than just this case, and this is just the case that got discovered.

    The fact that the film is so long, and yet leaves out this context is not ideal for me. I'm not a huge DiCaprio film and would have preferred a different actor in his place, or perhaps swap him with Jesse Plemmons and put some more meat on that role. I did think the rest of the cast was very good, in particular DeNiro and Gladstone.

    As above, the ending jarred with me as well. I can see what the intention was - but that doesn't mean it was effective. Perhaps doing what the book did, and giving the wider context would have been a better way to go.

    I found myself thinking about There will be Blood, and how someone like Paul Thomas Anderson would have tackled a story like this. As much as I love Scorcesse, I don't think this type of story suits him.



  • Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Terrier2023


    As usual a flat boring sanitised version of American atrocities, its no wonder they are among the most stupid people on earth they are fed a narrative and and they never dive deep into it to see the real story. whatever is in their food they never seek the truth. I read the book far more harrowing. This is a slight lookinto the thieving of the lands of native Americans and the making of rules to allow it to happen. Dont waste your money go to the gym rather than sitting on your arse for 3 hours. IMHO



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,892 ✭✭✭Rfrip


    Really enjoyed it….didn’t feel the time at all so can’t give it more praise than that!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭antimatterx


    Saw this last night and it was so good. I thought 3.5 hours would be painful, but it absolutely did not drag. Great film.



Advertisement