Killers of the Flower Moon - Martin Scorsese - AppleTV+

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623062#Comment_121623062

Oh it was certainly satisfying, especially watching Jesse Plemons' wry, knowing smile as he worked those chumps out:, but it also spoke to how when all was said and done they got off lightly and as noted, King especially got off lightly. The Osage basically saw lip service justice for what had amounted to genocide for "head rights" that were theirs.

You could see a bit of institutional hubris with Earnest and King; that they could get increasingly so bold with their schemes, thinking nobody would care about some random Indians knocked off - no matter how insane the circumstances looked (seen with Molly's disdainful narration at the start, the dead bodies getting more and more suspect). It took a bomb to finally get someone to take it seriously - and even then it wasn't quite enough to send them away for good.

buried

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121624462#Comment_121624462

It wasn't the bomb that made the federal government sit up and take notice though. It was the huge sum of $20,000 that the Osage nation elders paid to J. Edgar Hoover in order him to send some federal agents down. All of that is shown in the film, the indigenous Osage council state it towards it to the agents. If they didn't pay that sum literally nothing would have been done. It was brilliantly showcased by Scorsese, just like in 'Boardwalk Empire', Scorsese was showcasing the newly set up FBI to be just as devious and money hungry as the lads they were chasing.

Foxtrol

Enjoyed it but can absolutely see why he had to again go get streaming money to make it.

Can absolutely see why some found it a struggle to get through - there is no real justification for it having to be that long. If it was by another director it would be slated for being bloated, even if there was nothing wrong with what is in there.

Seems like he has gotten worse and worse as he has become older and had the power to dictate - Mean Streets/Taxi Driver ~115 min, Goodfellas ~140 min, Gangs/Aviator ~170 min, WoW ~180 min, Irishman/KotFM ~210 min. I don't see there being a comparative jump in quality the more time that he is given - especially his latest two. He can tell tighter stories, he just now chooses not to and to me it is a detriment to the quality.

head82

One theory put forward for the recent spate of overly long films is that it's essentially a 'dick waving' competition amongst prominent directors.

Director A: "I have so much clout in Hollywood, the studios allow me to release my latest movie with a 3 Hour running time".

Director B: "Oh yeah, well I have so much clout, my latest theatrical release will run for 3 and a half Hours!"

Admittedly, it sounds a rather silly theory and I doubt a director of Scorseses' stature would subscribe to such shenanigans. It does provide 'food for thought' though. As enjoyable a watch as KOTFM was , it did not require a runtime of 210 min. to get that story across. Laziness in the editing department perhaps?

pixelburp

The simple question to ask of the "make it shorter" argument is: what do you cut, without losing vital or at least dramatically entertaining moments?

I've watched 80-90 films that have dragged the àrse out of a thin presume incapable of sustaining even the basic runtimes, while Killers.. never once dragged or felt dawdling. I'm not sure where I'd cut the fat, cos I'm not convinced there was any.

johnny_ultimate

Confidence and arrogance are arguably two sides of the same coin, but a lot of directors unquestionably feel more empowered to ‘go long’ as they hone their skills while also getting more leeway from studios. In Scorsese’s case, I’d also say the fact that his last two films were destined for streaming platforms was likely another factor in allowing him to be more indulgent with the running time. While editing is a much more nuanced craft than simply determining how long a film / scene / shot is, Thelma Schoonmaker is one of the great masters of the art form, so no doubt she’s also happily on board with embracing a longer form.

Also: the three to four-hour epic has a robust history in mainstream cinema, and this - while fairly long by modern standards (though a full hour shorter than Occupied City, which is playing in several Irish cinemas as I type, albeit more of an art film) - is actually a good half an hour shorter than a Lawrence of Arabia or Gone With The Wind.

I had some pacing issues with Killers…, but ultimately it’s Marty’s film, and it can be as long or short as he wants it to be, within reason obviously. I’m just glad he’s still out there making big, bold, interesting films like this one - ones I’m happy to settle down and spend 210 minutes grappling with without a moment’s hesitation.

Foxtrol

Really dont get the 'grappling with' or the earlier poster making claims that it is for a 'mature movie watcher' when it comes to this movie. There is very little in it that is what I would see as challenging. I can see how many would find this a slog and it has nothing to do with their viewing maturity or not being up for a challenge.

As for what could have been cut from this movie - there is an absolute mountain. So much of it wasn't vital to the core of the story and character/emotional development. Look at his earlier movies, I'm sure if he was given the free rein he is now from the streamers he could have added another 70 minutes onto Goodfellas or 1 hour onto The Departed. I don't believe those movies would be any better for that, even though we might have missed out on some nice moments or additional development.

Seems like we're now in the world of only getting the extended cut of his movies because he has the power to demand it and streamers dumb enough to throw their money away. Of course it is better we're getting this than nothing, but I don't believe we're getting the best version of these movies. Everyone needs some guardrails, even geniuses.

buried

Jayzus, I don't know lads, I've watched this 3 times now, and I've watched 'The Irishman', I'd say about 8-9 times. Both these longform works have absolutely fantastic flow and I don't find them a slog at all. I watched Oppenheimer the once, and while it being a great piece of work too, I have no real desire to see it again like 'Killers of The Flower Moon' or 'The Irishman'.

I actually thought 'Oppenheimer' was far too rushed in parts which totally threw me out the flow of the story.

I honestly believe that Scorsese was heavily influenced for his most recent longform motion picture works by the long slow burn genius American TV network shows such as 'OZ', 'The Sopranos' and 'Deadwood'. His involvement in 'Boardwalk Empire' is testament to this. And IMO he's well able to execute it. 'The Irishman' has fantastic flow for a near 4 hour film.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121751358#Comment_121751358

Agree with the last paragraph. For me though, that is a problem.

When you're getting into the 3.5+ hour window then you're risking the worst of all worlds. Just go and do a mini-series.

KotFM could have easily been one, same with The Irishman.

Tony EH

I wonder how many people who say that a movie was "too long", will happily sit down and binge on 3 or 4 episodes a TV show with no bother. That being said, I did think 'Killers of the Flower Moon' was a bit on the long side, without being slow or boring, and I watched it over two viewings myself. But I generally have no issue with "long" films. I was raised on movies like 'Gone with the Wind', 'Ben-Hur', 'Spartacus' and other epics, all of which I've watched more than once. So when sitting down to something that's a long haul, I know what I'm getting into.

I'll also echo Pixelburp's point, what would you have cut? Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that stood out for obvious trimming.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121753314#Comment_121753314

I wonder how many people who say that a movie was "too long", will happily sit down and binge on 3 or 4 episodes a TV show with no bother.

Bingo: it's an odd sentiment in this era where Bingeing TV shows is mainstream. And, I might add, single episodes of them are all over the place too; you'll regularly see one season with 40, 50 minute or even feature length episodes here and there. Yet I see no complaints about how (say) the last episode of For All Mankind was, oof, 1 hour 20 minutes - a film!

Why are some movies' lengths exempt or to be questioned as something problematic - especially "prestige" films cos blockbusters are much flabbier beasts IMO. If ever there was a genre that needs pulling back to the days of 90 minutes thrills - it's mainstream Hollywood, not auteur epics.

And even then, if you have a small bladder, there are few films where I'd say you absolutely have to stick with it start to finish that taking a break would be deleterious to the experience - Uncut Gems would be a good example that comes to mind of something that HAS to be stuck with, otherwise the spell is broken.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121753314#Comment_121753314

If people are saying this is long but are happy to binge prestige tv for even longer 'no bother' then isn't that an indictment on this movie?

If there is a sizable portion of the audience, including yourself, that feel they need to split a movie into chunks and while watching it aren't engrossed enough to make them change their minds and watch it in one sitting then the director has done something wrong, especially a movie like this that isn't mentally challenging.

I'll repeat my previous response, there is a mountain that could be cut. So many scenes ran longer than was needed and other full scenes that did very little to move anything forward that wasn't already done in others. I'm sure if we watched an extended cut 3.5 hour version of The Departed first we'd say there is no way to cut it down by an hour without ruining the movie.

head82

I've personally no issues with lengthy films... when it's warranted! When talking about films such as 'Lawrence of Arabia' or 'Ben Hur' etc., these are stories by their very nature that require a long running time. And I've never once heard anyone complain about their runtime. True epics.

I'm not convinced the same thing can be said about KOTFM. Although a fascinating story, it's not of epic proportions.

Having said that, I'll watch anything by Scorsese.. of any duration. But then, I'm a Scorsese fanboy and he can do no wrong in my eyes. For the general viewer though, I can appreciate if they found his latest output a bit of a slog. It's almost as if the adaptation from the book was too literal an adaptation. Almost bordering on the documentary level.

It really could have been tighter without losing the emotional impact of the exploitation and injustices foisted upon the Osage people.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121754407#Comment_121754407

If people are saying this is long but are happy to binge prestige tv for even longer 'no bother' then isn't that an indictment on this movie?

Not really, no. It has more to do with structure than the quality of any given film, never mind 'Killers of the Flower Moon'. For instance, when people sit down to a TV Show, they are ending each episode on a "high", as it were. They're being primed for next week, or in the case of binge watching the next episode. Most episodes of TV end on a particular note, designed to keep you interested. So the viewer is excited with the events that occur in the last few minutes of a particular episode, even if the rest of the episode was dull or mediocre. They'll want to know what happens next right now.

A feature film can't really do that, because it would end up looking a bit silly. Sure, you can get cliff hangers within a movie's running time. But you just wouldn't get away numerous cliff hangers over the course of one film. The material just isn't designed for that. Episodes of television are and they're carefully written that way.

However, if people are bored by a film, then just don't watch it. There are plenty of tedious and turgid films out there and, god knows, I've sat through my fair share, whether they were 70 minutes or 180 minutes long. But if someone isn't getting or enjoying what they're watching, then go and do something else. Nobody is made to watch anything. Plus, in the days of DVD, Blu Ray, streaming and pirating, there's no real need to be forcing your way through a movie in one sitting and something like a 3 hour epic can be done in 2 or 3 sittings.

Now, as to my own way of watching 'Killers of the Flower Moon', the reason I watched it over a couple of sittings (in the one day) was because things outside of the movie got in the way. It wasn't because I thought the film was too lengthy to get through. When the Mrs says it's time to go to Aldi, Robert DeNiro and Leonardo DiCaprio will have to wait a wee while.

I'll repeat my previous response, there is a mountain that could be cut.

What though?

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121756691#Comment_121756691

It has zero to do with cliffhangers. Movies are also supposed to keep people 'interested', otherwise it is a slog. You're right, no one is made watch a movie and that is why there are a bunch of people on the thread said they turned it off or took breaks.

A great movie draws you in, engages you, and you're simply enjoying it so much that you can't think of getting up from it and come back to it later - even if it annoys the Mrs.

If a sizeable portion of the audience, even the ones that liked a movie, had no problem with splitting it over multiple sittings then it is a sign that you've done something wrong. Completely anecdotal contrast to this movie, I know zero people who watched Oppenheimer over multiple sittings and a good few who wished it was actually longer.

SheepsClothing

It's been a while since I watched it, but I felt at the time that most of the last 50 minutes could have been cut and that the film would be better for it.

The reasoning given for reworking the story to be in the perspective of Leonardo Di Caprio and his family, rather than that of the FBI, was to better centre the Osage and in particular Mollie. Given that, I don't know why the last hour of the film is spent centering the scumbags who murdered her family. I didn't need to see them in jail, or going to trial, or have the Mollie and Ernest relationship be rehabilitated in any way. I don't know why Marty decided to insert himself into the film. I've seen plenty of charitable explanations, that I don't think would be afforded to a lesser filmmaker who did the same. I find it hard to get away from the idea that it was just a self-indulgent decision that would have been vetoed by any of the traditional studios.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121758287#Comment_121758287

You missed my point. The structure of an average episode of TV (modern TV) is based around a sting at the end to make sure that the audience tunes in next week. It's a structure that's different to what a movie can do. A movie just can't do the same.

As for matters of engagement, they're are different amongst different audiences. There are people out there that find 'Alien boring, for example. Jesus, I've had people who've told me that they've found the original 'Star Wars' boring. There just no accounting for taste.

And that's perfectly fine.

Hey look, if you found 'Killers of the Flower Moon' somewhat bloated, that's ok. I'm at a loss on what to cut though.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121758606#Comment_121758606

I didn't miss your point. Cliffhangers only matter if the rest of the show engages the viewer and they are enjoying the rest of the episodes it. People don't stay watching for cliffhangers alone.

To your original comment, if people are willing to plan to watch 3 or 4 hours of prestige TV in a row then there should be no issue with them sitting through this movie if was engaging enough - the problem is for many this one isn't.

There is no accounting for taste but even if believe those who feel it is too long are knuckle draggers, it didn't even engage you enough to put aside a window to watch it whole, like it was presumably meant to be seen.

SheepsClothing gave some good examples of what could be cut. Look at his earlier movies, if you wanted to bloat out several of them by 30-60 min you could just bolt on showing justice playing out in detail. I'm sure I could find plenty of scenes that could also be cut down or out completely if I was bothered to go back and rewatch.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121759288#Comment_121759288

Cliffhangers only matter if the rest of the show engages the viewer

Not necessarily. You can have a run of the mill, humdrum, episode that ends with a zinger that will make an audience want to tune into the next instalment. You're getting hung up on "cliffhangers" and that's not really what I mean. Episodes of TV, especially in the modern sense, are designed to reach a certain crescendo. Movies are just not designed that way.

To your original comment, if people are willing to plan to watch 3 or 4 hours of prestige TV

I mentioned nothing about "planning". My point is, which you have missed, is that the structure of the two mediums are quite different. One doesn't necessarily "plan" 5 episodes of 'Breaking Bad', for example. But it can be compelling enough for a viewer to want to see where something goes, even if a given episode was, in the main, kinda dull. You can't really get that with a feature film. The flow is completely different.

There is no accounting for taste but even if believe those who feel it is too long are knuckle draggers

I mentioned nothing about "knuckle draggers". I don't know where you're getting this from.

it didn't even engage you enough to put aside a window to watch it whole

My original intent was to watch the whole thing in one go, which I would have done if real life hadn't got in the way.

SheepsClothing gave some good examples of what could be cut.

I don't care what SheepsClothing says (no offence SheepsClothing). I asked you, what would you have cut. Personally, I would find it quite difficult to know what to trim, and I've had to trim content in the past. To me, there wasn't that much obvious fat on the movie, even if it was a long running time.

Look, I'll say it to you again, if you feel that 'Killers of the Flower Moon' dragged, that's fine. There's no accounting for taste and it really is that simple.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121759425#Comment_121759425

Both TV and movies aren't different, they should be aiming to engage the viewer through the runtime. Sure the flow can be different, but many movies have crescendos during them to keep the audience engaged. This movie appears to have failed to do that with a sizeable portion of the audience, including yourself. It is a stark contrast with a recent rival release that had no such issues.

The only reason I can see with you not engaging with SheepsClothing's point is because you don't have a good argument to refute it. How you cant see that whole last portion as potential fat if you've trimmed content before is surprising, especially as I've added how it contrasts with his other less self-indulging work. Making a movie can mean cutting things even if you like them to improve the overall movie.

Again, I don't think it dragged but absolutely see why many have said it did. The bloat moved it from a great movie to just a good one for me.

Happy to leave it there but if we all just posted 'there's no accounting for taste' then there would be no use for the film forum. The whole point is that we provide our opinion, with support, to allow for discussion.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121759558#Comment_121759558

Both TV and movies aren't different

Yes, they are. They are quite different formats. You simply do not approach an 8 or 10 episode TV show in the same way as you would a feature film. It's quite a different venture.

This movie appears to have failed to do that with a sizeable portion of the audience, including yourself.

Nowhere have I said that or given any indication that the film "failed" in any way. In fact, I have specifically said that I consider it to be Scorsese's best effort since 'Goodfellas'. I think it's a genuinely great film.

The only reason I can see with you not engaging with SheepsClothing's point is because you don't have a good argument to refute it

No. I asked YOU to tell me what YOU would cut from the movie. Not to tell me that you agree with some other person that most of the final 50 minutes need to be cut from the running time. I've only seen the film once, but already I would consider such a position ludicrous. You really think there's the guts of an hour than can be cut from the film?

How you cant see that whole last portion as potential fat if you've trimmed content before is surprising

It doesn't matter what you may or may not find surprising. Tell me what it is you would cut.

p to the e

I read the book a few years back so was looking forward to this. It was a lot different than what I had remembered. Firstly the main focus in the book is on the the lead agent played by Plemons and if I remember right, DiCaprio's character wasn't that central at all. One big difference for me was that in the book it really came as a surprise that there was this conspiracy of murders going on and it was all carried out by one man whereas in the film you pretty much know from the start who was responsible. I'm not necessarily saying one was better than the other, it's just something that threw me.

Overall I enjoyed it and it definitely warranted the longer run time. It's a very complex story that may well have even benefitted from being turned into a limited series with more input from the agents' side. Their undercover work; the red tape and politics involved with trying to get the case investigated; Hoover's involvement and the founding of the FBI.

Some of the Osage traditions were expertly handled especially the funeral of the mother. It just had me stunned in silence. No individual cast member stood out for me and claimed the movie for themselves but they all gave a good professional assembled performance. If you want more information on the investigation I'd highly recommend the book. 8/10