Killers of the Flower Moon

[Frank Cox]

Killers of the Flower Moon. Based on a true story of how the Osage Indians were getting ripped off for the oil found on their reserve in 1920's Oklahoma.

They say money brings out the worst in people and some of the characters in this movie are definitely the worst people.

Robert De Niro plays the local godfather and Leonardo DiCaprio is his rather dim-witted nephew. Almost all of the Indians are good, well-meaning but unsophisticated people and the white guys are absolute bastards whose whole purpose in life seems to be to figure out more ways to rip off these folks who have suddenly found themselves with money that they never had before and, in the words of De Niro's character, "getting the money flowing toward us."

One thing you can say for this movie is that it's really... long. Like most of the Scorsese movies, there's twenty minutes of slow-moving build-up followed by three seconds of absolutely critical action and then back to the build-up for the next event later on. Is it a good movie? The story is interesting (and apparently true) and it sure looks good and (again like a lot of other Scorsese stuff) it's really trying hard to be an epic. It's one of those movies that would be twice as good if it was half as long. More action and less epic would tell the same story and appeal to a larger audience, I think.

Ultimately, it's a good movie but boy, it sure takes the long way around the bush.

[Frank Cox]

One thing that I forgot to mention is that there's a "Welcome to the theatre" introduction by Scorsese before the movie. And for a change the sound level actually matches the rest of the movie so the intro doesn't blow you out of your seat like most of those other intros seem to do.

I still don't get why those other intros had to be so loud and distorted.

[Harold Hallikainen]

Louise and I watched it tonight. Truly amazing. They also included a scene with the characters watching a newsreel of the "1921 Tulsa Race Massacre." Scorsese knows how to make movies. And, the length was fine with us.

[Mike Blakesley]

We were in the Salt Lake City area last weekend and went to see KOTFM at a Cinemark theatre. Sound and picture were fine, masking worked, everything was good. A couple of people checked their phones during the show but had dimmed their screens and they weren't on them constantly, I'm guessing they were looking at the clock.

This is yet another in the ongoing series of "White People are Assholes" movies that seem to be de rigueur lately. Didn't any white people do ANYTHING good ever? You'd never know it from today's media.

But having said that, yeah, the Indians did get screwed in this situation. The story is powerful and sad and you wonder HOW people could be such assholes. DiCaprio and DeNiro should both get Oscars. I'm not sure which I liked better but they were both outstanding.

I thought the movie was too long for comfortable viewing. IT SHOULD HAVE HAD AN INTERMISSION. I did sit through it without a break, but I was in a bit of discomfort toward the end even though I made sure to "nurse" my soda rather than drink it like I normally would have. There's no reason on this earth why a long movie shouldn't have an intermission. It would be so simple to automate it into a playlist, and if a theater's corporate overlords didn't want to have an intermission, they could just play Part 1 directly into Part 2. Why these directors who want their movies to be seen in the best possible way don't embrace this is mind-boggling to me. If you're a quality director, why would you want to have half of your audience squirming in their seats for the last hour of your long movie?

Comfort issues aside, I thought the acting and writing were spot-on. A lot of the dialogue scenes could have benefited from a nip and tuck here and there. But, everyone involved did a great job (including the sound mixers) and the movie didn't drag for me.

The biggest thing I didn't like was the overall darkness of the film, which is shot mostly indoors and/or at night. My favorite part was the ending, which I won't spoil here for those who haven't seen it, but it was way more imaginative than the typical "six cards of text" that tell you what became of everyone in the movie. Although I must say it differed greatly from the overall tone of the rest of the story. But I still liked it a lot.

3.5 out of 5 stars for me. One star deducted for not having an intermission. Come on, innovative directors. Get with the bladder program and use the available technology to your patrons' advantage.

[Harold Hallikainen]

The ending WAS interesting. My wife did not like it. But, was it like the ending of the Bob Newhart show where the entire series had been a dream (or, in this case, a radio play)?

I really liked Lily Gladstone as Mollie Burkhart. Very dry with an occasional smile. It seems that she trusted her husband up until he answered her question about what was in the medicine. Then, she's gone.

Again, I really enjoyed it.

Harold

[Jim Cassedy]

<edited> there's a "Welcome to the theatre" introduction by Scorsese before
the movie.And for a change the sound level actually matches the rest of the movie so the intro
doesn't blow you out of your seat like most of those other intros seem to do. I still don't get why
those other intros had to be so loud and distorted.

I was working late, packing up a 35mm film to ship out when our KOTFM key became valid just after
midnight last week- - and the very first thing I did was to put that intro on the screen, expecting its'
volume level to have no relationship to the level of the movie, as all the other intros have been. I must
say I was pleasantly surprised that I actually didn't have to insert special volume cues in that playlist.

Several weeks ago, we did an advance screening of a theatrical release by one of those companies
that's better known for producing streaming content than for theatrical extravaganzas. The studio sent
a special intro that was recorded by one of the cast specifically for that screening. When I tested it
on screen the night before the preview, whoever produced it got the level right, but the dialogue was
only coming out of the rear surrounds! I double-checked everything on my end and even tried playing
it in another auditorium, with the same results. The next morning I let the studio publicity rep know of
the problem, although I don't think she fully understood the actual issue. ( "Well, the movie is supposed
to have surround sound. . . isn't it ?)
Fortunately, they had worked with me enough in the past to trust my judgement, & to do "whatever
was necessary" to fix it -- so with their consent, I simply re-rendered it with the sound allocated to
the correct channels. But, geez- - this was a pretty big company, and the camerawork and lighting
were top notch, so you think they could get the sound in the right place.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I wonder if it was originally a stereo mix, and they got one channel reversed, throwing everything into the surrounds. That was a real common problem in FM radio stations. We'd get a spot from an agency that had a channel reversed. Mono FM radios went silent during the ad (which is not all bad).

Harold

[Marcel Birgelen]

Scorcese decided to shoot his newest movie in near-real-time-experience and make people sit through the entire ride. The experience feels a bit like the bespoke spanking scene in the movie itself. The wife, unfortunately, wasn't as amused as I was and left about halfway through the experience, so I ended up watching the second half of this endurance trial alone...

In typical Scorcese fashion, he really makes sure you invest your time into this one and stuff may sometimes become a bit tedious... Ultimately though, it probably is one of the better movies of 2023. Not that it takes very much to be in this list anno 2023, but even in any other year, it would probably score pretty high on said list...

[Frank Angel]

Fortunately, they had worked with me enough in the past to trust my judgement, & to do "whatever
was necessary" to fix it -- so with their consent, I simply re-rendered it with the sound allocated to
the correct channels. But, geez- - this was a pretty big company, and the camerawork and lighting
were top notch, so you think they could get the sound in the right place.

Jim, I hope you billed them for what a production house would have charged to that re-render for them! They shouldn't expect they get your professional services and expertise for free.

In the days of triacetete magic, I was once running a sneak preview and the day it was supposed to play, I got frantic call from the distrib saying to expect a shipment of film that needed to play WITH the sneak. I thought it would simply be a trailer or something to run with the sneak. Then here comes a box with three rolls of film FedExed to the theatre and along with them comes lengthy instructions on where these 3 strips of film need to be inserted in the credit crawl at the end of the movie. Not only inserted, but one of them was a substitution which meant footage had to be removed as well. To make matters worse, after inspecting the last reel and the credits, turns out, it's a scope title and the credits just happened to be the type you often see where the background is deep black and there are no discernible frame lines, making splicing a bitch. I called them back and said they would need to hire a projectionist for a full 4 hours call in order to make these changes before the 10pm sneak screening. "Well, don't you have a projectionist working there already?" she asked, (sounding much like the person who asked you, "Well, the movie is supposed to have surround sound, isn't it.?). Well yes, sez I, but he doesn't work for you -- you're the distributor and he works for the exhibitor, not to mention, he's occupied running other movies at the moment! They hemmed and hawed and connected me to tow other higer-ups, but fully agreed when they realized the alternative would be for the film to play with the WRONG credits.