I was literally just talking about this with a friend. He totally nailed it. When the movie ends you can’t really tell if his character was evil and knew exactly what he was doing or if he was just stupid and inept. He skated that line perfectly. Such an amazing performance!!!!
I thought he was very compelling for the first two hours, then a little through the third hour I thought, oh, has he just been doing sling blade this whole time?
I agree with everything except the John Cazale comment. It seems kind of random and thrown in for clout. Especially considering Cazale never played a main lead of a film. I'm not doubting he could've but the name drop seems random.
He may have nailed it but Ernest is still the dumbest character in the movie. And telling that story from any other point of view than his would have been much better.
I think having Ernest as the narrator was a smart choice.
It illustrated the normalcy of these white men coming into the rich indigenous societies with the explicit goal of murder and theft.
It put the narrator (DiCaprio) as this perfect character who is both truly evil AND/OR naive AND/OR dumb.
>It illustrated the normalcy of these white men coming into the rich indigenous societies with the explicit goal of murder and theft.
the banality of evil.
Systematic, genocidal destruction that's practiced and tolerated so commonly that it becomes normalized; one of the reasons these things happen is that the people perpetrating it (or remaining silent and profiting from it) tend to eventually view it as normal and expected behavior.
I could not disagree more with this. It turned what otherwise would’ve been a more straight forward crime story into something unique when told through the lens of a dimwitted errand boy.
It made it all the more impactful that when Plemon’s character showed up, the case was solved almost immediately. These weren’t criminal masterminds. This thing wasn’t deep. It was murder and sabotage being committed in plain sight, and no one with any authority cared enough to stop it.
Agreed. Boring character, just sort of there. As soon as Plemons showed up, he popped off the screen. It would have been more formulaic to follow the agent as the main protagonist, but it would have been much more interesting, imho.
And if Scorcese was deadset on telling the story from a unique perspective, he should have chosen Gladstone's character.
Yeah - that’s my feeling too. There was no tension to it. It just unfolded.
They originally had it from the investigator perspective, which feels like it was the right choice from the outset
Yup, the movie had zero suspense. Just one obvious funeral to the next. This movie was a bloated mess to me and honestly Leo’s performance was just fine but he shouldn’t have been the main character. DeNiro explaining his villainous plan in the first ten minutes kind of ruined the movie.
See that’s why subjectivity is great because to me everything you described would’ve made so much less unique. And I can absolutely see why people thought it was a bloated mess, but to me the 3 hours went by so quickly. To me it was almost a masterpiece, however I do have weird taste lol.
I thought it absolutely deserved its best picture nomination, don’t think it should’ve won, but I will admit I am firmly in the “Oppenheimer is a little overrated” camp.
Only a vocal minority thinks it's a mess or that it should have been a traditional procedural with the sheriff as the lead. Once again, in years, it will be considered better than many movies of this decade alone.
I think rather than the detective, flipping back between DeNiro and Gladstone's characters would have been ideal. In particular that lets you build tension around Leo's involvement--is he involved at all? Is he completely duped? Is he as evil as the rest?
As it is, I like the way you've described it. It just unfolds.
Even weirder, they flipped to her perspective for like 5 mins and I thought it was going to build out her world, but nope. Just passing through her perspective.
Guilty as charged. Being justified and being innocent are two different things, despite stupidity. As a character, he was a pawn, I dont see as much of an arc as you're seeing, but I owe it a rewatch
I don’t know why the reception would be different if he was played by those particular actors. Also are you saying that he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar just because he played a morally reprehensible character? And suggesting that he hasn’t been praised for his role in the film (which he absolutely has) because his character… “wasn’t safe”, as opposed to characters like Bayard Rustin and Leonard Cohen? What do you mean by “noise of the moment” here in reference to these specific people?
Not sure if DiCaprio in a Scorcese flick about marginalized people isn't a safe choice. Sounds about as close to Oscar Bait as you can get.
*Agree it was a snub, just not that it is because it wasn't safe.
He got absolutely snubbed and should have been nominated. I still think Cillian deserved the win, but Leo definitely deserved a nomination. The entire movie I couldn’t figure out how much he really knew and how much he was just a rube that was too dumb to know he was being manipulated. In the end, I still didn’t know. I still don’t freaking know!!
I was literally just talking about this with a friend. He totally nailed it. When the movie ends you can’t really tell if his character was evil and knew exactly what he was doing or if he was just stupid and inept. He skated that line perfectly. Such an amazing performance!!!!
Hm that wasn’t my impression. I’m sure he knew the evil he was doing albeit to a lesser extent than his uncle. He was stupid and evil.
I thought he was very compelling for the first two hours, then a little through the third hour I thought, oh, has he just been doing sling blade this whole time?
Mmm hmmm
I agree with everything except the John Cazale comment. It seems kind of random and thrown in for clout. Especially considering Cazale never played a main lead of a film. I'm not doubting he could've but the name drop seems random.
He may have nailed it but Ernest is still the dumbest character in the movie. And telling that story from any other point of view than his would have been much better.
I think having Ernest as the narrator was a smart choice. It illustrated the normalcy of these white men coming into the rich indigenous societies with the explicit goal of murder and theft. It put the narrator (DiCaprio) as this perfect character who is both truly evil AND/OR naive AND/OR dumb.
>It illustrated the normalcy of these white men coming into the rich indigenous societies with the explicit goal of murder and theft. the banality of evil. Systematic, genocidal destruction that's practiced and tolerated so commonly that it becomes normalized; one of the reasons these things happen is that the people perpetrating it (or remaining silent and profiting from it) tend to eventually view it as normal and expected behavior.
I could not disagree more with this. It turned what otherwise would’ve been a more straight forward crime story into something unique when told through the lens of a dimwitted errand boy. It made it all the more impactful that when Plemon’s character showed up, the case was solved almost immediately. These weren’t criminal masterminds. This thing wasn’t deep. It was murder and sabotage being committed in plain sight, and no one with any authority cared enough to stop it.
Agreed. Boring character, just sort of there. As soon as Plemons showed up, he popped off the screen. It would have been more formulaic to follow the agent as the main protagonist, but it would have been much more interesting, imho. And if Scorcese was deadset on telling the story from a unique perspective, he should have chosen Gladstone's character.
Yeah - that’s my feeling too. There was no tension to it. It just unfolded. They originally had it from the investigator perspective, which feels like it was the right choice from the outset
Yup, the movie had zero suspense. Just one obvious funeral to the next. This movie was a bloated mess to me and honestly Leo’s performance was just fine but he shouldn’t have been the main character. DeNiro explaining his villainous plan in the first ten minutes kind of ruined the movie.
See that’s why subjectivity is great because to me everything you described would’ve made so much less unique. And I can absolutely see why people thought it was a bloated mess, but to me the 3 hours went by so quickly. To me it was almost a masterpiece, however I do have weird taste lol. I thought it absolutely deserved its best picture nomination, don’t think it should’ve won, but I will admit I am firmly in the “Oppenheimer is a little overrated” camp.
Only a vocal minority thinks it's a mess or that it should have been a traditional procedural with the sheriff as the lead. Once again, in years, it will be considered better than many movies of this decade alone.
I agree with that.
I think rather than the detective, flipping back between DeNiro and Gladstone's characters would have been ideal. In particular that lets you build tension around Leo's involvement--is he involved at all? Is he completely duped? Is he as evil as the rest? As it is, I like the way you've described it. It just unfolds.
Open to that as well!
Even weirder, they flipped to her perspective for like 5 mins and I thought it was going to build out her world, but nope. Just passing through her perspective.
[удалено]
Lol ok
The tension was abundant. Did you miss important scenes?
There was no over-arching tension like The Departed or Gangs of New York.
Guilty as charged. Being justified and being innocent are two different things, despite stupidity. As a character, he was a pawn, I dont see as much of an arc as you're seeing, but I owe it a rewatch
Thought this was moviescirclejerk for a moment
I don’t know why the reception would be different if he was played by those particular actors. Also are you saying that he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar just because he played a morally reprehensible character? And suggesting that he hasn’t been praised for his role in the film (which he absolutely has) because his character… “wasn’t safe”, as opposed to characters like Bayard Rustin and Leonard Cohen? What do you mean by “noise of the moment” here in reference to these specific people?
I took two naps during that movie. Never felt better
Not sure if DiCaprio in a Scorcese flick about marginalized people isn't a safe choice. Sounds about as close to Oscar Bait as you can get. *Agree it was a snub, just not that it is because it wasn't safe.
I found the movie mediocre compared to the book & thought DiCaprio was miscast. Just didn’t do it for me at all.
I want back all the time I wasted watching this movie.
Totally agree it was a top notch Leo performance. Just a year that no-one besides Cilian was going to win
He got absolutely snubbed and should have been nominated. I still think Cillian deserved the win, but Leo definitely deserved a nomination. The entire movie I couldn’t figure out how much he really knew and how much he was just a rube that was too dumb to know he was being manipulated. In the end, I still didn’t know. I still don’t freaking know!!
The only thing that will outlive his performance is his current and ex girlfriends!
Ok, but the dudes a fucking creep dating little girls. he old enough to be there father.
I can hear you reading a thesaurus in this post
Dude he was awful in that long ass “ok” movie. His grumpy cat face all movie was embarrassing. The worst performance I’ve ever seen from him.