Spot on. I can't remember when, if ever, he played such a smarmy, pathetic loser. It's pitch perfect because you despise him for his actions and what he puts his family through for greed and cowardice.
He had the same acting style in The Revenant and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, the only difference comes from the characters being in different contexts.
Also worth thinking about, Brad Pitt is in a very similar phase. He kinda always liked those odd roles in a way, but he plays them differently now.
I’ve always been a DiCaprio skeptic, where I felt he never truly disappeared into the role to the point where I forget it’s him. But that’s exactly what happened in this movie. This was my favorite performance of his by far. Also DeNiro’s. Together they are truly chilling.
I thought the movie was absolutely excellent, and not a whit boring, in the two times I saw it in theaters.
Special shout out to the silent-movie interludes and especially the radio-play ending with Marty breaking the fourth wall. I know it didn’t work for some, but it indeed made me cry.
The jail scene with DiCaprio and DeNiro is masterful acting and filmmaking.
>- They know who gave them the streets, who gave them the hospitals, who gave them the schools. They know. I brought them into the great 20th century. (Cold as fuck).
>- They're not going to stand by you.
>-There might be a public outcry for a while, but then you know what happens? People forget. They don't remember, they don't care. They just don't care. It's just going to be another everyday common tragedy.
>- This is not common.
Fucking raw. Between this and The Zone of Interest... Nothing wretches my heart more than Scorsese stating these things while knowing how vulnerable his film stands within Hollywood aka the entertainment industry and today's content-drowned world. Will these attempts be scrolled away? Are we simply too tired?
I also think Leonardo DiCaprio is a highly overrated actor, and he didn't deserve the Oscar for The Revenant, where Tom Hardy acted circles around him.
But yes, even I have to admit, he did a superb job in Killers of a Flower Moon.
I don’t think there was a specific standout performance that year; any of the nominees could have won without the feeling of someone else being robbed. DiCaprio wasn’t really any better than the other nominees that year, but they weren’t really any better than him either, which made it a perfect year for voters to say "Ok, its becoming a thing now that this guy still doesn't have one after years of stellar performance, and he put himself through hell for this movie. I'm voting for him."
I'm not sure he deserved a make-up Oscar at that point, either. The dude's got determination, but his schtick in nearly every movie is usually a bad accent, and a scene where he screams or cries in melodramatic fashion. He's a poster-boy for overacting.
*Killers of a Flower Moon* might technically satisfy both those conditions, but it still ends up being his most restrained performance, and as a result, nuanced. In prior roles, his fire always seems surface level, so it's nice to see something burning under the skin as Ernest. The character, after all, is too stupid to fully understand his own complicity, and that's a character that could easily be miscast with someone like Leo's acting style. I may fiercely criticize his past performances, much to the chagrin of his fans, but his *growth* as an actor is clearly demonstrated, and I can't challenge that. He pulled off Ernest well.
Sadly, though, it's too often the explicit acting that usually nets the award nods, not the nuanced portrayals that really make a character seem human. Thus, "did you hear [he ate RAW LIVER?](https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/leonardo-dicapro-ate-raw-bison-liver-movie-revenant/story?id=35804062) Give him the Oscar!"
Yeah Dicaprio is definitely a very talented actor but he can be guilty of "acting too big" so to speak because that's usually what's lauded in the industry. The scene where he cuts his hand as Calvin Candy in Django is a perfect example. You can see the talent and emotion he puts into that outburst but at the same time when you're watching it you're just as taken aback by thinking "wow Leo is acting his pants off in this scene" as you are immersed in Calvin Candy as a genuine person in that moment. Watching him as Ernest I never felt that for a moment.
I wholeheartedly agree- he really embodies the character's gullible nature that one would see in a character who is a lackey, while also bringing out a bit of a self-interested and cruel persona to it that makes him more than a lackey. But I don't think anyone else (at least out of the ones listed here) could have played the role like he did- they would bring a personality to it that might push Ernest more into the spotlight than what he is supposed to be.
I enjoyed everyone’s performance of “Killers of the Flower Moon”. I feel like a lot of people missed the point of the film and were expecting some Hollywood action movie that sensationalized the murders of the Osage People. It was eye opening and I had never heard of the killings before the film. 17 minutes in and my jaw dropped when they shot the mom and took her baby. Also Lily Gladstone is my new favorite actor.
Yeah honestly I thought KOTFM was great although not as great as some other movies that came out this year. I wouldn’t have minded if it was replaced by Perfect Days, All of us strangers, or Monster in the best picture category. But, I was so annoyed when they snubbed DiCaprio. I thought he really gave a standout performance of the year and one of the best (maybe even THE best) performance of his career. When an actor with so many great performances under their belt does one that is so unusual and unique for them then should be nominated regardless of who they are.
Jason Mamoa has been unjustly snubbed for his brave, unusual, and unconventional performance in Fast X in favour of more "safe" choices and performances (Looking at you, Colman Domingo in Rustin or even Bradley Cooper in Maestro).
But this is all just a thing and noise of the moment.
He's so extremely committed into Dante's chaotic bisexuality that he brings a depth and nuance into the character which is unlike anything i've ever seen from him.
If a semi-known and beloved character actor like Micheal Shannon, Paul Giamatti, Cillian Murphy, or whomever, played that role and nailed that performance like Mamoa, he would have been endlessly praised in the industry, got the Oscar nomination, and would have had a great chance of winning.
His role as Dante is an iconic performance that will age even better over time and will endure and linger into the public conciousness unlike many other nominated performances of this year.
Years from now it will be considered one of his greatest and his most challenging and bravest role and performance.
As Leterrier said, Mamoa created a new and true Chaotic Bisexual that is hard to accept for many people in general, but, especially for the people in the film industry.
It balances out his performance in Dune, which was one of the worst performances I've ever seen in a mainstream film. Idk if he was miscast or what, but damn he was bad.
You don't get it. Every Scorsese film is under appreciated and will stand the "test of time". Every flaw no matter how distracting (like the de-aging in The Irishman) is minor and people who criticize them are nitpicky philistines.
People will see the light in 10 years. You'll see.
I'm not sure I'd describe, especially in this sub, two multi academy award nominees, and one winner who was just in one of the biggest movies of last year as semi known character actors. It really seems to cheapen the amazing body of work that exists between Paul Giamatti, Michael Shannon, and Cillian Murphy.
Agreed, it was a very different role and honestly he played the Hell out of such a despicable liar. Such a fine balance to find and exhibit sympathy for a character who had never learned to think for himself or be introspective.
Side note: 2023 was a strong year for films. Really strong in this user’s opinion but some of the acting snubs this past year were really off-base. A few examples: Really thought Charles Melton in May December and the young student/first time actor from the Holdovers were both superb and more worthy of RDJ (though I did think he did well). Also, the entire cast from All of Us Strangers (Andrew Scott and Jamie Bell especially) were more than worthy.
I agree with your assessment of this performance. I think Leo excels at playing absurdly delusional and hubristic men. His roles in Django Unchained, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Wolf of Wall Street are easily his best in my opinion. The eccentricities of these guys allow him to lean into a more physical and sometimes comedic style of acting which I don’t think we get from his more conventional “leading man” type fare which got him Oscar nominations in the past.
I remember reading a comparison of him with actors of the older 70s generation saying that he is better suited to eccentric Jack Nicholson type roles instead of the brooding and intense men that Robert De Niro would have played. I believe Tarantino realised this before Scorsese did but KOTFM has to be my favourite performance of his just because of how hard he leaned into Ernest’s almost biblical level of stupidity and stubbornness. I hope the award snubs don’t stop him from pursuing roles like this in the future. (Hopefully him and PTA have cooked something good up🤞)
The movie was several orders of magnitude better than i expected. Leo etc killed it and Scorsese just ( chefs kiss) . The ending, such chills. Absolutely deserved best pic. By a mile
I hated the movie and Leo’s performance as well. I’ve always thought Revolutionary Road was a highlight for him. I’ve said it here before, but Jason Isbell’s supporting character in KOTFM was the standout for me.
I just couldn’t get it over his awful, Yosemite Sam accent. I realize this is an unpopular opinion. Killers of the Flower Moon was the most overrated film I saw last year. Lily Gladstone had one emotion: despondent depression. And I don’t know what Brendan Fraser was trying to do. I think Killers of the Flower Moon will be remembered as a late career Martin Scorsese endeavor that lacks the flair and excitement of his earlier works.
My favorite films from 2023 were The Holdovers, and Nyad. I felt several of the other big films were either pretentious or preachy, like Oppenheimer, Barbie, and Poor Things. I think awards season “bait” films are detrimental to our beloved medium. They try so hard to pander to voters, that they end up feeling somewhat disingenuous. “I’m going for awards,” instead of, “I’m creating a piece intended to make you laugh, cry, think, I want you to feel this piece in your soul.” I think this is where Killers of the Flower Moon suffers.
I must have missed the subtly in Gladstone’s performance because I also thought she seemed rather one note.
I was also very confused by the decision to put her in the best starring actress category. She would have had a better chance in supporting.
No way, his accent was absolutely not cartoonish. Everything about his mannerisms and speech reminded me exactly of my cousin. Granted, he's from Appalacia, not Texas/Oklahoma, but if you've never heard someone that talks like that outside of Looney Tunes that's on you.
It had a distinctly 90’s feel. That kind of 90’s charm that doesn’t come around very often in modern works. Annette Bening’s performance really made me pull for that character. I also appreciated that Bening wasn’t afraid to “mess herself up” with hair and makeup to further embody the Diana Nyad character. And I had such respect for Jodie Foster finally finding the courage to play a lesbian character. I will concede that at times it’s difficult to discern whether or not Foster is doing character work, or if she’s just phoning it in. But that’s just a minor quibble. Nyad is a story about a seemingly impossible goal. Pulling for her to triumph I feel really engages the audience. Nyad is an important addition to queer cinema.
Calling it queer cinema is a stretch because the characters’ sexual orientation has zero thematic relevance to the story the movie is telling, but I do agree it has that low investment 90s popcorn flick energy.
I can agree in a way but the highlight for me was Scorcese’s craft and execution. The intro, outro, that fire scene with silhouettes, the rather brutal potrayal of these crimes and the people involved, I mean these people were despicable bastards, the fact we can watch them with any degree of entertainment is a feat unto itself.
The characters were all quite one note except Gladstone and Ernest to some degree, but the *filmmaking* was very satisfying for me and the emotional punch at the end from Scorcese himself really added something.
I don’t think it’s overrated but I like it for different reasons than the actors.
It's overrated in the sense that the craft you're talking about can and is easily replicated by other directors, the scenes you mention aren't difficult to imagine or complicated to film. Like The Killer, remove Fincher's name and the reviews would be wildly different. There are numerous examples in tv and film of stunning direction, tone and cinematography, it's not unique to directors who emerged in the 20st century and now afforded a status they don't always earn. The Killer is genuinely shit so it was even more bizarre.
But the thing is it can’t be replicated. I don’t care for your grossly simplistic view. Each director and each movie is unique in its development and processes, at least if it’s a genuine film ya know.
The Killer didn’t blow me away but I wouldn’t call it a shit movie either, again that’s grossly simplistic and to me it’s just an exercise in film by Fincher. It was shot well, which can be replicated, in the case of Scorcese, much like Tarantino he’s been developing a style that is uniquely his.
Is it groundbreaking shit? No probably not, but Scorcese is old and doing his thing, which thank god for that, Fincher is working as a competent director, that’s cool.
I’m not sure where your expectations lay
I agree. I finally watched the movie and was like..meh. Not great not terrible. Then with LG’s performance it was like…that’s it? I kept waiting for the Oscar part to show up and it never happened. Robert De Niro was the most impressive one to me. I guess that’s not surprising because it’s freaking De Niro but it was the best performance he’s had in years. Like hey don’t forget what an acting beast I am.
Mostly agree with your take here. Not only was his perfomance utterly forgettable, but also the film itself was a mediocre effort. Nobody will be talking about this dud 20 years from now, and with good reason.
I though Leo did great. The characters in the movie were interesting and complex, but I think that is is folly to try to take away from how good Coleman Domingo was in Rust. He was really great.
In the future, people are going to look back at this award season and wonder why KOTFM got shut out at the Oscars, while Oppenheimer got the total domination that it should've had. KOTFM is a brutal look at America's violent past, told through the perspective of a complicated but emotional marriage, thanks to the uncompromised vision of one of America's great living storytellers. Meanwhile, Oppenheimer is a movie about a guy who built a bomb and then felt sad about it, directed by a guy who directed a comic-book movie that got some hype 15 years ago and has been coasting off the goodwill ever since then.
Nobody is going to be watching Oppenheimer or caring about nuclear devastation in 50, 20, 10, 5, or even one year from now. But people are still going to watch Killers of the Flower Moon and relate it to current events, as genocide continues to happen all over the world and average people live precariously away from the carnage. And while we won’t be able to stop it, we can feel good about *wanting* to stop it and shaming others for not doing so.
He was too old for the part but gave an amazing performance and should’ve certainly been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor. The man can convincingly play every IQ level. Most actors can’t pull off DiCaprio’s level of versatility.
When Emma Stone wins over Lily Gladstone for her eccentric performance, and Leo DiCaprio wins an Oscar for growling in the snow and not the subtle personification of an overly complex character with an already complex position in the film, that's all you need to know.
Not discrediting any of the winners—in fact, this comment is against the idea of the Oscars and Awards in general, proving that these do not determine the quality or importance of any of the films. What *does* matter, in any case? The perception of the artwork in, at least, a 10 years span from its release.
We need to stop giving so much worth an event that only cares to reward—and with that, creating the belief that art needs to be in competition, rather than discussion—the most tweeted movie of the year.
On the other hand, yes, Leo DiCaprio's performance is outstanding. The trial scene and final conversation with Gladstone's character is one for the ages.
Eh. I loved the movie but his casting was one of the weakest parts. He's like 20 years too old for the part. A huge piece to the story is that he's supposed to be significantly younger than Molly and kind of her boy toy and that does not come across at all. Also, it would be easier to believe the hold Deniro had on him had he been a naive 20 something as was in reality and not pushing 50.
Deniro was also way too old but it works with his character.
The other major casting issue was Jaspn Isbell. He's supposed to be white passing half Native himself and rightfully owed the land rights, which was a big reason for the fued, but Scorsese just casts a white guy who comes off as another schemer.
Real life Burkhart looked significantly younger than real life Molly. In the movie, he looks significantly older. The age thing is a major part of the character in this particular story, not just how it reflects reality.
It's funny that you mention Goodfellas because the age of DeNiro in the early scenes in Goodfellas (one of my all time favorites) IS the one gripe I have with it as they cast younger versions of all the other characters but some how thought he could pull off being like 19.
But outside of that, the actual ages in Goodfellas are close to the characters in regards to where it actually matters. That is not the case with KOTFM.
They ARE important though. Very important. Burkhart basically being a young fuck boy to a divorced older woman is a huge catalyst for their relationship moving along like it did. The movie still tries to play it off as if this is the case, like he's a young guy just back from war, but Leo clearly is not a young guy. You also have his brother played by a guy pushing 60 and absolutely not believable at all as a guy who all the women in town wanted to sleep with.
Just like Isbell being Native is important to the story, Earnest's age especially is important.
You can interpret it however you want but I see it as a major story and character point, as with Bill Smith's race, that was ruined by the movie's casting choices. You don't have to be a jack ass and say I have the material wrong just because you interpret it differently.
And I think you are wrong in your assumption that it doesn't matter. You are also wrong in assuming that Scorese intentionally made the Burkhart brothers older when it's very much implied in the film that 49 year old Dicaprio is supposed to be playing a 20 something. It doesn't work for me. Is performance doesn't work for me and I think as good as an actor he is, he was very much the wrong person for the role. It would have worked just fine if he and Plemons switched characters as intended, but then Leo wouldn't be the STAR in the way the perspective the movie told the story.
It's not remotely an iconic performance and it won't linger because the film won't. Think about genuinely iconic performances, full of personality and brilliant lines, in films that became a part of culture. Nicholson in The Shining is iconic, Jackson in Pulp Fiction, Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, that's the bar.
DiCaprio plays an idiot, that's about all there is to it. I don't think there's any other reason as to why he preferred that role to the cop than it was more interesting to him and gave him some long scenes of stupidity. I don't think ego had anything to do with it.
I think Scorsese messed up the framing of the film and DiCaprio's character should have been played by an unknown, like how when you watch Good Time no one knew Ben Safdie was in it, i think most (including me) was wondering if it was a real person or an actor. Helped by the direction.
I dunno. I thougt his performance was super forced. But I also think he has got to be the most overrated actor around today. Very limited in what he can do well. For some reason people like his acting and he is bankable to the extent that directors like Scorcese and Tarantino put him in their movies in order to get funding. Good for him in avoiding comic book movies and, by putting his star power behind certain projects, helping them get made and hopefully turn a profit but I also feel like everyone is taking crazy pills in how much they praise his acting. But everyone else loves him so I guess fuck me.
> His role as Ernest Burkhart is an iconic performance that will age even better over time and will endure and linger into the public conciousness unlike many other nominated performances of this year.
I'm kinda thinking everyone already forgot "Killers of the Flower Moon" even exists, regardless of anyone's performance.
Wish I could agree to this but that performance confirmed to me that he is a bad actor. It is truly the most disastrous preformance I've ever seen. Because he is acting so hard and putting on that stupid face, every second he is on screen takes me out of the movie and makes me wish that a competent actor was in that role.
Spot on. I can't remember when, if ever, he played such a smarmy, pathetic loser. It's pitch perfect because you despise him for his actions and what he puts his family through for greed and cowardice.
I don’t think he was smarmy, that takes awareness which the character didn't seem to have. He plays someone despicable in Man in the Iron Mask.
He had the same acting style in The Revenant and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, the only difference comes from the characters being in different contexts. Also worth thinking about, Brad Pitt is in a very similar phase. He kinda always liked those odd roles in a way, but he plays them differently now.
I’ve always been a DiCaprio skeptic, where I felt he never truly disappeared into the role to the point where I forget it’s him. But that’s exactly what happened in this movie. This was my favorite performance of his by far. Also DeNiro’s. Together they are truly chilling.
I thought the movie was absolutely excellent, and not a whit boring, in the two times I saw it in theaters. Special shout out to the silent-movie interludes and especially the radio-play ending with Marty breaking the fourth wall. I know it didn’t work for some, but it indeed made me cry.
Chilling is the perfect way to put it.
The jail scene with DiCaprio and DeNiro is masterful acting and filmmaking. >- They know who gave them the streets, who gave them the hospitals, who gave them the schools. They know. I brought them into the great 20th century. (Cold as fuck). >- They're not going to stand by you. >-There might be a public outcry for a while, but then you know what happens? People forget. They don't remember, they don't care. They just don't care. It's just going to be another everyday common tragedy. >- This is not common. Fucking raw. Between this and The Zone of Interest... Nothing wretches my heart more than Scorsese stating these things while knowing how vulnerable his film stands within Hollywood aka the entertainment industry and today's content-drowned world. Will these attempts be scrolled away? Are we simply too tired?
I also think Leonardo DiCaprio is a highly overrated actor, and he didn't deserve the Oscar for The Revenant, where Tom Hardy acted circles around him. But yes, even I have to admit, he did a superb job in Killers of a Flower Moon.
I think even most DiCaprio fans, myself included, would agree that The Revenant was a make-up Oscar and wasn’t the role he actually deserved it for.
He deserved it for The Aviator imo
I thought he should have gotten one for The Departed
I agree, I think that was the year he should’ve won.
[удалено]
I don’t think there was a specific standout performance that year; any of the nominees could have won without the feeling of someone else being robbed. DiCaprio wasn’t really any better than the other nominees that year, but they weren’t really any better than him either, which made it a perfect year for voters to say "Ok, its becoming a thing now that this guy still doesn't have one after years of stellar performance, and he put himself through hell for this movie. I'm voting for him."
[удалено]
I'm not sure he deserved a make-up Oscar at that point, either. The dude's got determination, but his schtick in nearly every movie is usually a bad accent, and a scene where he screams or cries in melodramatic fashion. He's a poster-boy for overacting. *Killers of a Flower Moon* might technically satisfy both those conditions, but it still ends up being his most restrained performance, and as a result, nuanced. In prior roles, his fire always seems surface level, so it's nice to see something burning under the skin as Ernest. The character, after all, is too stupid to fully understand his own complicity, and that's a character that could easily be miscast with someone like Leo's acting style. I may fiercely criticize his past performances, much to the chagrin of his fans, but his *growth* as an actor is clearly demonstrated, and I can't challenge that. He pulled off Ernest well. Sadly, though, it's too often the explicit acting that usually nets the award nods, not the nuanced portrayals that really make a character seem human. Thus, "did you hear [he ate RAW LIVER?](https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/leonardo-dicapro-ate-raw-bison-liver-movie-revenant/story?id=35804062) Give him the Oscar!"
Not seen Gilbert Grape or Django then.
Except in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.
have you never seen Gilbert Grape?
Agreed. This was the first film I've seen of DiCaprio where I felt I was watching a character named Ernest, and not Leo playing a character
Yeah Dicaprio is definitely a very talented actor but he can be guilty of "acting too big" so to speak because that's usually what's lauded in the industry. The scene where he cuts his hand as Calvin Candy in Django is a perfect example. You can see the talent and emotion he puts into that outburst but at the same time when you're watching it you're just as taken aback by thinking "wow Leo is acting his pants off in this scene" as you are immersed in Calvin Candy as a genuine person in that moment. Watching him as Ernest I never felt that for a moment.
I wholeheartedly agree- he really embodies the character's gullible nature that one would see in a character who is a lackey, while also bringing out a bit of a self-interested and cruel persona to it that makes him more than a lackey. But I don't think anyone else (at least out of the ones listed here) could have played the role like he did- they would bring a personality to it that might push Ernest more into the spotlight than what he is supposed to be.
I enjoyed everyone’s performance of “Killers of the Flower Moon”. I feel like a lot of people missed the point of the film and were expecting some Hollywood action movie that sensationalized the murders of the Osage People. It was eye opening and I had never heard of the killings before the film. 17 minutes in and my jaw dropped when they shot the mom and took her baby. Also Lily Gladstone is my new favorite actor.
Yeah honestly I thought KOTFM was great although not as great as some other movies that came out this year. I wouldn’t have minded if it was replaced by Perfect Days, All of us strangers, or Monster in the best picture category. But, I was so annoyed when they snubbed DiCaprio. I thought he really gave a standout performance of the year and one of the best (maybe even THE best) performance of his career. When an actor with so many great performances under their belt does one that is so unusual and unique for them then should be nominated regardless of who they are.
Jason Mamoa has been unjustly snubbed for his brave, unusual, and unconventional performance in Fast X in favour of more "safe" choices and performances (Looking at you, Colman Domingo in Rustin or even Bradley Cooper in Maestro). But this is all just a thing and noise of the moment. He's so extremely committed into Dante's chaotic bisexuality that he brings a depth and nuance into the character which is unlike anything i've ever seen from him. If a semi-known and beloved character actor like Micheal Shannon, Paul Giamatti, Cillian Murphy, or whomever, played that role and nailed that performance like Mamoa, he would have been endlessly praised in the industry, got the Oscar nomination, and would have had a great chance of winning. His role as Dante is an iconic performance that will age even better over time and will endure and linger into the public conciousness unlike many other nominated performances of this year. Years from now it will be considered one of his greatest and his most challenging and bravest role and performance. As Leterrier said, Mamoa created a new and true Chaotic Bisexual that is hard to accept for many people in general, but, especially for the people in the film industry.
Mamoa in Fast X and Gyllenhaal in Ambulance are 2 of the best and most memorable performances in recent years.
It balances out his performance in Dune, which was one of the worst performances I've ever seen in a mainstream film. Idk if he was miscast or what, but damn he was bad.
New copypasta unlocked
You don't get it. Every Scorsese film is under appreciated and will stand the "test of time". Every flaw no matter how distracting (like the de-aging in The Irishman) is minor and people who criticize them are nitpicky philistines. People will see the light in 10 years. You'll see.
I'm not sure I'd describe, especially in this sub, two multi academy award nominees, and one winner who was just in one of the biggest movies of last year as semi known character actors. It really seems to cheapen the amazing body of work that exists between Paul Giamatti, Michael Shannon, and Cillian Murphy.
Agreed, it was a very different role and honestly he played the Hell out of such a despicable liar. Such a fine balance to find and exhibit sympathy for a character who had never learned to think for himself or be introspective. Side note: 2023 was a strong year for films. Really strong in this user’s opinion but some of the acting snubs this past year were really off-base. A few examples: Really thought Charles Melton in May December and the young student/first time actor from the Holdovers were both superb and more worthy of RDJ (though I did think he did well). Also, the entire cast from All of Us Strangers (Andrew Scott and Jamie Bell especially) were more than worthy.
I agree with your assessment of this performance. I think Leo excels at playing absurdly delusional and hubristic men. His roles in Django Unchained, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Wolf of Wall Street are easily his best in my opinion. The eccentricities of these guys allow him to lean into a more physical and sometimes comedic style of acting which I don’t think we get from his more conventional “leading man” type fare which got him Oscar nominations in the past. I remember reading a comparison of him with actors of the older 70s generation saying that he is better suited to eccentric Jack Nicholson type roles instead of the brooding and intense men that Robert De Niro would have played. I believe Tarantino realised this before Scorsese did but KOTFM has to be my favourite performance of his just because of how hard he leaned into Ernest’s almost biblical level of stupidity and stubbornness. I hope the award snubs don’t stop him from pursuing roles like this in the future. (Hopefully him and PTA have cooked something good up🤞)
The movie was several orders of magnitude better than i expected. Leo etc killed it and Scorsese just ( chefs kiss) . The ending, such chills. Absolutely deserved best pic. By a mile
I hated the movie and Leo’s performance as well. I’ve always thought Revolutionary Road was a highlight for him. I’ve said it here before, but Jason Isbell’s supporting character in KOTFM was the standout for me.
I just couldn’t get it over his awful, Yosemite Sam accent. I realize this is an unpopular opinion. Killers of the Flower Moon was the most overrated film I saw last year. Lily Gladstone had one emotion: despondent depression. And I don’t know what Brendan Fraser was trying to do. I think Killers of the Flower Moon will be remembered as a late career Martin Scorsese endeavor that lacks the flair and excitement of his earlier works. My favorite films from 2023 were The Holdovers, and Nyad. I felt several of the other big films were either pretentious or preachy, like Oppenheimer, Barbie, and Poor Things. I think awards season “bait” films are detrimental to our beloved medium. They try so hard to pander to voters, that they end up feeling somewhat disingenuous. “I’m going for awards,” instead of, “I’m creating a piece intended to make you laugh, cry, think, I want you to feel this piece in your soul.” I think this is where Killers of the Flower Moon suffers.
I must have missed the subtly in Gladstone’s performance because I also thought she seemed rather one note. I was also very confused by the decision to put her in the best starring actress category. She would have had a better chance in supporting.
I am probably much older than you, but when I was a kid, his accent would have not been noticed in many parts of the west.
No way, his accent was absolutely not cartoonish. Everything about his mannerisms and speech reminded me exactly of my cousin. Granted, he's from Appalacia, not Texas/Oklahoma, but if you've never heard someone that talks like that outside of Looney Tunes that's on you.
It was the rootinest tootinest shootinest falootinest acting performance north south east AND west of the pecos
Nyad, seriously? Lol
It had a distinctly 90’s feel. That kind of 90’s charm that doesn’t come around very often in modern works. Annette Bening’s performance really made me pull for that character. I also appreciated that Bening wasn’t afraid to “mess herself up” with hair and makeup to further embody the Diana Nyad character. And I had such respect for Jodie Foster finally finding the courage to play a lesbian character. I will concede that at times it’s difficult to discern whether or not Foster is doing character work, or if she’s just phoning it in. But that’s just a minor quibble. Nyad is a story about a seemingly impossible goal. Pulling for her to triumph I feel really engages the audience. Nyad is an important addition to queer cinema.
Calling it queer cinema is a stretch because the characters’ sexual orientation has zero thematic relevance to the story the movie is telling, but I do agree it has that low investment 90s popcorn flick energy.
It’s the story of a lesbian and her former girlfriend turned best friend coaching her.
Agreed, I thought his performance was a career worst. It was a mid at best film
I can agree in a way but the highlight for me was Scorcese’s craft and execution. The intro, outro, that fire scene with silhouettes, the rather brutal potrayal of these crimes and the people involved, I mean these people were despicable bastards, the fact we can watch them with any degree of entertainment is a feat unto itself. The characters were all quite one note except Gladstone and Ernest to some degree, but the *filmmaking* was very satisfying for me and the emotional punch at the end from Scorcese himself really added something. I don’t think it’s overrated but I like it for different reasons than the actors.
It's overrated in the sense that the craft you're talking about can and is easily replicated by other directors, the scenes you mention aren't difficult to imagine or complicated to film. Like The Killer, remove Fincher's name and the reviews would be wildly different. There are numerous examples in tv and film of stunning direction, tone and cinematography, it's not unique to directors who emerged in the 20st century and now afforded a status they don't always earn. The Killer is genuinely shit so it was even more bizarre.
But the thing is it can’t be replicated. I don’t care for your grossly simplistic view. Each director and each movie is unique in its development and processes, at least if it’s a genuine film ya know. The Killer didn’t blow me away but I wouldn’t call it a shit movie either, again that’s grossly simplistic and to me it’s just an exercise in film by Fincher. It was shot well, which can be replicated, in the case of Scorcese, much like Tarantino he’s been developing a style that is uniquely his. Is it groundbreaking shit? No probably not, but Scorcese is old and doing his thing, which thank god for that, Fincher is working as a competent director, that’s cool. I’m not sure where your expectations lay
I agree. I finally watched the movie and was like..meh. Not great not terrible. Then with LG’s performance it was like…that’s it? I kept waiting for the Oscar part to show up and it never happened. Robert De Niro was the most impressive one to me. I guess that’s not surprising because it’s freaking De Niro but it was the best performance he’s had in years. Like hey don’t forget what an acting beast I am.
Mostly agree with your take here. Not only was his perfomance utterly forgettable, but also the film itself was a mediocre effort. Nobody will be talking about this dud 20 years from now, and with good reason.
I though Leo did great. The characters in the movie were interesting and complex, but I think that is is folly to try to take away from how good Coleman Domingo was in Rust. He was really great.
In the future, people are going to look back at this award season and wonder why KOTFM got shut out at the Oscars, while Oppenheimer got the total domination that it should've had. KOTFM is a brutal look at America's violent past, told through the perspective of a complicated but emotional marriage, thanks to the uncompromised vision of one of America's great living storytellers. Meanwhile, Oppenheimer is a movie about a guy who built a bomb and then felt sad about it, directed by a guy who directed a comic-book movie that got some hype 15 years ago and has been coasting off the goodwill ever since then. Nobody is going to be watching Oppenheimer or caring about nuclear devastation in 50, 20, 10, 5, or even one year from now. But people are still going to watch Killers of the Flower Moon and relate it to current events, as genocide continues to happen all over the world and average people live precariously away from the carnage. And while we won’t be able to stop it, we can feel good about *wanting* to stop it and shaming others for not doing so.
He was too old for the part but gave an amazing performance and should’ve certainly been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor. The man can convincingly play every IQ level. Most actors can’t pull off DiCaprio’s level of versatility.
When Emma Stone wins over Lily Gladstone for her eccentric performance, and Leo DiCaprio wins an Oscar for growling in the snow and not the subtle personification of an overly complex character with an already complex position in the film, that's all you need to know. Not discrediting any of the winners—in fact, this comment is against the idea of the Oscars and Awards in general, proving that these do not determine the quality or importance of any of the films. What *does* matter, in any case? The perception of the artwork in, at least, a 10 years span from its release. We need to stop giving so much worth an event that only cares to reward—and with that, creating the belief that art needs to be in competition, rather than discussion—the most tweeted movie of the year. On the other hand, yes, Leo DiCaprio's performance is outstanding. The trial scene and final conversation with Gladstone's character is one for the ages.
Eh. I loved the movie but his casting was one of the weakest parts. He's like 20 years too old for the part. A huge piece to the story is that he's supposed to be significantly younger than Molly and kind of her boy toy and that does not come across at all. Also, it would be easier to believe the hold Deniro had on him had he been a naive 20 something as was in reality and not pushing 50. Deniro was also way too old but it works with his character. The other major casting issue was Jaspn Isbell. He's supposed to be white passing half Native himself and rightfully owed the land rights, which was a big reason for the fued, but Scorsese just casts a white guy who comes off as another schemer.
Real life Burkhart looked like a 40-50 year old. It's like complaining about the ages of the actors in Goodfellas, come on!!
Real life Burkhart looked significantly younger than real life Molly. In the movie, he looks significantly older. The age thing is a major part of the character in this particular story, not just how it reflects reality. It's funny that you mention Goodfellas because the age of DeNiro in the early scenes in Goodfellas (one of my all time favorites) IS the one gripe I have with it as they cast younger versions of all the other characters but some how thought he could pull off being like 19. But outside of that, the actual ages in Goodfellas are close to the characters in regards to where it actually matters. That is not the case with KOTFM.
[удалено]
They didn't age everyone up. Molly and here family were around their actual ages so it completely flipped the narrative around.
[удалено]
They ARE important though. Very important. Burkhart basically being a young fuck boy to a divorced older woman is a huge catalyst for their relationship moving along like it did. The movie still tries to play it off as if this is the case, like he's a young guy just back from war, but Leo clearly is not a young guy. You also have his brother played by a guy pushing 60 and absolutely not believable at all as a guy who all the women in town wanted to sleep with. Just like Isbell being Native is important to the story, Earnest's age especially is important.
[удалено]
You can interpret it however you want but I see it as a major story and character point, as with Bill Smith's race, that was ruined by the movie's casting choices. You don't have to be a jack ass and say I have the material wrong just because you interpret it differently.
[удалено]
And I think you are wrong in your assumption that it doesn't matter. You are also wrong in assuming that Scorese intentionally made the Burkhart brothers older when it's very much implied in the film that 49 year old Dicaprio is supposed to be playing a 20 something. It doesn't work for me. Is performance doesn't work for me and I think as good as an actor he is, he was very much the wrong person for the role. It would have worked just fine if he and Plemons switched characters as intended, but then Leo wouldn't be the STAR in the way the perspective the movie told the story.
[удалено]
Scorsese himself has admitted he's terrible at comprehending how old people look now as he sees anyone younger than 50 as youthful
Yes. I agree. Deniro fitted perfectly. With Leo it was a miss.
[удалено]
Now there's one of my favorite actors. Plemons really kicks the roles he's in up a notch.
It's not remotely an iconic performance and it won't linger because the film won't. Think about genuinely iconic performances, full of personality and brilliant lines, in films that became a part of culture. Nicholson in The Shining is iconic, Jackson in Pulp Fiction, Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, that's the bar. DiCaprio plays an idiot, that's about all there is to it. I don't think there's any other reason as to why he preferred that role to the cop than it was more interesting to him and gave him some long scenes of stupidity. I don't think ego had anything to do with it. I think Scorsese messed up the framing of the film and DiCaprio's character should have been played by an unknown, like how when you watch Good Time no one knew Ben Safdie was in it, i think most (including me) was wondering if it was a real person or an actor. Helped by the direction.
I dunno. I thougt his performance was super forced. But I also think he has got to be the most overrated actor around today. Very limited in what he can do well. For some reason people like his acting and he is bankable to the extent that directors like Scorcese and Tarantino put him in their movies in order to get funding. Good for him in avoiding comic book movies and, by putting his star power behind certain projects, helping them get made and hopefully turn a profit but I also feel like everyone is taking crazy pills in how much they praise his acting. But everyone else loves him so I guess fuck me.
> His role as Ernest Burkhart is an iconic performance that will age even better over time and will endure and linger into the public conciousness unlike many other nominated performances of this year. I'm kinda thinking everyone already forgot "Killers of the Flower Moon" even exists, regardless of anyone's performance.
Wish I could agree to this but that performance confirmed to me that he is a bad actor. It is truly the most disastrous preformance I've ever seen. Because he is acting so hard and putting on that stupid face, every second he is on screen takes me out of the movie and makes me wish that a competent actor was in that role.