Oppenheimer is squeezing Killers Of The Flower Moon out of awards season
There’s only room for one three-hour-plus historical drama 'round these parts
Film Features Oppenheimer
Oppenheimer is blowing up awards season. After becoming the third biggest movie of the year, Christopher Nolan’s film has dominated the awards circuit since sweeping the Golden Globes. Heading into Academy Award nominations, it’s the frontrunner, but when will Killers Of The Flower Moon get its flowers?
With Oppenheimer in the running, it doesn’t appear there’s space for two three-hour historical bio-dramas about the 20th century’s great American-born atrocities. Despite being a much-discussed and widely praised work by, arguably, the world’s greatest filmmaker, Martin Scorsese’s Killers Of The Flower Moon has faltered on the awards scene. Many, including this writer, consider Killers the better film, but there are practical reasons why Oppenheimer is finding more success aside from voters simply preferring one to the other.
Superficially, there is a lot of overlap between the two films. For one thing, they’re both profound dramas about the ills of the 20th century, made with great care and artistry. However, only one turns the camera back on the audience. Killers Of The Flower Moon leaves audiences in a liminal space, where Martin Scorsese himself takes the stage, points at the audience, and essentially says, “We’re all complicit in this crime against the Native American people and guilty of treating it like entertainment.” Oppenheimer used American boosterism and nationalism as a reason for America killing more than 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when World War II was already winding down. But the movie’s final shot places the blame on the scientists and what they wrought. While hardly a crowd pleaser, it’s enough to give the audience an out that Killers doesn’t offer. Audiences took the out.
Oppenheimer became a worldwide phenomenon, thanks, in some part, to a boost from “Barbenheimer.” The meme got butts in seats, but not without caveats. While most entered Barbie ready for a good time, Oppenheimer’s long-term viability wasn’t guaranteed. It is a three-hour movie about physics, after all. Furthermore, Oppenheimer’s complicated release required an industry-wide overhaul, installing massive 70mm IMAX projectors into movie theaters nationwide and retrofitting others with 70mm and 35mm projectors that have long gone out of style thanks to the ease and automation of newer digital ones. The gambit worked. Seeing the film in specific formats wasn’t just a novelty. For some, it was a requirement, with filmgoers crossing state lines and buying tickets on the black market for spots in sold-out screenings. Oppenheimer became about the theatrical experience as a whole. Watching Oppenheimer the way Christopher Nolan intended actually became something people wanted to do. Nolan figured out how to package a reasonably unsexy film into an experience worth leaving the house for, a rare bright spot in a blockbuster landscape bursting with brand synergy.
Killers Of The Flower Moon, by contrast, was never designed to get people back in theaters. It wasn’t even produced for theatrical release. Apple paid for the film to give Apple TV+ subscribers a reason to keep paying $9.99 for a relatively limited library. Killers only ended up in theaters because of the strikes and, likely, Oppenheimer’s success, which showed potential for lengthy dramas. When Dune and Kraven The Hunter jumped from fall 2023 to 2024, it made space for Apple to recoup some of the $200 million it reportedly spent on Killers. The movie wasn’t a runaway success, but on streaming Killers Of The Flower Moon would have made zero dollars as opposed to the $156 million it made worldwide. But Killers’ theatrical release was also tricky. A half-hour longer than Nolan’s film, its three-hour-and-26-minute runtime was a tough sell. Though it did reignite the “movies are too dang long” debate and inspired theaters to insert intermissions into the movie, the runtime overwhelmed the conversation and probably scared some away from the movie.
We’re speculating here, but it’s possible awards voters were also scared off by the film’s runtime, too. They had already sat through a three-hour historical drama that year, and getting them into a second may have been difficult. Moreover, Oppenheimer encouraged multiple viewings—if only to see the differences in format—and was a surprise hit on home media, another shrinking market that Oppenheimer’s popularity revived. 4K discs quickly sold out at a time when retailers were ditching the format. As a result, voters likely watched Oppenheimer with their families over the holidays more significantly than Killers Of The Flower Moon, helping Nolan’s film stay front of mind. Thus far, Lily Gladstone’s performance is the only thing that stood out to voters about Killers. Maybe Killers is lucky Oppenheimer doesn’t have a lead female actor to compete in Best Actress—Gladstone has enough trouble with Emma Stone lumbering around. In a year devoid of another movie where men wear wide-brim hats, Killers Of The Flower Moon might have fared better. But in 2024, Oppenheimer has become death, destroyer of Oscar chances.
74 Comments
Ugh, really? I’ve seen neither, but the last thing we need is Nolan thinking he’s a serious auteur.
Killers of the flower moon was way too long and definitely had pacing issues, Lily Gladstone was the best part of the movie while Leo wasn’t that great. I came into Killers expecting a lot but it was disappointing for a Scorsese movie. It was over 3 hours long and he still had big time jumps instead focusing way too much on things that didn’t need the time. It was really crazy to see Killers seem so poorly edited for a Scorsese film when I’d consider Goodfellas the most tightly edited film of all time but he just doesn’t seem to have it anymore.
I agree wholeheartedly. Gladstone was the standout. She deserves the Oscar. But the film did not need to be as long as it was, and it felt so…ordinary. I mean, maybe it’s unfair to hold him to a higher standard, but when I go see a Scorsese film, I expect something special, and Flower Moon felt like a movie well within the capabilities of any number of competent directors.
Gladstone was just snubbed at the BAFTAs and lost to Emma Stone at Critics Choice. If she loses at SAG next month she is going to have a very hard time winning the Oscar. Flowers continually falling out of favor with voters isn’t helping her chances.
Yeah Emma Stone keeps rising and it’s going to be a tight race for sure. I’m torn. I’d love to see Gladstone win, but I’d also love to see a comedic performance recognized. I still give the edge to Gladstone because, right or wrong, the Academy voters love to virtue signal, and will want to avoid “Oscars be so White” headlines that will land Monday morning if she doesn’t win.
I agree with your point about the Oscars loving to virtue signal, but if she loses SAG it will be genuinely shocking if Stone doesn’t win. Stone has the kind of showy Acting™ performance that actors love and she’s in every second of the film, so as of now I think she has the edge there. I think Gladstone would have had better luck had she submitted as Supporting
Funny you mention that, I was pondering if hers is a lead or supporting performance. It’s from her perspective, which feels like a lead, but in terms of presence it feels more supporting. I could go either way, honestly.
BAFTAs, being British, have their own biases. They miss on something every year (Gladstone’s snub is egregious). Critics Choice went to Austin Butler last year for Actor – they have a trend of picking a runner-up.
BAFTA weirdness usually tends to result in a bias towards British films. Saltburn was overrepresented and even pulled off a nomination for Elordi (the weakest part of the film) when it’s not likely to get more than a Supporting nomination for Rosamund Pike at the Oscars (if that). Generally speaking BAFTA has become a very solid bellwether for the ultimate Oscar winners, though as you said they do miss on something every year – Jessica Chastain wasn’t nominated the year she won her Oscar and for a brief moment it looked like Lady Gaga was the frontrunner before being snubbed, though overall that was a deeply weird year for that category.
I completely agree! And Lily Gladstone was great but Di Caprio was just. “…meh”.
Maybe it’s time people start realizing Leo isn’t as good as they think.
Couldn’t disagree more about the pacing. It absolutely did not feel like 3 1/2 hours to me. There’s not one wasted scene, shot, or line of dialogue in the whole movie. Also, are you under the impression that Scorsese edits his own films? He has very famously worked with the same editor, Thelma Schoonmaker–literally the only editor in film history who is even close to a household name–on every film since Raging Bull.
Marcia Lucas is def a household name
you can’t honestly tell me that her work is on the same level as it was in the 80s/90s, and of course he doesn’t edit his own films but the director is going to be working closely with his editor. Scorsese had the same problem with the irishman, almost 3 and half hours with no reason to be, he just can’t tell a concise story anymore.
The Irishman suffered the same pacing and length issues.
LOL yea Thelma did a bad job editing. You’re doing great.
crazy to think that people that used to be good at their jobs might not be anymore – she used to be great but what came out of that movie wasn’t
Very funny work here.
“Thus far, Lily Gladstone’s performance is the only thing that stood out to voters about Killers. Maybe Killers is lucky Oppenheimer doesn’t have a lead female actor to compete in Best Actress—Gladstone has enough trouble with Emma Stone lumbering around.”I immediately thought this very same thing. Gladstone is the only sure thing about Killers; and in a year without Emma Stone she would have been a lock. We’ll see how the Oscars play out.
It’s funny in retrospect how much hand-wringing there was about putting her up for Lead instead of Supporting. On this very site, there were dozens of comments about how she had no chance because of her lack of screen time when the news was announced.
The other big factor is that Oppenheimer is a biopic and awards shows love biopics for some irrational reason.
I’m glad Gladstone is getting recognition. She really does draw the eye even when in the same scenes as DiCaprio as many people have pointed out. I was skeptical that Oppenheimer would be my kind of movie, but I was impressed. It’s a real feat, so I think the recognition is deserved. I’m not too heartbroken for DeNiro, Scorsese, or DiCaprio, because they know the business, they know what awards are about, and they’re already recognizes as titans.
I think you´re underestimating the great very short supporting performances in Oppenheimer: Matt Damon, Tom Conti, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Conti, Benny Safdie, Alden Ehrenreich, Mathew Modine, Josh Harnett, etc.. Rami Maalek was impressive during the Senate hearing, and Casey Affleck was just frightening. Killers of the Flower Moon didn´t have that parade of great performances.
i will say flowers had a great ‘who the hell is that guy!’ guy in tatanka means. that was a star-making part and scorsese’s camera loved him.
Yeah, he was really great. Another actor who just catches your attention. I didn’t know who he was, but I kept thinking that I’ve seen him before. Only after I looked him up that I realized it’s because I’ve rewatched The Last of the Mohicans many times and I was thinking of his resemblance to his dad. Be cool to see more of this guy.
I totally disagree. IMO one of Killers’ greatest strengths was its supporting cast, especially all the musicians with limited acting experience like Jason Isbell, Sturgill Simpson, Pete Yorn, and Charlie Musselwhite. I think all the Native actors, Jesse Plemons, Brendan Fraser, John Lithgow, and Pat Healy turned in fantastic performances as well. Most of those roles in Oppenheimer could’ve been played by basically any actor with decent chops, something I don’t think can be said about Killers.
LOL yes it did.
I know this is cinema blasphemy but I don’t need to see another Scorsese/DiCaprio collaboration. I’m also wary of Scorsese taking on this particular story. Oppenheimer was a cinematic experience and I hope it continues to dominate the awards season.
i gotta say i only hear the “i’m not sure about this guy telling this story” misgivings from people who haven’t seen the movie.
I saw it and my biggest takeaway was IMMEDIATELY “Scorsese was not the right filmmaker to tell this story.”
Hilarious post!
Scorsese was not the right person to tell the story of shitty white people, doing shitty things? Scorsese’s whole shtick is making movies about the worst people possible
Exactly.
he was clearly wary about it too and that bleeds into the narrative in a very interesting way.
Yeah. When I initially saw it, I really didn’t like that scene because (stupid me) I didn’t realize it was a conscious commentary; I thought they were just using it as a device to summarize and wrap things up. I want to see it again for many reasons, so I hope it makes it back into theaters but likely won’t.
Well it did start out as a white savior movie with DiCaprio as the Texas ranger/BOI character Jesse Plemons ended up playing but they completely changed it into what it is now.
It’s been well documented how collaborative he was with the Osage people in every aspect of preparing and shooting the film. Unless there’s an Osage director who can corral hundreds of millions for a major movie production then I’m not sure what alternative there is. Do you have that issue with the book’s author, David Grann (also not an Osage)?
I really adore Scorsese, so I was pre-sold on this movie, as a caveat. That said, I thought the movie was great as a whole, had some really great scenes, and felt respectful and aware of its limits. However, I’m not sure if this history necessarily requires a production as expensive and as epic as this. There could be an Osage director out there who could get their film funded, but that film would look different (i.e., smaller). Another film could be made from an Osage POV, be just as good if not better, within the limits of a smaller budget. I liked Killers a lot, but retelling the Osage murders doesn’t require expensive Hollywood actors, a budget for trains and thousands of extras, etc. I think that’s an alternative.
Call me a cynic, but the salient reality is that this particular story (while riveting) simply wouldn’t be more than a well-made documentary or a terribly worse film without people like Scorsese and DiCaprio behind it.
You say it would be a better movie, but you don’t say why. Merely changing the POV to an Osage character doesn’t automatically make it a better movie, nor does decreasing the budget. Could those things help? Possibly, but that merely acknowledges a range of possibilities upto and including no movie being made at all.
I thought the movie was great, and it’s clear the people behind the creation and production have brought millions of more eyes to a story that would’ve otherwise been consigned to a much smaller niche of history. I find complaints about who made the movie a case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (or in this case, the great).
My saying that it could be a better movie was honestly not a dig at Scorsese or at the movie. What I don’t want to say is that no one is capable of making a movie as good or better than this Scorsese take. There is a range of possibilities, a big one, and within that range is a better movie, not because it’s from an Osage POV, but because Scorsese is not perfect. I think I used “could” rather than “would” as much as I can in my earlier post for that reason.As to how another take at this story *could* be a better movie, I don’t think that’s hard to imagine because there are lots of possibilities. It could focus on different people, it could be set in the present day involving someone digging into the history, it could be many things. When I say another movie with a smaller budget could make a good if not better movie, I’m not saying “take Scorsese’s movie and improve on it”. I’m saying “what story can other people tell about the Osage murders?” I actually don’t think we’re really disagreeing.
It “could be” a better movie, but it doesn’t exist. KotFM does.
I don’t have an issue with Grann because he wrote a well-researched book that gave voice to the victims of the crimes and provided a fascinating and at times thrilling insight into the criminal investigation.
I have an issue with Scorsese turning Ernest Burkhart into the central character because he’s just so damn enamored with DiCaprio yelling and making faces.
I have an issue with Scorsese turning Ernest Burkhart into the central character because he’s just so damn enamored with DiCaprio yelling and making faces.I think it was for narrative effect for people (such as most of the audience) who were coming in not knowing that Burkhart was complicit in many of the murders and associated skullduggery.
You change the POV to an Osage, and that would signal to many of the audience members that the main white characters (those who are not out-of-town law enforcement professionals) are undoubtedly antagonists. One of the most interesting parts of the film is Mollie coming to the realization that Ernest, far from being Mr. “Aw shucks I don’t know what’s going on”, was as complicit as his uncle. It works in the film because while we as the audience sees how he’s corrupted by his uncle and engages in nefarious actions, Mollie is none the wiser. You shift the POV, and now the audience is in the dark as much as Mollie, and because of that, the reveal that he’s a bad guy would seemingly come out of nowhere, especially since Mollie genuinely believed in his innocence for most of the movie.
Unfortunately, it would have the effect of making Mollie (assuming she was the POV character) look a bit stupid. My guess is that Scorsese centered on Ernest and Hale (along with the other nefarious white characters) in order to show just how rotten they were irrespective of the Osage characters’ general levels of incuriousity and naivete.
It’s also narratively difficult to structure a movie around a passive character, and unfortunately, Mollie (unlike her sister) was a passive character for the majority of the story. She tended to respond to things happening rather than making things happen herself. Some of that passivity can be chalked to writing decisions, but in reality, there’s a chance that Mollie was a passive actor in many of these situations that involved the machinations of Burkhart and Hale, along with the investigations that started in Osage County and eventually brought in the precursor to the FBI from DC.
Mollie goes to Washington and personally pleads with the President (Coolidge, I think) to send someone to investigate. She has to fight the KKK banker to get her own money out for the trip, too. She has agency in the movie.
Having agency at moments is far different than being the active protagonist.
She only goes to Calvin Coolidge (and, most importantly, as part of an entire delegation) after we’ve witnessed half a dozen of just her family members get killed/die. In reality, the number of Osage who were killed by that point was nearly 60 (Coolidge was President from 1923-1929, and the trial of Burkhart happened in 1926). Some of the confusion is due to the relatively condensed and unclear span of time, but Mollie’s first relative who died was a sister (who was likely poisoned) in 1918. The remaining immediate family members all died between 1921 and 1923.
Again, her fight against the banker is well after the murders have been happening, and let’s be clear, the issue arose because after all that time, Mollie (in the movie) never particularly cared about the system as it was set up. That gets back to my point about how her POV would’ve made her look naive and stupid. The system itself was setup to specifically deprive the Osage of their money and their rights and to put those in the hands of nefarious white actors. However, you’d think that, even without dozens of murders, many of the Osage (particularly the younger ones) would’ve spoken up or done something sooner.
If the actions you undertake under your own agency solely come about due to the actions of others, by definition, you’re a passive protagonist in the narrative. Further, a character (even a protagonist) being passive isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The point I was making is that it adds narrative difficulties when you do have a passive protagonist, because you’re now constrained by the strength of the underlying narrative and/or the antagonist(s). However, this requires the narrative and the antagonists to be set up, otherwise you have the issue of weak or unexplored motivations for the antagonists
This is most prominent in superhero movies where the superheroes are often passive, and the antagonists/villains are reduced to one-note, “I want power/kill everybody” bad guys. This tends to happen because we focus an inordinate amount of time on the heroes, leaving little time for the villains who often have to spend that time in a fight or telling us why their bad, instead of showing it). Killers turned it on its head, because we spend most of our time with Burkhart and Hale, the clear villains, who show us their desires and their villainy which, for both, grow over the film as they become more and more successful.
All that being said, I like Mollie as a character (and as a real-life person). However, the point I made is that given the structure of the film, and the nature of the underlying conflict, I don’t think the movie (if made at all) would’ve been as successfully narratively with Mollie as the POV character. The reality is that audiences get engaged by the characters with motivation, and Mollie’s motivation only comes about by the murders. Burkhart’s and Hale’s are there from the beginning. When you ask the narrative question of “why should we care about the protagonist?” and the answer doesn’t show up until 40 minutes in (when Mollie’s first sister dies, which we already know was from the machinations of at least Hale), you’d be looking at a fundamental rewrite of the structure of the story. Surely Scorsese and Eric Roth (his co-writer) had the talent to do so, but I don’t believe the movie would’ve been made better by shifting the POV via an entire structural change of the script.
There’s a reason why murder mysteries tend to utilize a dispassionate observer (usually a detective) as the POV character. In a fictional story, revealing character motivations would often have the effect of revealing who did it (Knives Out did a great job of avoiding that by having Ransom be cut out of the will by Harlan, in addition to the rest of the family, thus making all of them look guilty). The detective’s motivation, assuming they have no tangible connection to either the deceased or the suspected, is to solve the crime. In other words, the motivation is the murder, not who was murdered. In a real life story that adheres rather closely to historical events, you often lack that dispassionate observer, so it often renders the protagonist(s) passive as they are often connected some way to the murder and/or the victim(s) and are thus constantly responding to circumstances rather than causing the circumstances to happen in the first place. Their motivations are not the murder, but who was murdered, and because of that, having them as the POV is often less interesting because their motivation is so easily determined by circumstance (thus you lose the appeal of unraveling the motivation mystery, or the why of the story).
What a long post for meaningless hair-splitting.
Your early morning contribution has been noted. Cheers.
See how something tossed off in the early morning is more effective than your work?
They say the quality of writing on this site has declined. We should also consider how the quality of poster has followed.
I’m not a huge Scorsese fan, but this movie really impressed me. I think in terms of is this guy the right person to tell this story, I think there’s something really interesting going on here. I know there are criticisms to be made about centering a white man’s experience, but I also think Scorsese managed to find the story in this that does feel like it’s his to tell in a way?I watched it over the weekend and it’s not perfect, but I am still thinking about it in what I consider a really productive way creatively.
Yeah, that was my reaction as well. I had no idea what to expect going in, but I was impressed at how well the Osage-focused portions walked the tricky line of making a distant time and unfamiliar culture feel both authentic and approachable (I especially loved how Everett Waller’s big speech as Paul Red Eagle both eloquently expressed the plight of the Osage and sounded as off-the-cuff as a local politician making his case at a city council meeting), and I realized Scorsese was probably better suited than any other filmmaker to tell the other part of the story: about a gaggle of murderous white dudes who use lofty talk about love, religion, and civilization to cover up the fact that they are hilariously venal dipshits.
Nailed it. People focus on the fact that it’s through Ernests perspective but Scorcese never glorifies it or tries to make any of the other white guys sympathetic characters. You can tell Ernest Burkhart is a sack right from the get go.
Yeah, that’s it exactly. He might not be the best person to talk about the Osage part of the history, but he’s a very good choice for talking about the white killers, and I think focusing on them as a white member of the film’s audience really confronts you with how complicit the entire white community was.
FWIW, Scorsese’s take was excellent, and there’s always room for someone else to take on the story again.
You haven’t seen “Killers of the Flower Moon?”
So you’re not even giving Killers a shot? Gotcha.
as far as i’m concerned the ‘win’ was getting 200 million dollars to make the movie and now i can watch the movie whenever i want.
Correct answer.
It’s weird to pit these movies head to head as though awards season is a horse race when the reasons one is sweeping up awards has nothing to do with the other; and vice-versa.
Exactly, and if we’re going go pit then against each other, then someone won’t win. That’s how sports work. A lot of great athletes were “squeezed out” by Michael Jordan.
I find your argument about the message of the movies incredibly faulty. Oppenheimer talks a lot about the military, politicians and government officials and the power of what the nuclear bomb can do and the danger that they do not seem to understand it. We see the division among so many at different parts of the film from Strauss to Truman to Leslie R. Groves. Even if not huge moments the contrast is there.Killers of the Flower Moon is simply De Niro and the people around him doing terrible things to the Native Americans. If Scorsese wanted to dig into the idea of society against the Native Americans then a wider scope of a film was needed. After three and half hours I didn’t know what Scorsese wanted me to think about the Native Americans or any of the characters in this film. Everyone is doing fine in their roles but there isn’t a lot of depth to any of these characters. I agree Scorsese is probably the greatest living filmmaker but this was a big misfire in my opinion.
They give a wider scope in the beginning, showing multiple other murders that Hale did not orchestrate. “After three and half hours I didn’t know what Scorsese wanted me to think about the Native Americans or any of the characters in this film.”Embarrassing skill issue confession!
it’s really not that surprising:
1) Nolan has made it his identity to be Mr. Movie Theater. post-pandemic, he’s become one of the most public faces trying to keep the old model of the industry afloat, and voters like that2) Nolan’s also been largely unrecognized by the oscars while putting out some of the most commercially and critically successful films of the last twenty years, so there’s a perception that he’s due3) biopic, especially WWII-era biopic, is oscar catnip
4) the oscars are desperate to appeal to mainstream viewers, which is hard to do when you’re an industry-insider awards show. here’s a rare opportunity to give Best Picture not to a small film no one saw, but a genuine blockbuster that played like a goddamn house on fire all summer long. of course it would make sense to court that kind of cultural caché5) Oppenheimer is a really good movie
also, this assessment of Oppenheimer’s politics feels so, so wildly off-base. you can’t honestly say the movie is giving American viewers an out on the bomb when Nolan himself used recurring footage of his own daughter being peeled alive by radioactive fallout as his stand-in for the horrors Oppenheimer’s work wrought. i’m really not a Nolan guy, but that is a filmmaker making commentary through a deeply personal artistic choice
where Martin Scorsese himself takes the stage, points at the audience, and essentially says, “We’re all complicit in this crime against the Native American people and guilty of treating it like entertainment.” …While [Oppenheimer’s ending] is enough to give the audience an out that Killers doesn’t offer.Did I need Christopher Nolan to walk out onscreen and lecture me at the end? Probably not. But I wouldn’t have minded a cameo where he and Einstein compare notes. Look, they’re my two favorites of the year, respectively, but if I were pragmatic about voting between them, I’d be leaning towards Oppenheimer in most categories too. It’s more impressive in the technical areas, editing-wise, its 3 hours are paced better than Killers, and save for Lily Gladstone, it’s got a lot of the better performances.
i said this elsewhere but it’s also just been a truly INSANE year for movies. like, there are some 5 year periods where we’d be lucky to get either oppenheimer or kotfm, not to mention the tons and tons of other incredible stuff that’s come out.
Oppy might make the lower end of my top 10, and KotFM did not even make it in. This was a ridiculous year for film, and would not be surprised if it joins the likes of ‘99, ‘39, and others are top level movie years.
2023 was the year even the godzilla movie could reasonably be in anyone’s top 5.
You really seem to be tripping over yourself to find some scapegoat for why Oppenheimer is faring better than Killers of the Flower Moon. It might just be that most people think it’s the better film? Regardless of whether you yourself do.
Shocker.
“But the movie’s final shot places the blame on the scientists and what they wrought. While hardly a crowd pleaser, it’s enough to give the audience an out that Killers doesn’t offer. Audiences took the out.”Wow that’s some terrible analysis!
This. To really get what Oppenheimer says about a lot of characters you really have to be a fan of the history. There’s a big reason it’s 3 hours long. And the climax isn’t even the Trinity test halfway through. There’s a lot of character interaction going on after when there putting Oppenheimer in a frame to take his clearance away and you see how some characters dancing on that grave and others being really reluctant to have to answer questions the way they did.
And it all comes to a dramatic head you see spread over the entire movie when the Congressional Committee focuses their approval questioning Strauss about how he put the clearance of Oppenheimer in political play and so they made a mess of his appointment to Secretary of Commerce and he had to withdraw.
The movie doesn’t really put final emphasis on final history when Scientists lost a lot of political pull after this when afterwards they only really are able to advise in their government positions as opposed to actually effect policy like a true political appointee would be able to.
Many, including this writer, consider Killers the better filmAnd many others like myself don’t.Killers was a movie about an important, overlooked topic that I give Scorsese a lot of credit for using the time granted by COVID to reframe its focus on the Osage instead of the book’s on the Bureau of Investigation. A movie on the latter would have not been nearly as worthwhile, and it certainly wouldn’t have provided a platform for the one great performance of it, Lily Gladstone’s (although I give De Niro credit for his strongest performance in a while too.)But it also wasn’t a crisp script, which unfortunately is what describes Scorsese’s filmmaking in the streaming era now that he has zero pressure from studios (let alone any interest on his part) in considering run time. We’re now seeing what’s essentially the director’s cut of his films in the theater, and bluntly, they’re bloated. An good illustration of this comes from a friend who saw the film for the first time at one of the pre-award industry discussions/buzz builders for that included Scorsese and DiCaprio among others in Q&A afterwards. Normally, the Q&A is something that people in the business would fight tooth and nail to be a part of; after the length of Killers followed by all the formalities, a good number just outright left. Despite its run time and broad topics, Oppenheimer is a very focused film, and the standout supporting performances in it plus the visuals push it ahead of what’s a good but not great film in Killers. I’d put Killers at roughly the same level of CODA, which was a decent film (and in its defense far better than a whole lot of other Best Picture winners) on a similarly unknown topic that won in a weak year. This is one of the strongest years in a while, and Killers just doesn’t rise to that level.
but when will Killers Of The Flower Moon get its flowers?
Hopefully, never… You have no idea how much joy I’m getting from seeing the old fart who constantly whines about how superheroes/action movies are at fault for preventing his movies from getting the infinite praise he thinks they deserve, and trash talks a whole lot of people in the same industry in which he works in the process, getting his ass handed to him by the guy who is as much, if not more, an auteur and genius as the old fart, but also has no issues with making amazing jobs in that same superheroes/action genre.Superficially, there is a lot of overlap between the two films.
Yeah… The difference being that one of them has actual worthy content for 3 hours, while the other don’t, despite being longer than 3 goddamn hours! Because it has been quite some time now since Scorcese decided that “long” automatically equals “classic masterpiece” (see: “The Irishman”).Killers Of The Flower Moon, by contrast, was never designed to get people back in theaters.
You don’t tell me… For all his bitching about how the Disney/MCU is “destroying art”, the fact is it has been a long time since Scorcese made a movie that resonated with the audiences. No, seriously, tell me the last movie of his that was a box office success. Arguably, maybe, “The Wolf of Wall Street”, and that was 10 years ago…
Am I the only one that is getting tired of seeing how Oppenheimer was a success because of Barbie. I never see the opposite said and despite what a few news outlets think, I really doubt this “viral trend” is reason for either of the movies big success. The fact that they were both well made, well reviewed movies did that for them.