criterionforum.org

The switchover to digital cameras has changed the overall look and feel of even directors who were around for decades beforehand. You look at digitally-shot movies from Scorsese, Ridley Scott, ect., and they lack the texture of the movies they shot on film from the 70s through the mid-late 2000s. It doesn't help that Scorsese's last two films were intended mainly as streaming fodder (with a token theatrical release), and thus they're being fashioned for the small screen, rather than the large (replete with bladder-bursting running times that the directors justify with, "Eh, 95% of people will watch these at home, in segments, so they can pause it whenever they want"). Even "celluloid only" holdouts like Spielberg, Tarantino and Nolan have had their more recent movies look wildly different due to the advent of digital color-timing and CGI. Look at Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull compared to the first three Indy films.

This has surprised (and definitely disappointed) me with Scorsese, given how much of an eye and a feeling he has for visuals. Listen to him on commentaries for the Powell & Pressburger films, for example, describing certain images and colors. It's almost like he's got some special kind of painter-poet's full-blown-open eye-to-heart chakra thing going on where you feel he has a 6th sense that you don't, and you wish you could experience celluloid the way he does. So can he, with that extraordinary sensitivity, give all of his last years and efforts to creating such visuals? (Is he at least aware of the difference?) I can't make sense of it.

I too am in that camp where I no longer get excited for a release of a new Scorsese film. His 21st Century output for the most part disappoints me. I do not by any means hate them or think they're awful. For me, they leave me kind of cold or lack the edginess and just don't compare to his 70s, 80s and 90s films. The fact that he has gone to digital is very surprising. I guess it has to be economics because I don't think it's an aesthetics reason for him or maybe he just like manipulating these films in a way he never could

For shits sake these are the 3 films I like from his 23 years... Hugo, The Silence and The Irishman, which has grown on me. But still they pale in comparison to his older works

Hugo was an all-digital shoot due to the 3D process. Since then, Scorsese in his dramatic features has used 35mm mainly, except for low-light scenes which he's shot digitally. As far as I can see, Killers of the Flower Moon is doing the same. That said, the scenes using de-aging software in The Irishman had to be digital for that reason. Maybe the change in look is largely due to the use of digital intermediates?

I am looking forward to this, and hope to see it in a cinema if possible - I did with The Irishman.

GaryC wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 5:53 pm Hugo was an all-digital shoot due to the 3D process. Since then, Scorsese in his dramatic features has used 35mm mainly, except for low-light scenes which he's shot digitally. As far as I can see, Killers of the Flower Moon is doing the same. That said, the scenes using de-aging software in The Irishman had to be digital for that reason. Maybe the change in look is largely due to the use of digital intermediates?

I am looking forward to this, and hope to see it in a cinema if possible - I did with The Irishman.

Ironically, Hugo was the last to have circulating 35mm prints (the other films had some struck for archival purposes)

Review embargo was lifted about an hour ago. Seems most, if not all, are incredibly positive. People also seem to really dig De Niro's performance. (Amongst other things, obviously) Everything else I read seems to border on spoilers so I'll avoid. Doesn't sound much like the book, but I don't see why that would be a problem if the movie was cool. I read a few that said Brendan Fraser was over the top though, which I found interesting. I'm not surprised by that, but to be pointed out directly- just interesting. Doesn't seem like this is new news though, I've found Scorsese's films are generally reviewed this way upon release. Really looking forward to this one regardless.

The reviews for this are almost unanimously stellar. I hate that we have to wait until October.

Hopefully this will boost Lily Gladstone into a much-deserved larger pool of roles, as she seems to be getting singled out as an MVP by several critics as well

It should be mentioned that quite a few of the reviews feature major spoilers (especially in regards to the ending) without posting a warning. I know that the Variety and Vulture reviews have spoiled it and there are a few others that have also spoiled it as well, so it would probably be best to avoid reading any review for now.

Came here to post exactly that; one should steer clear of the Variety and Vulture reviews. I'm really astonished that Bilge Ebiri saw fit to describe the conceit of the final scene in as much detail as he did.

I've also been surprised by how spoiler-heavy every the discussion of this film is -- just about every plot summary gives away the last few pages of the book! -- but I wonder to what extent the narrative has been altered. (I haven't seen the film yet.) I gather that David Grann's narrative presence has been removed, and without that temporal dynamic I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot more straight-forward and direct. I even thought the trailer revealed (or at least hinted at) things I would've thought were "spoilers".

Spoiler

I'm thinking in particular of the final, widely circulated image from the trailer; the "can you find the wolf" shot which, I think, really underscores the systemic white-on-Natives crimes. Which Grann, in the book, doesn't realize until the last chapter or so. It's of course difficult to know to what extent I'm projecting my knowledge of the book it's based on onto the film (maybe it's subtler than I give it credit), and likewise difficult to know to what extent the film deviates from the book (maybe it's not a spoiler in the film). Would be interested to hear from people who've seen the film!

SILENCE is a beautiful film. Shot on film. Every image is loaded with intent.

THE IRISHMAN isn't quite as consistent because of the compromises with the de-aging and inclusion of some digital shooting but still a razor sharp film in terms of visual narrative and execution.

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON was shot primarily on film and looks glorious. Textured, detailed, but also broad and vivid.

Scorsese and Prieto are as formidable a director and cinematographer pair as are working today.

Isn't the book this is based on non-ficition? While the things portrayed were, perhaps, not known (or even ignored) they weren't exactly secrets. Growing up in OKlahoma (and studying its rather scary past) might contribute to my feeling this way.

New trailer

This will also be shown on IMAX screens as well.

yoloswegmaster wrote: Wed Jul 05, 2023 1:14 pm New trailer

This will also be shown on IMAX screens as well.

I get what this trailer is trying to do; it's trying to sell a three-and-a-half-hour epic about a deeply disturbing moment in American history to a mass audience. It's a studio realizing they spent blockbuster money on a art film; it's an attempt to sucker people in by making them think they're getting a Scorsese crime joint to get some return on their investment (releasing this film in IMAX is a pretty telling sign as well). I get that, I understand it... but I hate it deeply. This is not the movie to do that, just from subject matter alone, and I'm baffled they did that after the first trailer seemed to sell the film as what it actually is (at least going by reactions from Cannes). I fully expect regular filmgoers to walk out mad over the film not being as "fun" or "entertaining" as this trailer makes the film out to be

Someone who actually saw the film at Cannes says that this new trailer is a more accurate representation of the film than the first trailer.

Computer Raheem wrote: Wed Jul 05, 2023 6:09 pm

yoloswegmaster wrote: Wed Jul 05, 2023 1:14 pm New trailer

This will also be shown on IMAX screens as well.

I get what this trailer is trying to do; it's trying to sell a three-and-a-half-hour epic about a deeply disturbing moment in American history to a mass audience. It's a studio realizing they spent blockbuster money on a art film; it's an attempt to sucker people in by making them think they're getting a Scorsese crime joint to get some return on their investment (releasing this film in IMAX is a pretty telling sign as well). I get that, I understand it... but I hate it deeply. This is not the movie to do that, just from subject matter alone, and I'm baffled they did that after the first trailer seemed to sell the film as what it actually is (at least going by reactions from Cannes). I fully expect regular filmgoers to walk out mad over the film not being as "fun" or "entertaining" as this trailer makes the film out to be

I'm not a fan of the trailer either, though I haven't seen the film and can't say how much of what I dislike about it is an accurate reflection of the movie as a whole. For instance, it opens with a blunt, didactic bit of dialogue that plays pretty poorly on its own. Could be a whole different story when I see the movie, but here it suggests a film devoid of nuance. The music also feels like something I'd expect from a TV commercial. However, IIRC Robbie Robertson is doing the score, and I'm sorry to say I can see him fusing Native American chants to a slick, bombastic rock n' roll beat - as much as I love the Band, his strengths and tastes as a composer and recording artist seemed to atrophy rapidly by the time he recorded his first solo debut, and that was a long time ago.

Maybe I'm just lame as hell but the trailer is trying to sell a three tour, $200 million dollar film about mass murder of Native Americans to the average film-goer. If it was just filled with establishing shots with DiCaprio's drawl in the background talking about wolves I think even less people would be seeing it. It's fine for what is in my opinion.

I can't say the trailer gives me a hankering to see this. I see all the bells and whistles of contemporary Scorsese which have become kind of a yawn for me. At some point I probably will see it, maybe I'll feel differently after that

I'd be a lot more enthusiastic if it was anybody but DiCaprio in the lead. The trailer looks like a lot of showboating in the Daniel Day-Lewis mode.

Seeing the brief clip of Jesse Plemons in this trailer made me think it might be more interesting to see him in the main role.

Not a single one of the Scorsese/DiCaprio films have worked for me. DiCaprio always looks like he's trying way too hard (Departed, Wolf) or is badly miscast (Aviator, Shutter) in the Scorsese films. He looks like he's acting. Yet he has done believable, vibrant work for other Directors during this same period. Tarantino seems to understand that there is a sprightly comic vein in DiCaprio that allows him to come alive on screen. Scorsese's plodding, joyless 21st Century films (except Hugo) don't allow for that. Some would argue Wolf does that. To me that film is maybe the most joyless of all of them. Crushingly unfunny and depressing because it's about such a dull depthless character.

tolbs1010 wrote: Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:32 pm Seeing the brief clip of Jesse Plemons in this trailer made me think it might be more interesting to see him in the main role.

It's exactly how I felt after seeing POWER OF THE DOG, and seeing Cumberbatch's dreary little performance -- why not have Plemons play both brothers, make them identical twins. And I do remember reading about FLOWER MOON that DiCaprio's role had been downgraded, with Plemons being the film's main lead. Doesn't seem to have been the case. We'll see, of course. Agreed about DiCaprio's work with Scorsese -- he just doesn't have the weight that too many of those characters require. The exception being WOLF OF WALL STREET, where that eternal golden Keebler-elf youthfulness works so well with the utter assholishness of Jordan Belfort. Mileage is gonna vary.

A while back I watched Goodfellas and The Departed back-to-back - I never thought the latter was on par with the former, but I did think it was highly entertaining and thought it would be worth seeing again. Unfortunately, watching Goodfellas beforehand really accentuated what was missing in the acting. Goodfellas has its share of familiar faces, but everything was grounded in that reality, which seemed grittier and more "ordinary" (if that makes sense) than The Departed, where it was all star-turns and less involving as a result. I actually like DiCaprio, but I kind of wonder if the later films generally suffer in comparison because the casts are so loaded with stars who never really escape their established star personas (regardless of whether they're trying hard to or not). I always single out Hugo and Silence as my latter day favorites among his narrative films, and it's possible that's helped by having a cast that's mostly character actors or lesser-known stars. (I need to see The Irishman again - that's arguably an exception, but even there, we're talking about actors who came up through his earlier films, not star personas that had already been established, and given how the film seems to call back or respond to the crime films that Scorsese's best-known for, it's actually more appropriate that he would bring them back and work with Pacino.)

Roscoe wrote:I do remember reading about FLOWER MOON that DiCaprio's role had been downgraded, with Plemons being the film's main lead. Doesn't seem to have been the case. We'll see, of course.

Scorsese has often said that he truly finds the movie during the editing process, so it might have been a case that DiCaprio’s story just came to the fore at that time. I doubt it, considering DiCaprio is certainly a key part of how the film got the financing it did.

I do agree that Tarantino uses him better than Scorsese (with the exception of Wolf of Wall Street which seems like perfect casting).

DiCaprio's always been slightly distracting in everything he's done his whole career, though. I actually like him overall, and I respect that he is pretty choosy about his roles. But he's never really been great in anything that I've seen - he's a big movie star who gives big movie star performances, it's just that it's a little jarring because he postures so hard as a Serious Actor, which is a different thing. But I don't think he's been appreciably better or worse in the Scorsese films than he has been throughout his career.

And, I mean, any big movie star is going to come off well in a Tarantino film - big movie star performances are what his movies are all about. Scorsese is not like that, though.