I just saw Killers of the Hours Afternoon. There are so many criticisms of this three and a half hour borefest, I'll try to keep them short.
First of all, I took at least three bathroom breaks during the runtime. Not only is the film long, but it feels long too. By the end of the movie, the final act, it continues to be slow and becomes annoying.
Next, the Final Act I was led to believe by reviews was the good part. I could not disagree more. I thought the third act was just as bad as the second act.
Thirdly, what was that final scene? That could easily qualify as not only one of the worst endings to a movie ever, but also as the most annoying. I was affected by the sadness of the final line, but overall the final ten minute scene was palpably irritating on my nerves.
Additionally, what was Jesse Plemons even doing in here? He's just lethargically walking around looking like a twenty year old head of investigators while supposed to be an older leader and Columbo? All I saw was Todd from Breaking Bad. His one-note acting and tone of voice added literally no tension to any scene he was supposed to be solving these heinous crimes. I like him as an actor, but it seemed like the part was meant for an older, more serious and mature actor, and he was just going through the motions.
Fifth, some of the characters could've been fleshed out more so that when their names came up later, it was easier to understand who they are. I've seen similar movies do it worse, but still there were indeed too many minor characters to bring back into the discussion at the end to know who they were.
Finally, when the film ended, although throughout much of the movie I was thinking it was good, I had this overwhelming feeling of, "That's it? That wasn't a very good movie, certainly not a masterpiece and certainly not one of Scorcese's best." I sat there thinking of all the ways it could've been better.
Here's the thing: the story itself is insane and amazing. You would think that it could've been better culminated and played.
Here are the positives: the story is great. I really wanted Mollie to win and to expose the evil deeds. DeNiro is definitely the best part and actor of the movie. Even at an older age, he is so nuanced and on point in his glares, looks, mannerisms, and inconspicuous evil. I was impressed. Gladstone, while also excellent, could have had more lines, but her breakdown scenes were truly sad and brutal.
While Dicaprio suffices as usual and also has some good scenes scattered throughout, by the time we get to the third act, all I saw was Dicaprio doing his best to cry. He's good, but nothing special like the former two aforementioned. I actually was hoping that Mollie would catch him in the act and take him out when he kept administering the stuff. The rest of the roles were good, especially the grandmother.
Scorsese's direction throughout the first Act of the movie was excellent. The first Act, or really the first hour and a half of the movie is definitely the best part. It moved quickly, and contrary to many reviews, I never looked at my watch or time once. I thought time was surprisingly not an issue.
The directing and acting of the first half of the film is going to have many cinema lovers hailing it perfect and a "masterpiece", but it's just not. One half of a movie being great and the rest being a letdown is simply not enough, just like a couple great scenes aren't enough. You have to take the whole body of work into account.
It's just by the time we get to the third act, that's when I just couldn't take the length, thinking when the investigation starts that's when it would get good. It didn't. It was a slog and a snore, but well directed throughout. There also could've been better twists and reveals for such an intricate story.
Surprisingly, although I did not love Oppenheimer, of these two competing, overly long, budgetary powerhouses of films competing for Oscar's this year, I'd have to give Oppenheimer the edge. However, with better editing that shortened the runtime and replaced the final ten minutes and a better third act, I might have thought more highly of Flower Moon.
5/10.
First of all, I took at least three bathroom breaks during the runtime. Not only is the film long, but it feels long too. By the end of the movie, the final act, it continues to be slow and becomes annoying.
Next, the Final Act I was led to believe by reviews was the good part. I could not disagree more. I thought the third act was just as bad as the second act.
Thirdly, what was that final scene? That could easily qualify as not only one of the worst endings to a movie ever, but also as the most annoying. I was affected by the sadness of the final line, but overall the final ten minute scene was palpably irritating on my nerves.
Additionally, what was Jesse Plemons even doing in here? He's just lethargically walking around looking like a twenty year old head of investigators while supposed to be an older leader and Columbo? All I saw was Todd from Breaking Bad. His one-note acting and tone of voice added literally no tension to any scene he was supposed to be solving these heinous crimes. I like him as an actor, but it seemed like the part was meant for an older, more serious and mature actor, and he was just going through the motions.
Fifth, some of the characters could've been fleshed out more so that when their names came up later, it was easier to understand who they are. I've seen similar movies do it worse, but still there were indeed too many minor characters to bring back into the discussion at the end to know who they were.
Finally, when the film ended, although throughout much of the movie I was thinking it was good, I had this overwhelming feeling of, "That's it? That wasn't a very good movie, certainly not a masterpiece and certainly not one of Scorcese's best." I sat there thinking of all the ways it could've been better.
Here's the thing: the story itself is insane and amazing. You would think that it could've been better culminated and played.
Here are the positives: the story is great. I really wanted Mollie to win and to expose the evil deeds. DeNiro is definitely the best part and actor of the movie. Even at an older age, he is so nuanced and on point in his glares, looks, mannerisms, and inconspicuous evil. I was impressed. Gladstone, while also excellent, could have had more lines, but her breakdown scenes were truly sad and brutal.
While Dicaprio suffices as usual and also has some good scenes scattered throughout, by the time we get to the third act, all I saw was Dicaprio doing his best to cry. He's good, but nothing special like the former two aforementioned. I actually was hoping that Mollie would catch him in the act and take him out when he kept administering the stuff. The rest of the roles were good, especially the grandmother.
Scorsese's direction throughout the first Act of the movie was excellent. The first Act, or really the first hour and a half of the movie is definitely the best part. It moved quickly, and contrary to many reviews, I never looked at my watch or time once. I thought time was surprisingly not an issue.
The directing and acting of the first half of the film is going to have many cinema lovers hailing it perfect and a "masterpiece", but it's just not. One half of a movie being great and the rest being a letdown is simply not enough, just like a couple great scenes aren't enough. You have to take the whole body of work into account.
It's just by the time we get to the third act, that's when I just couldn't take the length, thinking when the investigation starts that's when it would get good. It didn't. It was a slog and a snore, but well directed throughout. There also could've been better twists and reveals for such an intricate story.
Surprisingly, although I did not love Oppenheimer, of these two competing, overly long, budgetary powerhouses of films competing for Oscar's this year, I'd have to give Oppenheimer the edge. However, with better editing that shortened the runtime and replaced the final ten minutes and a better third act, I might have thought more highly of Flower Moon.
5/10.