|
Post by Viced on Oct 19, 2023 23:02:04 GMT
#daddyshome It's great, of course... but I'm not sure just how great. First hour-ish there are definitely some flat-ass scenes. Runtime doesn't feel completely earned overall either... especially compared to The Irishman, where being exhausted by the end is kind of part of the journey... here, years in the story just kind of pass by with you hardly noticing. I think at least 30 minutes could've been trimmed off tbh. But when it hits, it really fucking hits. Any plebs going out of their way to say "______ is easily MVP" need to bite their tongues because DiCaprio, De Niro, and Gladstone are all equally brilliant and contribute exactly what's needed for the film to have the impact it does. But as a Bobby D worshipper, I must single him out and say that I'm not sure he's ever been this scary and imposing... he's got a few moments here that are truly hair-raising... while overall maintaining one fucking hell of a façade. was kind of underwhelmed by the very ending though... the radio play wrap-up was an interesting idea, and maybe if I didn't read the book it would've worked better for me. In the book, the stories about Ernest living in a trailer after getting out of prison and having the most awkward visits of all time with his grown children would have made for a much more devastating conclusion... showing just how much damage he really did to his family once the kids were old enough to understand the devastation of his betrayal. It would've had 1000x the impact of the Frank/Peggy dynamic in The Irishman... but oh well. Also, Tom White wound up becoming the warden at the prison William Hale was incarcerated in... their face to face in those circumstances also could've been one hell of a cinematic moment. I have retired from putting effort into reviews and this is all very half-assed, but I still felt the need to say my piece for a change... while this mammoth continues to marinate in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Oct 20, 2023 2:37:00 GMT
How would you compare DeNiro to Downey and Gosling? Can he win?
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 20, 2023 8:44:16 GMT
The very end sounds divisive. Some people really like it or don't. How would you compare DeNiro to Downey and Gosling? Can he win? I quite liked the film, but after seeing it, I do think it could easily go the route of Gangs of New York/The Irishman, so a whole lot of nominations, but maybe no wins. Gladstone is the best shot, however even with her being on the border between lead and supporting doesn't help if it's a tight race. De Niro I think definitely gets nominated, particularly due to the DiCaprio supporting actor factor, and I will say he is more of a "magnificent bastard" type villain than I expected him to be, however I think he probably still falls into the "too evil to win" category. It also doesn't help that his comeuppance is relatively limited.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Oct 20, 2023 13:40:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 20, 2023 14:55:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FallenWarrior on Oct 20, 2023 16:09:32 GMT
There's a really unintentionally funny scene in this film with Leo and it proper cracked me up but I was in a theatre full old folk and no one else laughed. Really enjoyed it thoughand I really liked that ending. Always nice when I get the unexpected Scorsese cameo.
|
|
|
Post by DanQuixote on Oct 20, 2023 17:49:49 GMT
Jack Fisk better get that Oscar. I’d be very happy with Prieto and Robertson winning too.
|
|
|
Post by FallenWarrior on Oct 20, 2023 17:59:50 GMT
#daddyshome It's great, of course... but I'm not sure just how great. First hour-ish there are definitely some flat-ass scenes. Runtime doesn't feel completely earned overall either... especially compared to The Irishman, where being exhausted by the end is kind of part of the journey... here, years in the story just kind of pass by with you hardly noticing. I think at least 30 minutes could've been trimmed off tbh. But when it hits, it really fucking hits. Any plebs going out of their way to say "______ is easily MVP" need to bite their tongues because DiCaprio, De Niro, and Gladstone are all equally brilliant and contribute exactly what's needed for the film to have the impact it does. But as a Bobby D worshipper, I must single him out and say that I'm not sure he's ever been this scary and imposing... he's got a few moments here that are truly hair-raising... while overall maintaining one fucking hell of a façade. was kind of underwhelmed by the very ending though... the radio play wrap-up was an interesting idea, and maybe if I didn't read the book it would've worked better for me. In the book, the stories about Ernest living in a trailer after getting out of prison and having the most awkward visits of all time with his grown children would have made for a much more devastating conclusion... showing just how much damage he really did to his family once the kids were old enough to understand the devastation of his betrayal. It would've had 1000x the impact of the Frank/Peggy dynamic in The Irishman... but oh well. Also, Tom White wound up becoming the warden at the prison William Hale was incarcerated in... their face to face in those circumstances also could've been one hell of a cinematic moment. I have retired from putting effort into reviews and this is all very half-assed, but I still felt the need to say my piece for a change... while this mammoth continues to marinate in my mind. I think the ending was Scorsese being self aware in that he's also somewhat implicit in profiting from the tragedy just as the hokey live podcast shows from the 50s. Hollywoodin general is also profiting from this. The point I'mtryingtomake is that Scorsese agrees with the consultant who said he'd wished the Osage could tell the stories themselves
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Oct 20, 2023 21:36:18 GMT
I saw it yesterday.
I really liked it, though I wouldn't put it on the same level as his best.
Gladstone is the heart of the movie imo, but I found her character to be the worst written.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Oct 21, 2023 0:00:27 GMT
Just saw it. Far from his best; even among his crime ones I probably rank it below every one I've seen (and I only haven't seen Cape Fear)... but it was still solid - and very good in some parts. I am awaiting the day I see a Marty joint that I dislike.
Those who diss DeNiro in The Irishman (due to the de-aging effects and what not) will like him more here. Gladstone shines especially before her diabetes worsening... but this was all Leo's show, blasting us with his Sierra Madre turn. It's essentially him and Bobby D acting like goons for 3+ hours, which fly by.
*ranking Scorsese's crime flicks cuz I'm bored:
9/10 Goodfellas Mean Streets (been a while) Hard 8s The Departed The Irishman Soft 8s Casino 7/10 Gangs of New York Killers of the Flower Moon
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Oct 21, 2023 0:25:16 GMT
There's a really unintentionally funny scene in this film with Leo and it proper cracked me up but I was in a theatre full old folk and no one else laughed. Really enjoyed it thoughand I really liked that ending. Always nice when I get the unexpected Scorsese cameo. I'm curious which scene you're talking about... As for the cameo, I uncontrollably whispered "wow" and a lady behind me went "Awww "...
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 3:39:36 GMT
I guess I'm just gonna be the one to say it: DiCaprio backslid pretty hard into his old habits here. This was an extremely affected performance that, from the very start, made me think of Sling Blade's Karl Childers the whole way through. Every acting choice felt deliberate and unnatural, and considering he's the focal point of the film, it sets the film off on a bad path from the start. And it really is a shame, because the rest of the ensemble (bar an insanely over-the-top Brendan Fraser, who bellows his Oscar prestige like Pavarotti to the cheap seats) is pretty ironclad. Gladstone imbues a powerful dignity to her character, and frankly I think this is the best De Niro's been since Goodfellas. Both would be worthy enough winners on their own merits.
Now, on to the elephant in the room when it comes to the perspective on the Osage. I think there's definitely a lot to compliment Scorsese on when it comes to anchoring the Osage's views and focus points throughout the film (the scenes with the tribal council were some of my favourites in the movie), but the bigger issue to me is how the film treats the character of Mollie herself. Specifically, her relationship with Ernest. Because I could not understand how this woman could fall for that Cletus the slack-jawed yokel routine that DiCaprio was putting on. I did not buy their relationship as portrayed for a moment, and considering how she watches her family get decimated one after the other when the evidence is clearly mounting as to who the guilty parties are, we don't see much conflict in her on having to reconcile her love for her husband with the suspicions she must harbour. The development of the relationship fell flat, and considering that is the axle on which this film turns, it's a bumpy ride for nearly four hours.
But it's a hell of a scenic route that we take on that ride. The craft behind the movie is top-notch, particularly Jack Fisk's production design and Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography. I wasn't overly crazy about some of Thelma's choices in the third act, where the narrative sort of peters out, but the film never drags or feels much of its runtime.
In short, I thought it was very strong but its flaws are readily apparent, and it largely boils down to a miscast lead and a relationship that does not get the proper care and focus it should to make it believable in the confines of the story Scorsese is telling. Hell, I think Jesse Plemons would've made a far more appropriate casting for Ernest, both in age and skill at playing naive bumpkins.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 21, 2023 5:09:24 GMT
Some quick thoughts I don’t really do reviews. Having read the book most of my thoughts are related to that.
*Probably should have been a miniseries. Tom White was a bad mother fucker and I would have loved to have seen more of him but I agree with the choice not to make him the main character. Also more on the aftermath and J Edgar Hoover’s part in this would have been cool. That guy sucked.
*Don’t agree with the criticism of not giving Molly enough agency. I mean she is dying what you want her do to? Pretty much everything from the book is here plus a lot that wasn’t. Have no problem calling Gladstone lead but maybe a lot of that is because Gladstone is so goddamn magnetic. Can see her maybe winning for this. I was actually startled by her grief in one scene.
* Best Deniro has been since the early 90’s. Really blown away by him. (Gladstone is still best in show though)
* Leo was very good and sure did a lot of acting but he’s been better. One thing that rubs me wrong of them making him the main character is it really felt like it was done to give him more acting to do. Would be winning for this no contest if he didn’t win already
* Some of the interrogation scenes were pretty funny. Those dipshits.
* Really liked the ending but LOVED the cameo. That shook me.
*Cara Jade Myers is a firecracker. Would have loved more of her.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Oct 21, 2023 7:08:49 GMT
I guess I'm just gonna be the one to say it: DiCaprio backslid pretty hard into his old habits here. This was an extremely affected performance that, from the very start, made me think of Sling Blade's Karl Childers the whole way through. Every acting choice felt deliberate and unnatural, and considering he's the focal point of the film, it sets the film off on a bad path from the start. And it really is a shame, because the rest of the ensemble (bar an insanely over-the-top Brendan Fraser, who bellows his Oscar prestige like Pavarotti to the cheap seats) is pretty ironclad. Gladstone imbues a powerful dignity to her character, and frankly I think this is the best De Niro's been since Goodfellas. Both would be worthy enough winners on their own merits. Now, on to the elephant in the room when it comes to the perspective on the Osage. I think there's definitely a lot to compliment Scorsese on when it comes to anchoring the Osage's views and focus points throughout the film (the scenes with the tribal council were some of my favourites in the movie), but the bigger issue to me is how the film treats the character of Mollie herself. Specifically, her relationship with Ernest. Because I could not understand how this woman could fall for that Cletus the slack-jawed yokel routine that DiCaprio was putting on. I did not buy their relationship as portrayed for a moment, and considering how she watches her family get decimated one after the other when the evidence is clearly mounting as to who the guilty parties are, we don't see much conflict in her on having to reconcile her love for her husband with the suspicions she must harbour. The development of the relationship fell flat, and considering that is the axle on which this film turns, it's a bumpy ride for nearly four hours. But it's a hell of a scenic route that we take on that ride. The craft behind the movie is top-notch, particularly Jack Fisk's production design and Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography. I wasn't overly crazy about some of Thelma's choices in the third act, where the narrative sort of peters out, but the film never drags or feels much of its runtime. In short, I thought it was very strong but its flaws are readily apparent, and it largely boils down to a miscast lead and a relationship that does not get the proper care and focus it should to make it believable in the confines of the story Scorsese is telling. Hell, I think Jesse Plemons would've made a far more appropriate casting for Ernest, both in age and skill at playing naive bumpkins. Now I REALLY hope Coop flops so Leo can win his 2nd for a TOUR-DE-FORCE that makes his REVENANT work pale in comparison. After WoWs, this is probably the most brilliant he's been in a Scorsese film. One of his most NATURAL performances actually. Then again, these weird criticisms are coming from someone who thinks JOKER is better than fucking TAXI DRIVER. 🤦♂️🤦♂️
|
|
|
Post by FallenWarrior on Oct 21, 2023 7:09:13 GMT
There's a really unintentionally funny scene in this film with Leo and it proper cracked me up but I was in a theatre full old folk and no one else laughed. Really enjoyed it thoughand I really liked that ending. Always nice when I get the unexpected Scorsese cameo. I'm curious which scene you're talking about... As for the cameo, I uncontrollably whispered "wow" and a lady behind me went "Awww "... The scene where Ernest is mocking Mollie and starts doing a Native American yell
|
|
|
Post by FallenWarrior on Oct 21, 2023 7:15:10 GMT
I guess I'm just gonna be the one to say it: DiCaprio backslid pretty hard into his old habits here. This was an extremely affected performance that, from the very start, made me think of Sling Blade's Karl Childers the whole way through. Every acting choice felt deliberate and unnatural, and considering he's the focal point of the film, it sets the film off on a bad path from the start. And it really is a shame, because the rest of the ensemble (bar an insanely over-the-top Brendan Fraser, who bellows his Oscar prestige like Pavarotti to the cheap seats) is pretty ironclad. Gladstone imbues a powerful dignity to her character, and frankly I think this is the best De Niro's been since Goodfellas. Both would be worthy enough winners on their own merits. Now, on to the elephant in the room when it comes to the perspective on the Osage. I think there's definitely a lot to compliment Scorsese on when it comes to anchoring the Osage's views and focus points throughout the film (the scenes with the tribal council were some of my favourites in the movie), but the bigger issue to me is how the film treats the character of Mollie herself. Specifically, her relationship with Ernest. Because I could not understand how this woman could fall for that Cletus the slack-jawed yokel routine that DiCaprio was putting on. I did not buy their relationship as portrayed for a moment, and considering how she watches her family get decimated one after the other when the evidence is clearly mounting as to who the guilty parties are, we don't see much conflict in her on having to reconcile her love for her husband with the suspicions she must harbour. The development of the relationship fell flat, and considering that is the axle on which this film turns, it's a bumpy ride for nearly four hours. But it's a hell of a scenic route that we take on that ride. The craft behind the movie is top-notch, particularly Jack Fisk's production design and Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography. I wasn't overly crazy about some of Thelma's choices in the third act, where the narrative sort of peters out, but the film never drags or feels much of its runtime. In short, I thought it was very strong but its flaws are readily apparent, and it largely boils down to a miscast lead and a relationship that does not get the proper care and focus it should to make it believable in the confines of the story Scorsese is telling. Hell, I think Jesse Plemons would've made a far more appropriate casting for Ernest, both in age and skill at playing naive bumpkins. Probably a weak argument on my part but I assume that she fell for him because she was sick most of the time and wanted some sort of affection. She probably knew deep down that Ernest is bad news(anyone with any sense would). But he's quite dull and comes off endearing so maybethat's why she fell for him and fooled herself from facing the obvious truth Also I thought that DiCaprio's "extraness" actually worked for this film cause Ernest doesn't really have much going on up there. He's a man who lives purely on instinct, lacking any sort of subtlety in anything he does.
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Oct 21, 2023 8:48:58 GMT
I liked this a lot. Didn't find it as powerful as The Irishman but it's so well crafted and the score is so amazing.
Gladstone is comfortably MVP for me. De Niro is fantastic, not sure if it's an undeniable performance that can win but the more I think about him the more the performance creeps in on me and stays with me. He had one scene near the end which almost made me jump out my seat. Leo is the weakest link but I don't think he was bad but it's not his strongest work for me.
8/10
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Oct 21, 2023 9:24:28 GMT
Now, on to the elephant in the room when it comes to the perspective on the Osage. I think there's definitely a lot to compliment Scorsese on when it comes to anchoring the Osage's views and focus points throughout the film (the scenes with the tribal council were some of my favourites in the movie), but the bigger issue to me is how the film treats the character of Mollie herself. Specifically, her relationship with Ernest. Because I could not understand how this woman could fall for that Cletus the slack-jawed yokel routine that DiCaprio was putting on. I did not buy their relationship as portrayed for a moment, and considering how she watches her family get decimated one after the other when the evidence is clearly mounting as to who the guilty parties are, we don't see much conflict in her on having to reconcile her love for her husband with the suspicions she must harbour. The development of the relationship fell flat, and considering that is the axle on which this film turns, it's a bumpy ride for nearly four hours. I have to agree with this. I think Leo is brilliant in depicting Ernest as this sort of pathetic dumbass, but writing Mollie as so smart and then so passive to what happens around her is a glaring flaw imo.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 12:48:21 GMT
I guess I'm just gonna be the one to say it: DiCaprio backslid pretty hard into his old habits here. This was an extremely affected performance that, from the very start, made me think of Sling Blade's Karl Childers the whole way through. Every acting choice felt deliberate and unnatural, and considering he's the focal point of the film, it sets the film off on a bad path from the start. And it really is a shame, because the rest of the ensemble (bar an insanely over-the-top Brendan Fraser, who bellows his Oscar prestige like Pavarotti to the cheap seats) is pretty ironclad. Gladstone imbues a powerful dignity to her character, and frankly I think this is the best De Niro's been since Goodfellas. Both would be worthy enough winners on their own merits. Now, on to the elephant in the room when it comes to the perspective on the Osage. I think there's definitely a lot to compliment Scorsese on when it comes to anchoring the Osage's views and focus points throughout the film (the scenes with the tribal council were some of my favourites in the movie), but the bigger issue to me is how the film treats the character of Mollie herself. Specifically, her relationship with Ernest. Because I could not understand how this woman could fall for that Cletus the slack-jawed yokel routine that DiCaprio was putting on. I did not buy their relationship as portrayed for a moment, and considering how she watches her family get decimated one after the other when the evidence is clearly mounting as to who the guilty parties are, we don't see much conflict in her on having to reconcile her love for her husband with the suspicions she must harbour. The development of the relationship fell flat, and considering that is the axle on which this film turns, it's a bumpy ride for nearly four hours. But it's a hell of a scenic route that we take on that ride. The craft behind the movie is top-notch, particularly Jack Fisk's production design and Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography. I wasn't overly crazy about some of Thelma's choices in the third act, where the narrative sort of peters out, but the film never drags or feels much of its runtime. In short, I thought it was very strong but its flaws are readily apparent, and it largely boils down to a miscast lead and a relationship that does not get the proper care and focus it should to make it believable in the confines of the story Scorsese is telling. Hell, I think Jesse Plemons would've made a far more appropriate casting for Ernest, both in age and skill at playing naive bumpkins. Now I REALLY hope Coop flops so Leo can win his 2nd for a TOUR-DE-FORCE that makes his REVENANT work pale in comparison. After WoWs, this is probably the most brilliant he's been in a Scorsese film. One of his most NATURAL performances actually. Then again, these weird criticisms are coming from someone who thinks JOKER is better than fucking TAXI DRIVER. 🤦♂️🤦♂️ Whatever makes you happy.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 21, 2023 12:57:08 GMT
Now, on to the elephant in the room when it comes to the perspective on the Osage. I think there's definitely a lot to compliment Scorsese on when it comes to anchoring the Osage's views and focus points throughout the film (the scenes with the tribal council were some of my favourites in the movie), but the bigger issue to me is how the film treats the character of Mollie herself. Specifically, her relationship with Ernest. Because I could not understand how this woman could fall for that Cletus the slack-jawed yokel routine that DiCaprio was putting on. I did not buy their relationship as portrayed for a moment, and considering how she watches her family get decimated one after the other when the evidence is clearly mounting as to who the guilty parties are, we don't see much conflict in her on having to reconcile her love for her husband with the suspicions she must harbour. The development of the relationship fell flat, and considering that is the axle on which this film turns, it's a bumpy ride for nearly four hours. I have to agree with this. I think Leo is brilliant in depicting Ernest as this sort of pathetic dumbass, but writing Mollie as so smart and then so passive to what happens around her is a glaring flaw imo. I think there is a little bit of a force by the source material/reality. And while I do think DiCaprio could've pulled back on the mannerisms (especially the grumpy cat face), there isn't anything in reality to suggest that Ernest was not a country bumpkin idiot. And for me I thought Gladstone in part saved it by playing it, at least initially, more so a lust for Ernest than love which came on later. Though again credit to Gladstone I felt in those later scenes there was a a sense of self-delusion to it as someone looking for comfort and happiness where she could find it (emphasized by her relationship with her mother who preferred her sister), even in an deeply flawed individual like Ernest. And Mollie being both active/passive I think is a catch-22 again of reality. Where if you're trying to be mostly accurate how much can you do? Mollie in reality only did so much while being surrounded by wolves on all sides in reality. Do you make stuff up to give her more agency? Or do you make her more passive to seem more consistent? Although personally what they gave her made sense in that she was someone who had strength, but was in a terrible situation where she was internally and externally undermined at all points, therefore could only do so much.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 13:06:49 GMT
I have to agree with this. I think Leo is brilliant in depicting Ernest as this sort of pathetic dumbass, but writing Mollie as so smart and then so passive to what happens around her is a glaring flaw imo. I think there is a little bit of a force by the source material/reality. And while I do think DiCaprio could've pulled back on the mannerisms (especially the grumpy cat face), there isn't anything in reality to suggest that Ernest was not a country bumpkin idiot. And for me I thought Gladstone in part saved it by playing it, at least initially, more so a lust for Ernest than love which came on later. Though again credit to Gladstone I felt in those later scenes there was a a sense of self-delusion to it as someone looking for comfort and happiness where she could find it (emphasized by her relationship with her mother who preferred her sister), even in an deeply flawed individual like Ernest. And Mollie being both active/passive I think is a catch-22 again of reality. Where if you're trying to be mostly accurate how much can you do? Mollie in reality only did so much while being surrounded by wolves on all sides in reality. Do you make stuff up to give her more agency? Or do you make her more passive to seem more consistent? Although personally what they gave her made sense in that she was someone who had strength, but was in a terrible situation where she was internally and externally undermined at all points, therefore could only do so much. The film didn't have an issue making up things when it suited the narrative, such as Ernest and Byron murdered the private investigator (in real life, that guy died of a heart attack in Sarasota). Historical accuracy is one thing, but when you're making a movie that hinges on a couple where one is complicit in the murder of the other's relatives, and the other one stays throughout despite knowing that he's a snake coyote, you have to make me believe in their love. And they could've easily explored their relationship and dynamic through her eyes and have us see what we see in Ernest . . . but the thing is, at no point did I find Ernest charming at all, largely because of DiCaprio's bizarre mannerisms. When Scott Shepherd comes off as more suave than you are, there's a problem. As for the relationship between Mollie and her mother, I definitely thought they could've explored that more because it's clear she resented her daughter for marrying a white man, but that doesn't even come up as a source of friction other than Lizzie Q dismissively leaving the room when Ernest first comes to dinner with them until Lizzie later calls for Anna. That could've easily been a point where they delved into the "why" of it all, because again, Mollie's no idiot and she clearly sees that Ernest is a schmoozer angling for money, and she just relents for pretty lame game from him.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 21, 2023 13:14:59 GMT
I think there is a little bit of a force by the source material/reality. And while I do think DiCaprio could've pulled back on the mannerisms (especially the grumpy cat face), there isn't anything in reality to suggest that Ernest was not a country bumpkin idiot. And for me I thought Gladstone in part saved it by playing it, at least initially, more so a lust for Ernest than love which came on later. Though again credit to Gladstone I felt in those later scenes there was a a sense of self-delusion to it as someone looking for comfort and happiness where she could find it (emphasized by her relationship with her mother who preferred her sister), even in an deeply flawed individual like Ernest. And Mollie being both active/passive I think is a catch-22 again of reality. Where if you're trying to be mostly accurate how much can you do? Mollie in reality only did so much while being surrounded by wolves on all sides in reality. Do you make stuff up to give her more agency? Or do you make her more passive to seem more consistent? Although personally what they gave her made sense in that she was someone who had strength, but was in a terrible situation where she was internally and externally undermined at all points, therefore could only do so much. The film didn't have an issue making up things when it suited the narrative, such as Ernest and Byron murdered the private investigator (in real life, that guy died of a heart attack in Sarasota). Historical accuracy is one thing, but when you're making a movie that hinges on a couple where one is complicit in the murder of the other's relatives, and the other one stays throughout despite knowing that he's a snake coyote, you have to make me believe in their love. And they could've easily explored their relationship and dynamic through her eyes and have us see what we see in Ernest . . . but the thing is, at no point did I find Ernest charming at all, largely because of DiCaprio's bizarre mannerisms. When Scott Shepherd comes off as more suave than you are, there's a problem. As for the relationship between Mollie and her mother, I definitely thought they could've explored that more because it's clear she resented her daughter for marrying a white man, but that doesn't even come up as a source of friction other than Lizzie Q dismissively leaving the room when Ernest first comes to dinner with them until Lizzie later calls for Anna. That could've easily been a point where they delved into the "why" of it all, because again, Mollie's no idiot and she clearly sees that Ernest is a schmoozer angling for money, and she just relents for pretty lame game from him. Well the PI is fairly limited within the actual major influence on the story, there's a difference between changing something for ease of narrative and major plot point/character motivation. Him having a heart attack suddenly would just result with a "huh" from most of the audience even it is really what happened. Meanwhile the sort of silencing/killing by the killers was something that was going on regardless, so looping the PI story into that just makes sense narratively. Changing Mollie or Ernest more substantially though would be far bigger leaps. BUT, I will agree in general that DiCaprio perhaps should've gone on the full charm offensive, more of like a himbo approach, instead of the nearly cretinous approach he took much of the time. Though I will slightly disagree in that I did think there were some hints of his ability to charm in there, but there definitely could've been more.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 13:21:56 GMT
The film didn't have an issue making up things when it suited the narrative, such as Ernest and Byron murdered the private investigator (in real life, that guy died of a heart attack in Sarasota). Historical accuracy is one thing, but when you're making a movie that hinges on a couple where one is complicit in the murder of the other's relatives, and the other one stays throughout despite knowing that he's a snake coyote, you have to make me believe in their love. And they could've easily explored their relationship and dynamic through her eyes and have us see what we see in Ernest . . . but the thing is, at no point did I find Ernest charming at all, largely because of DiCaprio's bizarre mannerisms. When Scott Shepherd comes off as more suave than you are, there's a problem. As for the relationship between Mollie and her mother, I definitely thought they could've explored that more because it's clear she resented her daughter for marrying a white man, but that doesn't even come up as a source of friction other than Lizzie Q dismissively leaving the room when Ernest first comes to dinner with them until Lizzie later calls for Anna. That could've easily been a point where they delved into the "why" of it all, because again, Mollie's no idiot and she clearly sees that Ernest is a schmoozer angling for money, and she just relents for pretty lame game from him. Well the PI is fairly limited within the actual major influence on the story, there's a difference between changing something for ease of narrative and major plot point/character motivation. Him having a heart attack suddenly would just result with a "huh" from most of the audience even it is really what happened. Meanwhile the sort of silencing/killing by the killers was something that was going on regardless, so looping the PI story into that just makes sense narratively. Changing Mollie or Ernest more substantially though would be far bigger leaps. BUT, I will agree in general that DiCaprio perhaps should've gone on the full charm offensive, more of like a himbo approach, instead of the nearly cretinous approach he took much of the time. Though I will slightly disagree in that I did think there were some hints of his ability to charm in there, but there definitely could've been more. It's still a pretty major change when it comes to showing your protagonist straight-up murdering a man. That's the only time we see Ernest kill anyone in the film if memory serves, but even if it's a five-second scene, it shows Ernest isn't just complicit, but rather an active participant. That's the act that doesn't show him removed from the violence like he tries to be the rest of the movie. And there's no historical basis for it. Also, come on -- historical dramas explore relationships with little basis in documented fact all the time. It's just what you have to deal with when you're making a film. You sometimes have to create things whole cloth in order to get your point across. And frankly, I don't think exploring the reason why a woman would want someone like Ernest (clearly a predatory figure, albeit a DUUUUMB BOYYYY!) is more of a leap than showing your leading man kill a guy in a five-second interlude with no real lead-up or fallout after the fact.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Oct 21, 2023 13:22:10 GMT
Bros, early-stage Leo had our whole theatre chuckling watcha talking about.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 13:23:24 GMT
Bros, early-stage Leo had our whole theatre chuckling watcha talking about. There was this one woman sitting behind us who said half a dozen times to her friends: "He's so stupid." She must've felt real validated after Brendan Fraser's diatribe.
|
|