"One Battle After Another Sucked"

Key Concepts

• Killers of the Flower Moon: The film being reviewed.
• Cinematography: The art of visual storytelling in film.
• IMAX: A proprietary system for high-resolution, large-format motion pictures.
• Character Motivation: The reasons behind a character’s actions.
• Overhyped: Receiving excessive or unwarranted publicity and praise.
• Subjective Opinion: A personal belief or judgment that is not necessarily based on facts.

Critical Review of "Killers of the Flower Moon"

The discussion centers around a highly critical review of Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon.” The primary sentiment expressed is strong dislike for the film, characterized by the repeated assertion that “it sucked.” This negativity isn’t directed at the technical aspects entirely, but rather at the narrative and character development.

Narrative and Plot Concerns

The reviewer finds the plot pointless and lacking in meaning. While acknowledging the quality of the acting and cinematography – specifically citing the “bumps” scene as visually impressive, comparable to an IMAX experience – these elements are deemed insufficient to redeem the overall experience. The core argument is that the film’s strengths are superficial and don’t compensate for a fundamentally flawed story. The reviewer states, “The plot, like, listen, it’s gonna win some awards because it was good acting. It was good cinematography… I didn’t need to go to IMAX to see that.”

Character Analysis and Disappointments

Significant criticism is leveled at the character portrayals. Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance is considered wasted due to the film’s shortcomings. Benicio Del Toro is dismissed as a “zero,” implying a lack of impact or compelling performance. Sean Penn’s performance is described as being in a “different movie,” suggesting a disconnect between his portrayal and the overall narrative.

The most significant disappointment, however, is the early removal of what the reviewer considers the best character – the mother figure at the beginning of the film. This character is praised for being “flawed” but also criticized for inconsistent motivation. The reviewer questions the logic of her initial revolutionary stance followed by abandonment of the cause and her family, stating, “I didn’t understand why she was a revolutionary, but then left her family to not do the revolution anymore. It didn’t make any sense.”

Subjectivity and Counterpoint

The reviewer acknowledges the subjective nature of film criticism, conceding that others may enjoy the film and even consider it a masterpiece. They explicitly state, “I think people who say it's a masterpiece are crazy. And guess what? That's their opinion. They could have it.” However, this acknowledgement doesn’t soften the overall negative assessment. The film is labeled “the most overhyped movie of this decade.”

Personal Preference and Analogy

The reviewer frames their opinion as a matter of personal taste, drawing a parallel to Quentin Tarantino’s dislike of Paul Dano’s work. This comparison serves to emphasize the validity of individual preferences in artistic evaluation, stating, “just like Tarantino doesn't like Paul Dano but…” This suggests that disliking a critically acclaimed film is not inherently unreasonable.

Synthesis

The core takeaway is a vehemently negative reaction to “Killers of the Flower Moon,” despite recognizing certain technical merits. The criticism focuses on a perceived lack of narrative coherence, inconsistent character motivations, and ultimately, a feeling that the film failed to deliver on its potential. The review underscores the importance of subjective interpretation in film criticism and the possibility of disagreeing with widespread acclaim.