I put this in a similar boat as Oppenheimer. Good but not great. Although I do consider the acting here a little bit better than Oppenheimer.
The true story is absolutely appalling and Scorsese does a strong job of telling it.
I have not read the book, so I do not know if the format of the film follows the format of the book. If it does, that may explain why this movie is like a "who dun it" but you are watching the person that did it the entire time.
Leo plays a mentally challenged character which I believe that's the first time he's done that since Gilbert Grape. There are rumors that Leo was meant to play the "BI" agent but Scorsese didn't want to take away the spotlight from the Osage story, so he had him play the secondary antagonist.
In the Wolf of Wall Street, even though the main character is the bad guy, we kind of like and root for him. That is absolutely not the case here. Pretty quickly into the movie you start to hate the main characters.
Again, similar to Oppenheimer, I feel like a legendary creative director was hamstrung by the the historical events. I think there would have been a way to tell the same story, but have some suspense around what was actually happening (as there would have been in real life). If he was trying to stay true to the book, then so be it.
Not sure where I put this in Scorsese's list, but its 100% below Casino, GoodFellas, Wolf of Wall Street, The Departed, Gangs of New York.
Crazy true story and shows the bottom of the barrel of man kind though.
You can wait for this one to come out on video. No need to see in theatre.
The true story is absolutely appalling and Scorsese does a strong job of telling it.
I have not read the book, so I do not know if the format of the film follows the format of the book. If it does, that may explain why this movie is like a "who dun it" but you are watching the person that did it the entire time.
Leo plays a mentally challenged character which I believe that's the first time he's done that since Gilbert Grape. There are rumors that Leo was meant to play the "BI" agent but Scorsese didn't want to take away the spotlight from the Osage story, so he had him play the secondary antagonist.
In the Wolf of Wall Street, even though the main character is the bad guy, we kind of like and root for him. That is absolutely not the case here. Pretty quickly into the movie you start to hate the main characters.
Again, similar to Oppenheimer, I feel like a legendary creative director was hamstrung by the the historical events. I think there would have been a way to tell the same story, but have some suspense around what was actually happening (as there would have been in real life). If he was trying to stay true to the book, then so be it.
Not sure where I put this in Scorsese's list, but its 100% below Casino, GoodFellas, Wolf of Wall Street, The Departed, Gangs of New York.
Crazy true story and shows the bottom of the barrel of man kind though.
You can wait for this one to come out on video. No need to see in theatre.
