mfilmcutter

Sometimes you can see a film that is too damn bleak and too damn brilliant. If only Scorsese wasn't so effective as a filmmaker. If only Eric Roth wasn't so great as a storyteller. While I was watching the film I realized again that Scorsese, like Spielberg, has cinematic storytelling in his DNA. Killers of the Flower Moon is a panoramic, paranoid, perception of putrefying politics. Be warned, the cinematic energy amplifies the darkness.

As I sat through the film I had two conflicting feelings; appreciation for the craft of filmmaking and sadness for the history on screen. It was long, but I was never bored, I was on the edge of my seat. I have no idea how accurate the film is to history. I do intend to find out. I did not follow all the details in the story, but by the end the plot had more clarity. I had an intense fear that the ending would be beyond depressing. However the ending was not as sad as I feared.

And, YES, it is much better than Napoleon. Napoleon was another epic about how a Man's ego can be a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Napoleon had two great scenes, and about fifty vacuous scenes.

Martin Scorsese is on my Heros List. A skilled filmmaker who can face unpleasant history with passion. And he is 81 years old as of Dec. 2023

P. S. I hope Mr. Tarantino reconsiders his plans to retire. The work of Ridley Scott and Martin Scorsese is proof that age is not always a vice.

Quentin Tarantino once said "hacks don't go that far." There are some filmmakers that have a creative confidence that delivers a film that many people will find repulsive, but some will find exhilarating because if it's creative audacity.

Yes this film is too long but there is so much talent and so much detail to admire in every frame of this film. Diego Calva has one scene where you feel so sorry for this man you wanna cry for him.

The moment when Brad Pitt is kissing a young woman before a perfect sunset and a butterfly lands on a shoulder is the moment that encapsulates exhilarating fun of filmmaking.

Don't trust Michael Jackson Fans, this film is very effective. As a piece of filmmaking this film is absorbing. Yes the film is one-sided but of course any filmmaker has a right to present whatever they want. Leaving Neverland has a relentless and almost lyrical focus on two stories of sexual abuse. Wade Robson and James Safechuck tell their stories, sometimes in horrid detail. Their stories expose a talented monster, Jackson didn't just control two young boys, he controlled their families with fame and money. In the film when Robson and Safechuck admit abuse to their families it is both enthralling and devastating.



On balance I have seen films in the past that were presumably based on history and seemed very convincing. Films such as JFK (1991) and Waco: Rules of Engagement (1997), are good examples. These films were one sided and dishonest, not just with small details but with big details. We should not trust Leaving Neverland (2019) wholesale but we should not dismiss it wholesale. I am open to a refutation from Jackson's family/fans, but what I have heard so far is not persuasive, in fact it's pathetic. Call me crazy but I just don't trust Jermaine Jackson's dreary cries of his brother's innocence. Its worth noting that old footage of Johnnie Cochran is in the film defending Jackson, at this point in history Cochran is an easy joke not a convincing lawyer.



After seeing low ratings for this film (as of this writing on March 4th 2019, a rating of 5.1) it is reasonable to assume the Jackson Fans have conspired to attack the film in anyway they can. For the fans, this film will feel like an attack on them not just an attack on the King of Pop, this is an example of the endless play of Identify Politics. Jackson fans claim they love him, but they don't love him, they love his music, and the image/fantasy he created. Jackson fans get a life!!!!!!!!!



See this film, and be prepared to be blown away, but remember this film is a point of view not a trial. All art is propaganda, but not all propaganda is false.