Killers of the Flower Moon’ Box Office: Is Martin Scorsese’s $200 Million Epic a Hit or Flop?

This movie was way better than Oppenheimer and that did much better at the box office.

It’s already a big success given it’s length and will be nominated for best picture.

Financially, yes it is a flop and it’s about time this overrated hack get in the flop zone.

Rooting for Lily Gladstone to win the Oscar.

I think Leo has ruined his image with these pathetic “relationships” with 25 year old models.

[quote]This movie was way better than Oppenheimer…

Oh dear. Has it been re-edited since you’ve seen it?

Good to see Tom Cruise and Leonardo both flopped this year. It’s time

I haven't seen it but R7's comments make me think that there is a lot of hate out there before the film has been seen. I tried to read the book but gave up half-way through. That doesn't mean I won't like the movie. I'm willing to give it a try.

[quote]Financially, yes it is a flop and it’s about time this overrated hack get in the flop zone.

Scorsese made 13 movies between The Irishman and Flower Moon.

All of his movies break even worldwide. Nothing Marty does is a flop.

R7: I hope Cruise, DiCaprio, and Chalamet all end up flopping this year.

I don't think Mr. Scorsese really cares at this point.

He made a powerful movie about an important true story that few people knew about.

Marty has more money than he can spend and his film legacy is bullet proof.

Good for him.

I have the feeling that Apple can afford to eat the loss.

It’s not getting my money until I can stream it at home and create my own intermission.

It’s a good movie, but really could have been an hour shorter. I don’t know why they have to drag these movies out to over three hours long.

I thought it was wonderful. Historic. It's about time we told this story. This movie is not about box office. YOu don't make a 3.5 long movie thinking of the box office. Scorsese is a master. No other director I know of has his range. If you look at his filmography, and listen to him talk about film, he is on a whole other level. I think Robert De Niro will get another Oscar.

I’m not disagreeing with any of that, R15, but even good movies can be overly long. Any other director would have been made to cut an hour. And honestly, would it have hurt to tighten the story up a bit?

[quote] Financially, yes it is a flop

What? It was released online and only limited in theaters.

I enjoyed it.

That said, I do think the run time indicates a lack of discipline, that this is the work of an old man.

She may even win the Oscar, Lily Gladstone’s bovine stillness is the same she displayed in Certain Women.

That said, I’ve seen this grinning Everyman scumbag performance from Leonardo DiCaprio as well.

I tired of the use of country singers, it ripped me right out of it. Jack White fucked up the important penultimate scene, which was the most personal in the film.

R18 - I would add to that, that Brendan Fraser was also a bit jarring. He needed to dial it back a bit.

Leo is ugly now. He needs to go away.

Marty needs to stop casting Leo in all his movies.

Did you read the book? Because the book while not a very long book, seemed long and drawn out, and filled with so much detail that it leached all the tension out of the story. It was about as exciting as a clinical report. I'd read it, struggling for a bit, then put it down, then a week later try again, etc. What happened was horrific, but the way it was written robbed us of feeling the horror and the outrage. The pacing of the book, the way the narrative flowed, was just frustrating.

People need to accept it. I don’t think movie THEATERS will completely die off but the movie viewing event has to be viewed as an event or spectacle. Regular good prestige films or even good blockbusters just won’t cut it anymore. Oppenheimer was an event— a serious well made me drama about scientists in a summer normal reserved for Marvel action. Barbie was an event—an excellent comedy about an American iconic toy. Taylor Swift was an event—the closing concert film about the biggest concert of the year.

Movies have to be events now for the theater experience. It just isn’t worth being coughed on or shot. Studios need to invest and create their business plans around streaming as the status quo. If the music industry can adapt to ITunes and digital; Hollywood, with much better financial standing, can adapt to Netflix and streaming.

The movie is very good once the pace picks up. Leo and Bob are superb as is the woman who plays Leo’s wife. The usual dyspeptic tearing down of quality, talent and success on DL which seems to be part of the human condition given free rein to express itself when anonymous. Never fails to make me sad. If DaVinci and Michelangelo were alive and priducing they’d be shredded too.

R24 Facts 😂

R3 yea ok.

Lily Gladstone also has a short, but effective role on Reservation Dogs, a great show on Hulu.

[quote]It was released online and only limited in theaters.

It played in 3700 theatres.

I feel so bad for Robert De Niro he can never retire at this point. He just had another kid so he's going have to work and work until he drops dead.

R28 It should have only been limited release. That’s the kicker. Streaming sites should make bigger bids for original releases, where the financial recoup can made through exclusive streaming. I suspect Hollywood doesn’t want to change this setup because films that are profitable in theaters make them lots of money. However they must change. They will have no choice anyway. Streaming is the future. Oscar needs to change rules as well. Streaming only should be allowed for competition. In

R29 not everyone wants to retire.

[quote]Scorsese made 13 movies between The Irishman and Flower Moon.

Huh? He made no movies between those two films.

R31 Who are you calling boomer asswipe? I'm likely younger than you so never make ASSumptions.

Just watched it. Why would a woman like Mollie, who was wealthy and intelligent, fall for Ernest? He was dumb as bag of rocks, he wasn't charming nor funny, he wasn't attractive with that Forrest Gump haircut. And she even stood by him after admitting he had her sisters and her own people murdered.

And Brendan Fraser was beyond terrible in this movie. Which is impressive, since he only has a few lines.

[quote] This movie is not about box office. You don't make a 3.5 long movie thinking of the box office.

R15 Yeah I'm sure they made Gone With The Wind and Ben-Hur not thinking of the box office.

R15 And The Ten Commandments, Spartacus, Lawrence Of Arabia, and Gandhi.

R35 i think Scorsese is one of those celeb’s that doesn’t have to worry about box office.. i think people will give him money to make whatever he wants.

I watched it the other day on streaming. I avoided seeing it in the cinema due to the length without intermission. I was able to pause and google historical facts that piqued my curiosity along the way. For instance, the Osage language officially became extinct in 2005 when the last primary language speaker died. There are a handful of elderly second language speakers left. There are revitalisation efforts now, but nobody speaks it as a first language.

Anyway, the film was enjoyable and held my attention with the exception of the too long hallucination/fire scene. I agree with R34 and am curious about the social dynamics that led wealthy Osage women to marry potentially gold digging white men. Here’s a link to some photos of the real people depicted in the film.

Yes, the way Brendan Fraser played the role was bizarre and jarring with the style of the rest of the film’s acting. It reminds me of Stephen Fry in Gosford Park with a turd in a punch bowl effect. If Fraser was directed to act that way, it did him no favors.

Am I the only one who thinks Gladstone wasn’t that great?

R39 Yes

I’m tired of the is it a flop discussion. How about is it a good movie? I’ll let Apple worry about their own balance sheet. Our culture is so full of garbage let’s be happy when anything decent gets put out there.

R34, R38 here's my take. I read the book before I saw the movie and needed both together to absorb the whole story. Although to be fair both track well together. But as I understood it, the scheme that was in play, and all done legally, was to rip off the Osage and take their wealth. So they were declared incompetent and some white "guardian" would "manage" their money and give them an allowance. By being married to a white man the Osage women got access to their money more readily. Except that Leo's character was in cahoots with Robert De Niro. Because the flip side was that if the Osage wife died her husband inherited everything, and dumb-as-a-box- of-rocks, Leo would turn it over to De Niro. Because De Niro would blackmail him and the other white guy who was married to Leo's sister-in-law about all the murders they was complicit in. It really was an outrageous situation.

They "WERE" complicit in.

I’m with you R41. I don’t particularly care about the money a film makes. What I care about is whether it’s good. Not surprising that I have little interest in the market that many financially successful films cater too. I am not a 14 year old (boy).

On a regular basis I stream films from all over the world that make most Hollywood productions look like American commercials at best. All of them would be judged flops by the DL blowhards.