I understand exactly what he's saying. But Scorsese has always been interested in examining characters who commit evil deeds. He's practically obsessed with sinners and asking why they do such terrible things to other human beings. Just look at his body of work: Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Irishman, The Wolf of Wall Street, Casino---almost all his films, really. Of course, there's always members of the audience who (rightly) ask, "What about showing the victims' points of view?" And that's a really great question. However, the victims' experiences could become the basis for an entirely separate (yet equally valid) movie. There's no shortage of stories and perspectives worth telling.
@@paul5015 I don't think Scorsese generally glorifies bad behavior (although he came pretty close with The Wolf of Wall Street). Audiences usually walk out of his films repulsed by his protagonists' actions (and yet they often still enjoy his films---but that's a different discussion). I also don't think Scorsese has said that his new film is politically progressive or in any way "enlightened." It's a story about greed and betrayal; and that's a dramatic angle that he has mastered.
@@paul5015 Well, that's a long and thoughtful reply, but I will return to my initial comment. Scorsese is a deeply religious man. And as an explicitly Roman Catholic artist, he is not just interested in how sin damages other people, like the Osage characters in this film (which would be obvious to anyone); he is also (or perhaps primarily) interested in how sin poisons the soul of the sinner. If someone cannot accept this fundamental aspect of his work then maybe his films aren't ideal for that viewer. From his Catholic point of view, Scorsese might, for example, argue that racism against Native Americans is not merely harmful for that community, it also harms the collective soul of the United States, including the souls of the racists.
glorifying bad people? have you not seen how sleazily they’re portrayed? for me, i found myself asking how the osage did not see “the wolves in the picture” from the first(although, clearly, it’s hard to have a clear picture when you’re up close and living the story.) hale’s “friendship” is so sickeningly sweet and “benevolent”, the osage might have gotten the diabetes from it. also, if scorsese had done it from an osage’s perspective, people would have been even more dissatisfied. @@paul5015
I feel like they could’ve gotten this across though by putting the movie through Molly’s perspective. I don’t get me wrong, Lily Gladstone. Don’t give an excellent performance with what she gave with Molly. But she should’ve been the protagonist. I really would’ve liked to see why in the world she would trust someone like Ernest her whole life. You could’ve still kept a lot of things through Ernest’s perspective, but Molly was who this film should have been about more.
film is a hard miss, feels like a black comedy (they saw her dead head open in fron of the house with 2 dozen folks around drinking and eating) but not funny, like historic, too contemporary..shows drama but sadly detached from them who suffer. the list goes on.
@@KingCrimson82 that’s literally the point. The audience, us watching the movie, are part of the scene you’re describing eating, drinking, etc… then the film leaves us with no perspective or words from Molly. Which gives us a tiny shred of unfairness because at that point we want some closure for the immense amount of evil we just watched.
The consultant's name is Christopher Cote. Bothered me that this video did not mention him by name after all of his work on the use of Osage language in this film, which is one of its strongest points.
I understand what he’s saying, but I think the film as presented is a meditative examination of the unshakeable history of evil white men have to deal with. Its great tragedy is that the authentic truth of portraying the Osage community as a white man must be the unchangeable story of exploitation, greed, and sheer evil as opposed to the story of wonder and admiration of a culture. It’s a moral reckoning, and it’s intended to feel weighty and “wrong” by design. What it does portray of the Osage community is culturally rich, incredibly detailed and well researched. And from within this beautiful world, Molly offers Ernest love- this is the story of how he betrays that and abides by nothing but evil. Scorsese absolutely has the right to make this movie the way he did. A story from the perspective of the Osage and following Molly’s experience- while certainly a story worth telling- would not communicate the same horrific emotion of the vile, spiritually bankrupt nature of exploitation.
I respect his feelings about it but Scorsese went to relatives who said that there was love there, despite it all, and that was something that intrigued him. I empathize with his wanting more of an Osage perspective and that if might take an Osage filmmaker to do that but the realities of the business are that nobody is giving an Osage Scorsese money. Heck, when he changed of the story to focus on Ernest and Mollie rather than Tom White, Paramount backed out.
Fair critique. Scorsese and the original author of the book were not Native/Osage. So, I think it's up to the Osage community to create their own telling of this chapter of history in a book or movie. That's the only way to get that perspective out to audiences. It's going to take an Osage to do that.
There's actually a book, called Pipe for February: A Novel by Charles H. Red Corn, who is an Osage and narrates about these events from an Osage perspective... I haven't read it yet but I'd like to
So why did they not make the film themselves, they had the knowledge, and the skills. A fundamentally missed oppurtunity. There was book written by an Osage man in the 1930s,so this idea that only white directors can tell stories is horseshit.
That is why we need to be the ones to tell our stories. We can’t rely on non Natives to speak with our spirit and voice. It’s just not possible. I’m still excited to see the film though.
@@gluehfunke1547 Pathological criticism of a work that is based on critiquing is starting to get pretty lame and awkward. The movie is obviously taking place as it happened historically, but primitive sentiments just need a story that clearly takes it differently to be satisfied.
The granddaughter of Molly approves of the flim so I think I'll take her word of approval. Also the film doesn't mention the Osage ostracized Molly and her family after the murders and blamed her for it. The film goes out of it's way to make sure that she is not to blame for any of this.
Interesting about that omission. That said, I don’t think it’s all or nothing regarding Osage approval. The point made by the people in this video is that there might be a more effective story to be told from the Osage POV vs Ernest’s. I don’t think Molly approving of the film invalidates those nuanced critiques.
Yes, what this man said was true BUT who else was bringing the history to light ? Martin did slot go the Osage so I don’t think it’s fair to pick him apart. He had a huge task and tried as best as he could to get things right from the Osage point of view !!!
Im not American, but just watched the film. I totally agree with the consultants. I find the film very white-centric, and I'm tired of films abt POC being led by the perspective of white men and women. It's becoming a trope now. They always make the white lead character 'complex' and humanise their evil-ness (even when they shouldn't). It's annoying. I wish it was from the perspective of Mollie, in the film it said she is stubborn & head strong but the way she carried herself, they just simply made her looked dumb and with no agency. There is no context why she behaved the way she did. I wish they would explore her character more, let us understand her motivation and inner conflict. Give her some agency. Overall, the Osage consultants advice was the correct one - let it be from the perspective of the Osage people.
@@YorgosL1 you can still cast Leo and he can do his oscars magic on screen. They should hire women and Osage writers for the screenplay instead of just hire cultural and language consultants. Mollie's character arc is not fully fleshed out and unfortunately it makes the movie very hard to watch. And they don't need to make Leo's character as sympathetic either.
@@coffeemug3009 disagree. It’s a perfect movie. There a lot to take in for a 3hrs half movie. No rush. I’m still taking my time and finding detail and will be rewatch it again soon as possible. Coming up with a bunch of opinion on one sitting is crazy. Another thing is a movie like this get made in today Hollywood climate is very much difficult and impossible. Even a influential director like Scorsese have a hard time to getting it made in this condition. Script was done 7-8 years ago but no one would finance it until Apple. It was put on hold and he left for other project. The fact that this is now a movie is a blessing. Be glad that it’s actually a movie that being made and more people in public will see it now and see this story. Lots of criticism this and that like u would rather it not get made. 95% chance if this was not a director like Scorsese and Leo attach then this picture would have never been green lit. Maybe u need to understand the side of movie making business and not because ‘oh I want this and that’ will get it come to fruition …… if u want it 100% accuracy from Hollywood why don’t u go donate 100 millions out ur pocket to get those women and Osage writer and get another film funded being made in your exact order the way u wanted ? LoL.
"Even when they shouldn't." They are human tho at every step of the process. You can't just rob people of their personhood just because of atrocities. I think you can re-work it is fair criticism. But to say we need to dehumanize people is pushing it.
If it’s any consolation the Osage had my support and sympathy throughout. I was willing for due punishment for the perpetrators. I felt nothing but hatred for Hales, Burkharddt and co, while feeling absolutel sympathy support and pathos for the Osage and Mollie. It’s still reasonated with me. I’m European
Check out Fred Grove if you would like stories about the Osage from an Osage’s perspective; he was half-Osage and was 10 when he heard the bombing murders. Fred has written several books about that incident and the other murders.
I don’t think you sympathise with Ernest though, I think everyone’s glad at the end when Mollie is rid of him and annoyed when we find out that he and his uncle were both released from prison early
It seems they used consultants for the mise en scene and language but not for their point of view or their side of history. The best version of the movie would've told the perspective of the FBI and the Osage people but the movie just doesn't seem like it accomplished a comprehensive depiction of events. I commend the Osage people that stuck with this film despite knowing its from a white man's perspective. At first it could seem like their effort is fruitless, but to think what this movie would be if they had no part in it would be worse to imagine. Promises never being delivered is a common plight among Indigenous peoples in this country, this movie is emblematic of this issue that still lingers today (2023).
I saw the movie the first day it was released. Knew nothing about this story and did not read the book. I was craving more character development from other actors. Honestly felt it was just another Leonardo DeCaprio movie . Too much and too many scenes were centered around DeCaprio. The scenery was lost and the feeling of the the family . The mother of Molly was intriguing and her story was lost . Sorry I was very disappointed. This story deserves to be told in its proper context and emotion .
The more I hear about this movie, the more I learn from it. This was supposed to be about the Osage people, but Scorsese made it about the white guys instead. Ironic that he wanted to portray the Osage nation, which he did, in regards to the culture; the characters, not so much. DiCaprio basically plays a meeker version of Jordan Belfort.
I wouldnt worry too much, Ernest already lost the right to talk about love when Mollie asked about the shots in the last scene, at that point in time it's a lose lose situation whatever his answer was. Mollie and the audience wouldve had a lot easier time believing him if he just loved Mollie and didnt conspire with the King "for him and Mollie's wealthy safe future"
And now for this truth, and to avoid any historical confusion, I will not be watching the film. I will stick the Osage book, I bought…before the film release. In which was, about month ago.
This movie, in a way reminds us of what happens when one group Oppresses another. Required to have Guardians by our government to oversee the money, the same as Israel required the Palestinians to have a government, but not the power or authority. And now what belonged to Palestinians is now Israeli and continuing with illegal settlements. This other Movie, is in real time! We are the viewers who can change the characters and the outcome!
You think researching the actual lives of the victims and culture in the true life story you are telling (and getting paid well to tell) is “pandering?” Wow.
As I have seen the movie several times, it bothers me that more customs, music and people are not of the Osage people but of white people. Especially the scenes of the wedding should have been more Osage Indian music and dancing. Not hillbilly type music and dancing.
Absolutely not. His opinion was very valid. It actually really should be from the Osage's POV not the white man. He knows what he's talking about because he's likely experienced the same racism.
@@muthias4582its not really, you dont ask a mother/father to make a story about the life of their children because its gonna be extremely bias because emotions are involved. you get a 3rd party that understands the Son and will say it like it is.
Telling people just to "be happy" when all they did was give minor criticisms and have every right to criticise a movie their people were a part of. People are so selfish to think everything is about them
I felt his words in my heart. 😢
I understand exactly what he's saying. But Scorsese has always been interested in examining characters who commit evil deeds. He's practically obsessed with sinners and asking why they do such terrible things to other human beings. Just look at his body of work: Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Irishman, The Wolf of Wall Street, Casino---almost all his films, really.
Of course, there's always members of the audience who (rightly) ask, "What about showing the victims' points of view?" And that's a really great question. However, the victims' experiences could become the basis for an entirely separate (yet equally valid) movie. There's no shortage of stories and perspectives worth telling.
@@paul5015 I don't think Scorsese generally glorifies bad behavior (although he came pretty close with The Wolf of Wall Street). Audiences usually walk out of his films repulsed by his protagonists' actions (and yet they often still enjoy his films---but that's a different discussion). I also don't think Scorsese has said that his new film is politically progressive or in any way "enlightened." It's a story about greed and betrayal; and that's a dramatic angle that he has mastered.
@@paul5015 Well, that's a long and thoughtful reply, but I will return to my initial comment. Scorsese is a deeply religious man. And as an explicitly Roman Catholic artist, he is not just interested in how sin damages other people, like the Osage characters in this film (which would be obvious to anyone); he is also (or perhaps primarily) interested in how sin poisons the soul of the sinner. If someone cannot accept this fundamental aspect of his work then maybe his films aren't ideal for that viewer. From his Catholic point of view, Scorsese might, for example, argue that racism against Native Americans is not merely harmful for that community, it also harms the collective soul of the United States, including the souls of the racists.
glorifying bad people? have you not seen how sleazily they’re portrayed? for me, i found myself asking how the osage did not see “the wolves in the picture” from the first(although, clearly, it’s hard to have a clear picture when you’re up close and living the story.) hale’s “friendship” is so sickeningly sweet and “benevolent”, the osage might have gotten the diabetes from it. also, if scorsese had done it from an osage’s perspective, people would have been even more dissatisfied. @@paul5015
I feel like they could’ve gotten this across though by putting the movie through Molly’s perspective. I don’t get me wrong, Lily Gladstone. Don’t give an excellent performance with what she gave with Molly. But she should’ve been the protagonist. I really would’ve liked to see why in the world she would trust someone like Ernest her whole life. You could’ve still kept a lot of things through Ernest’s perspective, but Molly was who this film should have been about more.
The Hollywood Reporter should definitely share this on all your social media pages. A very important perspective to be heard.
I enjoyed the film but they’re right with their criticisms.
film is a hard miss, feels like a black comedy (they saw her dead head open in fron of the house with 2 dozen folks around drinking and eating) but not funny, like historic, too contemporary..shows drama but sadly detached from them who suffer. the list goes on.
@@KingCrimson82 that’s literally the point. The audience, us watching the movie, are part of the scene you’re describing eating, drinking, etc… then the film leaves us with no perspective or words from Molly. Which gives us a tiny shred of unfairness because at that point we want some closure for the immense amount of evil we just watched.
The consultant's name is Christopher Cote. Bothered me that this video did not mention him by name after all of his work on the use of Osage language in this film, which is one of its strongest points.
Everything he said is SO TRUE!!! i live in Oklahoma and I will tell this makes my skin crawl.... i felt his words in my heart...
Thanks to Scorsese to bring this story and conversation to a worldwide audience after so many years of it being buried
Just watched the film. Totally agree with everything he said here.
Martin missed the mark.
That was great. Very measured. Fair.
Absolutely agree to everything he said. I am from a completely different part of the world, but had the same feeling.
Fair criticism
I understand what he’s saying, but I think the film as presented is a meditative examination of the unshakeable history of evil white men have to deal with. Its great tragedy is that the authentic truth of portraying the Osage community as a white man must be the unchangeable story of exploitation, greed, and sheer evil as opposed to the story of wonder and admiration of a culture. It’s a moral reckoning, and it’s intended to feel weighty and “wrong” by design. What it does portray of the Osage community is culturally rich, incredibly detailed and well researched. And from within this beautiful world, Molly offers Ernest love- this is the story of how he betrays that and abides by nothing but evil. Scorsese absolutely has the right to make this movie the way he did. A story from the perspective of the Osage and following Molly’s experience- while certainly a story worth telling- would not communicate the same horrific emotion of the vile, spiritually bankrupt nature of exploitation.
Exactly
I respect his feelings about it but Scorsese went to relatives who said that there was love there, despite it all, and that was something that intrigued him. I empathize with his wanting more of an Osage perspective and that if might take an Osage filmmaker to do that but the realities of the business are that nobody is giving an Osage Scorsese money. Heck, when he changed of the story to focus on Ernest and Mollie rather than Tom White, Paramount backed out.
Fair critique. Scorsese and the original author of the book were not Native/Osage. So, I think it's up to the Osage community to create their own telling of this chapter of history in a book or movie. That's the only way to get that perspective out to audiences. It's going to take an Osage to do that.
There's actually a book, called Pipe for February: A Novel by
Charles H. Red Corn, who is an Osage and narrates about these events from an Osage perspective... I haven't read it yet but I'd like to
So why did they not make the film themselves, they had the knowledge, and the skills. A fundamentally missed oppurtunity. There was book written by an Osage man in the 1930s,so this idea that only white directors can tell stories is horseshit.
Brilliantly said... Sadly, not surprising!!! 🎯
❤❤❤❤❤ yasss. Speak up. Was worried about this movie. Will wait for the digitial.
That is why we need to be the ones to tell our stories. We can’t rely on non Natives to speak with our spirit and voice. It’s just not possible. I’m still excited to see the film though.
@@gluehfunke1547 Pathological criticism of a work that is based on critiquing is starting to get pretty lame and awkward. The movie is obviously taking place as it happened historically, but primitive sentiments just need a story that clearly takes it differently to be satisfied.
The granddaughter of Molly approves of the flim so I think I'll take her word of approval. Also the film doesn't mention the Osage ostracized Molly and her family after the murders and blamed her for it. The film goes out of it's way to make sure that she is not to blame for any of this.
Oh they don't want that perspective.
The one which they blamed the female. Huh
So the film wasn't even accurate.
Cause they should've put that part in the film.
Interesting about that omission. That said, I don’t think it’s all or nothing regarding Osage approval. The point made by the people in this video is that there might be a more effective story to be told from the Osage POV vs Ernest’s. I don’t think Molly approving of the film invalidates those nuanced critiques.
Mollie was naive. She couldn't read people
Yes, what this man said was true BUT who else was bringing the history to light ? Martin did slot go the Osage so I don’t think it’s fair to pick him apart. He had a huge task and tried as best as he could to get things right from the Osage point of view !!!
Im not American, but just watched the film. I totally agree with the consultants. I find the film very white-centric, and I'm tired of films abt POC being led by the perspective of white men and women. It's becoming a trope now. They always make the white lead character 'complex' and humanise their evil-ness (even when they shouldn't). It's annoying. I wish it was from the perspective of Mollie, in the film it said she is stubborn & head strong but the way she carried herself, they just simply made her looked dumb and with no agency. There is no context why she behaved the way she did. I wish they would explore her character more, let us understand her motivation and inner conflict. Give her some agency. Overall, the Osage consultants advice was the correct one - let it be from the perspective of the Osage people.
Then this film would not get made. The main actor is the reason why Hollywood give money for this story being told.
@@YorgosL1 you can still cast Leo and he can do his oscars magic on screen. They should hire women and Osage writers for the screenplay instead of just hire cultural and language consultants. Mollie's character arc is not fully fleshed out and unfortunately it makes the movie very hard to watch. And they don't need to make Leo's character as sympathetic either.
@@coffeemug3009 disagree. It’s a perfect movie. There a lot to take in for a 3hrs half movie. No rush. I’m still taking my time and finding detail and will be rewatch it again soon as possible. Coming up with a bunch of opinion on one sitting is crazy. Another thing is a movie like this get made in today Hollywood climate is very much difficult and impossible. Even a influential director like Scorsese have a hard time to getting it made in this condition. Script was done 7-8 years ago but no one would finance it until Apple. It was put on hold and he left for other project. The fact that this is now a movie is a blessing. Be glad that it’s actually a movie that being made and more people in public will see it now and see this story. Lots of criticism this and that like u would rather it not get made. 95% chance if this was not a director like Scorsese and Leo attach then this picture would have never been green lit. Maybe u need to understand the side of movie making business and not because ‘oh I want this and that’ will get it come to fruition …… if u want it 100% accuracy from Hollywood why don’t u go donate 100 millions out ur pocket to get those women and Osage writer and get another film funded being made in your exact order the way u wanted ? LoL.
"Even when they shouldn't." They are human tho at every step of the process. You can't just rob people of their personhood just because of atrocities. I think you can re-work it is fair criticism. But to say we need to dehumanize people is pushing it.
Your not American, so why are you commenting.
Y'all love to be in American people's business.
Stay out our business.
I felt the same way after watching it
If it’s any consolation the Osage had my support and sympathy throughout. I was willing for due punishment for the perpetrators. I felt nothing but hatred for Hales, Burkharddt and co, while feeling absolutel sympathy support and pathos for the Osage and Mollie. It’s still reasonated with me. I’m European
So important to hear this POV
Impossible to make these people happy 😂
Perfectly said
Couldnt agree more
Understandable, still excited to see it.
Completely agree
Solid comments.
Check out Fred Grove if you would like stories about the Osage from an Osage’s perspective; he was half-Osage and was 10 when he heard the bombing murders.
Fred has written several books about that incident and the other murders.
I don’t think you sympathise with Ernest though, I think everyone’s glad at the end when Mollie is rid of him and annoyed when we find out that he and his uncle were both released from prison early
You can't please everyone.
Yeah but I would argue if you make a movie involving a people's culture, they should be the most impressed by the movie when it comes out.
The granddaughter wanted it that way.
She is going around town saying her grandaddy loved her grandma.
I personally wanted a Tom White FBI story.
It seems they used consultants for the mise en scene and language but not for their point of view or their side of history. The best version of the movie would've told the perspective of the FBI and the Osage people but the movie just doesn't seem like it accomplished a comprehensive depiction of events. I commend the Osage people that stuck with this film despite knowing its from a white man's perspective. At first it could seem like their effort is fruitless, but to think what this movie would be if they had no part in it would be worse to imagine. Promises never being delivered is a common plight among Indigenous peoples in this country, this movie is emblematic of this issue that still lingers today (2023).
He’s telling facts
I am from Oklahoma. I back exactly what they are saying.
Amazing movie ❤❤❤
I felt the same way watching the movie
I saw the movie the first day it was released. Knew nothing about this story and did not read the book. I was craving more character development from other actors. Honestly felt it was just another Leonardo DeCaprio movie . Too much and too many scenes were centered around DeCaprio. The scenery was lost and the feeling of the the family . The mother of Molly was intriguing and her story was lost . Sorry I was very disappointed. This story deserves to be told in its proper context and emotion .
If you don’t knew the book or the story😂.why did you go see it? It’s a Scorsese movie with Leonardo DiCaprio 😂😂😂😂😂 idiot, the movie is great ❤
The more I hear about this movie, the more I learn from it. This was supposed to be about the Osage people, but Scorsese made it about the white guys instead. Ironic that he wanted to portray the Osage nation, which he did, in regards to the culture; the characters, not so much. DiCaprio basically plays a meeker version of Jordan Belfort.
The plenty of time to show the Osage people in this nearly 4 hours movie.
It was supposed to be about the FBI solving the murders, but he did a rewrite during Covid and made ut about Molly & Ernest. Trust & Betrayal.
I wouldnt worry too much, Ernest already lost the right to talk about love when Mollie asked about the shots in the last scene, at that point in time it's a lose lose situation whatever his answer was.
Mollie and the audience wouldve had a lot easier time believing him if he just loved Mollie and didnt conspire with the King "for him and Mollie's wealthy safe future"
I agree but the movie is called THE KILLERS of the flower moon unfortunately for us
💯
Watch Reservation Dogs
I agree with this Osage consultant. The film missed the mark for me. It was a necessary story to be told, but it concentrated on the wrong people.
Then you agree with a fool, his words are strong but he was just what the Hollywood reporter needed to stir the pot
Well said. I wish to know from the Osage view not the secular view
Just a movie. Natives face lot of racism everywhere in US
And now for this truth, and to avoid any historical confusion, I will not be watching the film. I will stick the Osage book, I bought…before the film release. In which was, about month ago.
the book was written by a white man, too, so what now?
Sad to be missing out on this
You know the book was also written by a white guy.
Hard movie for me to watch
They focused more on the whites and used the Osage like stage props
This movie, in a way reminds us of what happens when one group Oppresses another. Required to have Guardians by our government to oversee the money, the same as Israel required the Palestinians to have a government, but not the power or authority. And now what belonged to Palestinians is now Israeli and continuing with illegal settlements. This other Movie, is in real time! We are the viewers who can change the characters and the outcome!
Glad they had tribal people in the movie for sure
Yellow journalism as it's finest, they got they wanted from them
This film gave an otherwise unknown story life to the world... Jesus talk about " thanks for nothing" 🤮
👍🐝💎🍎
Lol that’s what DiCaprio and Scorcese get for trying to pander. They should have just stuck to the source material.
Bud this movie is 3hrs 30 mins. There plenty to stick with the source material.
You think researching the actual lives of the victims and culture in the true life story you are telling (and getting paid well to tell) is “pandering?” Wow.
It is not LOVE; I am MUSCOGEE...I am HARJO...we know.
As I have seen the movie several times, it bothers me that more customs, music and people are not of the Osage people but of white people. Especially the scenes of the wedding should have been more Osage Indian music and dancing. Not hillbilly type music and dancing.
Nonsense opinion. Movie was a masterpiece 10/10
Absolutely not. His opinion was very valid. It actually really should be from the Osage's POV not the white man. He knows what he's talking about because he's likely experienced the same racism.
@@muthias4582its not really, you dont ask a mother/father to make a story about the life of their children because its gonna be extremely bias because emotions are involved.
you get a 3rd party that understands the Son and will say it like it is.
@@wdadwdwdwadw8604 Lmao that's absurd
Only thing I didn't like was Leonardo trying to have a conscience he was clearly an evil person.
King Hale is the biggest cause
Great then he can make his own movie
Typical response, they should be happy, maybe they should make their own.
What, with all the capital and studio connections they have sitting around?
@@salvyv welcome the real world be thankful they got their story by such a great filmmaker!
@@rmurraypicsWhite supremacist
It's damn you do, damn you don't.
Martin should've never done this film.
It was a waste
Telling people just to "be happy" when all they did was give minor criticisms and have every right to criticise a movie their people were a part of.
People are so selfish to think everything is about them