Jade Bahr

Lily worrying about the impact of the movie on native women.

Maybe not the most thrilling choice but I have to admit he was sexy in GA and still has the looks.

Strike/negotiations update

It seems people wonder the same. I'm also pretty sure if expensive movies like KOTFM and Napoleon bring no money at all, no oscars (hello Oppenheimer and several other strong contenders this year) and no new subscribers for apple they won't do such movies anymore. ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ Box Office: Is Martin Scorsese’s $200 Million Epic a Hit or Flop? “Killers of the Flower Moon,” Apple’s first major theatrical release, has generated $120 million globally after three weekends of release. Is that a good result for a movie backed by a streaming service? A terrible outcome for a glowingly received, $200 million crime epic directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro? Or somewhere in between? Everyone who follows the movie business has a different take, so parsing these ticket sales could take longer than the film’s daunting three-hour-and-26-minute run time. “I don’t see how its current global box office puts it in a position to turn a profit,” says Eric Handler, a senior media and entertainment analyst at Roth Capital Partners. “It will need to drive a lot of new subscribers to Apple TV+.” If a traditional studio released “Killers of the Flower Moon,” it would be branded a flop. And Scorsese’s latest still requires a big turnout to be considered a commercial winner. After a disappointing 61% drop in the film’s sophomore outing, revenues rebounded to decline just 25% in its third frame. It’s a promising sign the audience hasn’t totally dropped off. But the reality is that it’s less cut- and-dried for streamers because these companies have different metrics of success. Apple, for one, isn’t judged by Wall Street based on the money it makes or loses on its films, nor does it place the same emphasis on box office as it does on streaming subscribers. As tech giants like Amazon and Apple warm up to the big screen and release movies in a traditional sense (each company is reportedly planning to invest $1 billion per year on theatrical films), that’s scrambling the idea of what is hit-or-miss at the box office. “I don’t think we’re going to know how this turns out for weeks,” says David A. Gross, who runs the movie consulting firm Franchise Entertainment Research, referring to Scorsese’s latest. Beyond the box office, Apple is hoping that shiny trophies will validate the price tag for “Killers of the Flower Moon.” Awards season doesn’t kick off in earnest until later in December and early January when Golden Globe and Oscar nominations are announced. “The challenge for the film,” Gross adds, “will be holding up through November and into December.” Amazon faced a similar situation with Ben Affleck’s sports drama “Air,” which grossed $90 million worldwide on a $90 million budget. It didn’t get into the black during its theatrical run, but the film added on-demand rentals and other revenue streams that wouldn’t have been possible by going directly to streaming. However, these triumphs or failures are opaque. Streaming services do not report numbers or financials beyond now reporting box office grosses. “We’ll never know how Apple and the streamers really allocate their production costs and how they tie their subscription income to production,” Gross says. “We don’t know if they’re getting a subscription bump or seeing other benefits.” Any $200 million drama is a bold bet in today’s theatrical landscape, and analysts say a traditional studio would never be able to justify the economics for “Killers of the Flower Moon.” They also point out that a big-budget film that’s geared toward adult crowds and set during a dark period of American history wouldn’t exist at all without Apple footing the bill. Paramount Pictures was originally going to finance the film but brought in Apple to fund the project after production costs kept on rising. Instead of mopping up a sea of red ink, Paramount is walking away with a distribution fee from Apple. This way, they’re making money no matter what “Flower Moon” earns at the box office. Movie theaters, too, are pleased even though ticket sales are lower than anticipated. Sure, the ultra-long run time means that cinemas can’t book as many screenings per day, but it’s not like there’s much else to show during this drab fall season. “‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ is a huge win,” says Chris Randleman, chief revenue officer of the Texas-based Flix Brewhouse chain. “It’s a very long, three-hour-50-minute movie with trailers and ads, so the fact that as many people are seeing it in theaters is great.” Even if its future projects are shorter and more commercial, Apple has made clear it will spare no expense in landing top talent. Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon,” starring Joaquin Phoenix as the French ruler, also cost $200 million and will be released by Sony in November. The company also bought Matthew Vaughn’s spy thriller “Argylle” for $200 million. It will be distributed by Universal in 2024. Apple is one of the deepest-pocketed companies in the world, and its spending habits in the entertainment space are often jokingly called rounding errors. Does it matter to Apple if its theatrical releases aren’t making money? “Apple making a $200 million movie is like you buying a cup of coffee and spilling it,” says Stephen Galloway, dean of Chapman University’s film school. “But it’s not making their brand look good if films underperform at the box office.” Some experts argue that anything Apple earns at the box office is pure profit because the company wouldn’t have collected any of that money by going straight to streaming. Galloway disagrees, pointing out that Apple is spending tens of millions of dollars to have Paramount (and Sony and Universal) put — and keep — its movies in theaters. It’ll shell out even more for awards pushes. As a result, the break-even point – which would be $500 million to $600 million for a movie of this size and scope — keeps moving farther and farther away. “If you have flops [like this] at traditional studios, heads get lobbed off. Balance sheets get studied more carefully,” Galloway says. “Apple and Amazon are learning these things.”

V magazine 2023 https://vmagazine.com/article/v145-its-time-for-cailee-spaeny/

for S/ Magazine Winter 2024 issue Royal Gilbert ph.

Source

If this movie just costed half his budget it would be a hit. Just saying. I still wonder where all this money went after watching it twice. Thoughts for those who watched the movie? Killers Of The Flower Moon Achieves Rare Martin Scorsese Milestone At Global Box Office Martin Scorsese's Killer of the Flower Moon, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone, and Robert De Niro, passes an important box office milestone. Killers of the Flower Moon has surpassed $100 million at the box office, joining a select few of Scorsese's films to achieve this milestone. The movie, set in 1920s Oklahoma, revolves around the murders of the Osage nation following the discovery of oil on their land. Other Scorsese movies that have passed this milestone include Cape Fear, Hugo, Shutter Island, and The Wolf of Wall Street. Killers of the Flower Moon has joined a rare group of Martin Scorsese movies as it passes an important box office milestone. The movie, which is based on the nonfiction book of the same name by David Grann, is set in 1920s Oklahoma and follows the murders of members of the Osage nation after oil is discovered on their land. The cast of the movie includes frequent Scorsese collaborators Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, as well as Lily Gladstone, Jesse Plemons, Tantoo Cardinal, Brendan Fraser, and John Lithgow. Per Deadline, the Killers of the Flower Moon box office has earned $102.1 million worldwide as of Thursday. This makes it only the ninth of Scorsese's 26 narrative features to pass the $100 million milestone. The previous movies to have done so were 1991's Cape Fear ($182.2 million), 1995's Casino ($110.4 million), 2002's Gangs of New York ($183.1 million), 2004's The Aviator ($208.4 million), 2006's The Departed ($289.7 million), 2010's Shutter Island ($299.5 million), 2011's Hugo ($180 million), and 2013's The Wolf of Wall Street ($389.8 million). How Much Money Can Killers of the Flower Moon Earn? (And Does It Matter?) The Killers of the Flower Moon release has achieved a rare accomplishment among Martin Scorsese movies, but it still has quite a way to go before it earns back its hefty $200 million production budget, let alone publicity costs. This will become increasingly difficult as the holiday season heats up and brings a raft of blockbuster movies that will provide major competition. This includes the impending November 10 release of The Marvels and the combined debut of The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, Trolls Band Together, and Eli Roth’s Thanksgiving on November 17. It doesn’t seem entirely likely that the movie's total box office will rise as high as any of the comparable titles that passed $100 million. This means Killers probably won’t make more than Hugo's $180 million, let alone $200 million. This is because many of Scorsese’s other $100 million features were bolstered by international box office, which frequently earned significantly more than their domestic grosses. However, Killers of the Flower Moon’s international numbers are merely keeping pace with the domestic numbers, perhaps because of the uniquely American setting. Read the comparative international totals of those titles and Flower Moon below: When its current domestic gross is compared with its international difference, 2023's Killers of the Flower Moon pales in comparison to the majority of Scorsese’s previous $100 million titles. However, the fact that it has already earned this much might be all that matters. Killers has been released in theaters before it makes its streaming debut on Apple TV+ at a later date. The large budget will likely be offset if the movie drives subscribers to the platform, especially if it becomes a contender during the 2024 season, making any potential theatrical losses negligible after this milestone achievement.

^I see you didn't get my point at all. But do whatever pleases you. Also same for you. If you don't like my comments feel free to ignore me lol

Still no deal.

More unused conceptual poster for Titanic.

For those who aren't into criticism here's a praise from tip to toe Why Killers of the Flower Moon Is Leonardo DiCaprio’s Best Movie Yet And here we thought Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio outdid themselves with The Wolf of Wall Street. Boy, were we wrong. Hollywood superstar Leonardo DiCaprio has been on the acting scene since the 1980s, starting out with minor roles in television commercials and working his way up to '90s sitcoms, such as Parenthood. It wasn't until 1993 that DiCaprio landed his debut movie role as author Tobias Wolff in This Boy's Life, kickstarting a four-decade-long career worthy of an Academy Award, a British Academy Film Award, and three Golden Globe Awards. Since then, he's taken the entertainment industry by storm. Even if his first-ever Oscar was long overdue and the ripe age of 50 steadily creeps up on him, DiCaprio has repeatedly placed among the world's highest-paid actors. He may be most recognizable in his earlier roles, such as Romeo + Juliet and Titanic, but his latest venture proves to be one of his best — if not the best. Scorsese and DiCaprio Are a Match Made in Filmmaking Heaven After what has blossomed into a long and illustrious career, DiCaprio's most recent role came in Martin Scorsese's Western crime-drama Killers of the Flower Moon, based on the 2017 book of the same name by David Grann. Scorsese co-wrote the screenplay with six-time Academy-Award-nominated screenwriter Eric Roth, who worked on A Star Is Born and Dune. DiCaprio is joined by Robert De Niro, another long-time collaborator of Martin Scorsese, and Lily Gladstone, who lead an ensemble cast comprising Jesse Plemons, Tantoo Cardinal, John Lithgow, and Brendan Fraser. Killers of the Flower Moon marks DiCaprio and Scorsese's sixth collaboration, the most popular of which is The Wolf of Wall Street, co-starring would-be Harley Quinn actress Margot Robbie, another Hollywood megastar. The plot of Scorsese's Western drama centers on the Osage Indian murders, also known as the Oklahoma murders, which occurred between 1918 and 1931. During this time, more than 60 Osage Natives were reportedly killed, and their murders were covered up by wealthy heirs to future fortunes. This was around the same time that the first traces of oil were discovered on tribal land. DiCaprio plays Ernest Burkhart, a war veteran and member of his uncle William King Hale's crime ring who willingly participated in the Osage Indian murders. Burkhart was arrested twice and charged for the murder of Anna Brown in 1926, but eventually got paroled in 1959 and then pardoned by then-Oklahoman Governor Henry Bellmon. It's certainly a step outside the comfort zone for DiCaprio, who has never played it safe in his career, but likewise has yet to embody a real-life murderer. Ernest Burkhart Is DiCaprio's Best Performance Across Four Decades And it wouldn't be too presumptuous to say that Killers of the Flower Moon is DiCaprio's best work yet, including the critically acclaimed The Great Gatsby, the aforementioned Wolf of Wall Street, and even the Oscar-winning The Revenant. Martin Scorsese executes a vision that accurately and truthfully conveys the gravity of violence inflicted on Indigenous people by white colonial settlers, but DiCaprio at the helm is the secret weapon to hammering home Killers of the Flower Moon's powerful message. It is Robert De Niro's William King Hale, the "King of the Osage Hills," who introduces DiCaprio's Burkhart to "the finest, the wealthiest, and most beautiful people on God’s Earth," as he calls them. Burkhart acts as the audience's senses, so many viewers otherwise unfamiliar with the Osage culture learn through him. When Ernest finds himself entangled in Hale's weaving web of lies, deceit, and brutality, DiCaprio's emotional range truly shines through. For a man like Ernest, hardened by the war and beaten down by life, his only spark of happiness can be found in his blossoming relationship with Mollie Kyle, whom his uncle later orders him to dispose of in a greed-driven quest for ownership of the Osage's oil headright. Torn between the wealth promised to him by his uncle Hale and his undying love for his eventual wife, Ernest makes the toughest choice he's ever made, which DiCaprio conveys beautifully. It's the unsettling fear and confusion that he portrays through Ernest that truly shakes an audience to its core. We've seen such emotion from him before, such as Jordan Belfort's drug relapse and eventual divorce from Naomi in The Wolf of Wall Street. No finer performance has one ever seen than DiCaprio's stellar effort at acting drugged out of his mind. Even Scorsese’s Associates Can’t Stop Gushing Over DiCaprio Speaking to GamesRadar+ on the red carpet of the film's recent premiere at the BFI London Film Festival, Scorsese's friend and trusted editor Thelma Schoonmaker — who worked with Scorsese on his debut feature film, Who's That Knocking at My Door — commented on DiCaprio's performance, saying she knew it was going to be something special: "Leo — I think really this time he's done his best work, given his best performance. Marty called me from the set on take one of him being on the stand — he told me we are just going to run it like that with no cuts to anybody else, except for one to the prosecutor." DiCaprio's powerhouse performance along with Scorsese's unwavering vision has allowed Killers of the Flower Moon to fire on all cylinders and land with the same audience it seeks to expose. This macabre tale of genocidal serial killings might leave a stain on the living legacy of the United States, but Scorsese must have known how relevant it was to tell a story such as this, and more importantly, tell it the right way. Perhaps the most compelling part of DiCaprio's performance is that despite the anguish that Ernest suffers, you still can't feel more sorry for him than the Indians he knowingly sent to their graves. If the conflicted feelings that arise towards his character aren't a telltale sign of another Oscar-worthy performance, nothing is.

Also an interesting take. Killers Of The Flower Moon's Big Change Proves Leonardo DiCaprio Should've Played A Different Role Killers of the Flower Moon made a huge change to the true story. The inaccuracy could've been fixed by casting Leonardo DiCaprio in a different role. Killers of the Flower Moon received glowing reviews for its visuals, performances, and exploration of important themes, but its historical accuracy has been questioned due to the casting choices. Leonardo DiCaprio's age made him a better fit for the role of William King Hale, the villainous mastermind, rather than Ernest Burkhart, the corruptible nephew. If DiCaprio had played Hale and a younger actor had played Burkhart, the film could have showcased even more compelling performances and given Martin Scorsese an opportunity to find a new go-to leading man. Martin Scorsese made a huge change to the true story in his latest opus, Killers of the Flower Moon, and that historical inaccuracy could’ve been fixed by casting Leonardo DiCaprio in a different role. Killers of the Flower Moon marked the first time that Scorsese cast both of his go-to leading men – DiCaprio and Robert De Niro – in the same movie. The film chronicles a series of murders that took place in the Osage Nation as greedy white killers attempted to usurp the Native population’s oil fortune. De Niro plays William King Hale, the unscrupulous mastermind of the killing spree, while DiCaprio plays his corruptible nephew Ernest Burkhart. Upon its release, Killers of the Flower Moon received glowing reviews from critics praising its visuals, its cast’s performances, and its exploration of important themes. For the most part, the movie has also been lauded for its historical accuracy. Members of the Osage Nation directly consulted on the film to ensure that its depiction of historical events and cultural details would be accurate. But the movie isn’t 100% accurate, particularly in its casting of the lead roles. Killers of the Flower Moon would’ve been a lot more true-to-life if DiCaprio had played a different role than Burkhart. Leonardo DiCaprio Is Closer To William King Hale's Age Than Ernest Burkhart's At the beginning of Killers of the Flower Moon, Burkhart is welcomed home from his military service by Hale, who invites him into his house and informs him about the wealth accrued by the Native community’s discovery of oil on their land. In real life, Burkhart was only 19 years old when he returned from the war, and he was just 28 when the Osage murders began. Since DiCaprio is 48 years old, he’s much too old to play this part accurately. Meanwhile, De Niro is 80 years old in his portrayal of Hale, who was only 45 years old at the time of the Osage murders. This isn’t the first time that DiCaprio has played a character much younger than himself. He was 39 when he played the title character in Baz Luhrmann’s big-budget adaptation of The Great Gatsby, but in the original F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, Jay Gatsby is 32 years old at the time of his death. DiCaprio’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood character, Rick Dalton, was loosely based on Burt Reynolds. Reynolds was just 33 years old in 1969 when Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is set, but DiCaprio was 45 when he made the movie. Leonardo DiCaprio's Age Proves He Should've Played William King Hale Since DiCaprio is just a couple of years older than Hale was at the time of the Osage murders, that role would’ve been a better choice for him than Burkhart. Not only is the role of Hale a more natural fit for DiCaprio than Burkhart; it also would’ve given the actor a chance to take on a villain role, which he rarely gets to play. Hale is the real puppet-master behind the crime spree in Killers of the Flower Moon; Burkhart is more of a protagonist as his uncle manipulates him to do bad things. Burkhart isn’t a hero, but he’s not as much of a villain as Hale. The most villainous roles that DiCaprio has played in the past, like Brandon Darrow in Celebrity, haven’t been all-out bad guys; they still have some semblance of a moral compass. Con artists like Frank Abagnale, Jr. in Catch Me If You Can and Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street (another Scorsese film) are closer to antiheroes than real villains. The only truly reprehensible, inhuman villain that DiCaprio has played is sadistic plantation owner Calvin J. Candie in Quentin Tarantino’s slavery-era spaghetti western Django Unchained. Playing Hale in the Killers of the Flower Moon cast would’ve given DiCaprio another chance to flex his underused villain muscle. Killers Of The Flower Moon Could Have Given Scorsese His DiCaprio Replacement Scorsese initially took DiCaprio under his wing as his new go-to leading man when De Niro aged out of being able to play some of the characters whose stories he wanted to tell. DiCaprio played roles that De Niro was too old to play in movies like Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed, and Shutter Island. But now that DiCaprio is aging out of roles like Burkhart in Killers of the Flower Moon, it might be time for Scorsese to start looking for a new go-to leading man to replace DiCaprio in roles he can’t play. If DiCaprio had played Hale in Killers of the Flower Moon, then the role of Burkhart would’ve given Scorsese the perfect opportunity to find a younger performer somewhere between the ages of 19 and 28 to replace DiCaprio as his typical lead actor. DiCaprio was 28 when he first worked with Scorsese. An actor in a similar age range, like Timothée Chalamet (who recently worked with Scorsese on a Bleu de Chanel commercial) or Tom Holland, could’ve stepped in to play Burkhart instead. Both Chalamet and Holland are 27, so they’d be the right age to play Burkhart, and it would be interesting to see them directed by Scorsese. Killers Of The Flower Moon Would've Been Better With DiCaprio As The Villain As it is, with DiCaprio playing Burkhart and De Niro playing Hale, Killers of the Flower Moon is a terrific movie that’s bound to take home some Oscars. They both bring their A-game to their respective roles and bring the dark master-and-apprentice dynamic of Burkhart and Hale to life. Despite having not worked together since they co-starred in This Boy’s Life and Marvin’s Room in the 1990s, DiCaprio and De Niro’s on-screen chemistry is as strong as ever, effortlessly bouncing off each other in the scenes they share. But Killers of the Flower Moon might have been an even greater movie if DiCaprio had played Hale instead of Burkhart. DiCaprio gave a mesmerizing performance as a chilling villain in Django Unchained and Hale would’ve been an even more captivating character in Killers of the Flower Moon if DiCaprio had brought some of Candie’s menace to the role. Neither DiCaprio nor De Niro is really the star of Killers of the Flower Moon. The heart of the movie is the great Lily Gladstone, who plays Burkhart’s Native American wife Mollie. If DiCaprio played Hale and a younger, less experienced actor played Burkhart, Gladstone would’ve had even more room to shine.

Leonardo DiCaprio Offered A Role in Quentin Tarantino’s ‘The Movie Critic’? I’ve sent a few emails out this morning to try to confirm this latest tidbit of information. I’ll update you if anything comes out of this. A question mark was needed in that headline given that nothing has been made official and my sources tell me they haven’t heard anything about this Leo rumor. So, the gist is that Daniel Richtman‘s reporting indicates that Leonardo DiCaprio was offered a role in Quentin Tarantino’s “The Movie Critic.” No word yet on whether he accepted the offer, Richtman says he’ll only know after the strike if it’s a done deal. It happens that DiCaprio was already rumored to be part of Paul Thomas Anderson’s next film. The scheduling will have to be ideal for him to sneak in both of these films into his itinerary. Hopefully, the actor’s strike ends soon enough and we’ll be getting more concrete official word on this. DiCaprio seems to only want to star in films directed by elite filmmakers. Do you blame him? He’s at the stage in his career where he can choose whichever project he likes. During the course of his 30-year acting career, he’s worked with Scorsese (6x), Spielberg, Nolan, Tarantino (2x), Eastwood, Cameron, Inarritu, Luhrmann (2x), Allen, Mendes, Scott, and Boyle. There have been so many casting rumors about Tarantino’s “The Movie Critic” that only more confusion has arisen, the likes of Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Kurt Russell and Paul Walter Hauser have all been mentioned. “The Movie Critic” is set to be Tarantino’s 10th and, supposedly, final film. It was set to shoot in Los Angeles in September, but the SAG-AFTRA strike derailed that momentum. Tarantino has said that the script is done, so now it’s really just a game of wait and see.

Gorgeous

Vittoria also attended.

It's fine. English isn't my first language either. I just wonder why so many "none haters" always commenting about his private/love life and never about his work which is so much more interesting.

Don't worry about Leos love life. He's fine. She's fine. I bet you can do better with your time

Sexual tension between the main characters on point. Also thrilling cases.

@Ingridff Nobody seems to know what sarcasm is anymore these days LOL

^still can't believe he's gone 💔😭

SAG AFTRA considering the "last" offer of AMPTP. Fingers crossed 🤞

Some good news My folks loved the movie. I would watch Leo reading a phonebook for hours. He's brilliant in what he's doing and he's brilliant as dumb Ernest and it's a joy to watch his performance in KOTFM also by the 2nd time. I never questioned that. I still have some issues with the movie but heck that's just my opinion and nothing personal. Overall the movie works and I learned a lot about the Osage that I didn't know before (actually I never heard about the Osage before this movie). For me that's a step in the right direction and I think it's very important that it's made. I also think it's important people talking about it and sharing the good and the bad so maybe next time it can be done differently. @BarbieErin maybe you can give us your review of the movie. I would like to hear your thoughts instead of fighting with us especially when you know we are all here for years, following Leo, celebrating him, sometimes defending him and really none of us is wishing this man any harm. Ever.

Next "eras" article. Heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio Is Great, But His Scumbag Era's Even Better DiCaprio's latest roles have him leaning into being treacherous, and it's awesome! Leonardo DiCaprio's performance as Ernest Burkhart in Killers of the Flower Moon is praised as some of his best work, showcasing his ability to make an unlikable and ugly character magnetic. DiCaprio's career trajectory has led him to play characters defined by their muddy morality and selfish mentalities, moving away from his initial golden boy image. His dedication to fulfilling his potential and not resting on his laurels is evident in his choice of complex roles and continuous efforts to challenge himself as an actor. Leonardo DiCaprio continues receiving rave reviews for his performance in Killers of the Flower Moon, another much-revered role in collaboration with director Martin Scorsese. His work as the gormless stooge Ernest Burkhart has been praised by critics as perhaps his best work, citing how Ernest is such a thoroughly unlikable and actively ugly person, yet DiCaprio still makes him magnetic and the anchor through which the story works. If you look at the trajectory of his career, you'll find that it's been leading towards a moment like this, as DiCaprio is at his maximum power playing characters that are defined by their muddy morality and selfish mentalities. It's a far cry from the golden boy image he first became famous for, and it shows the dedication he has to fulfilling the potential he's always had and never resting on his laurels. How Did Leonardo DiCaprio Get His Start in Hollywood? The roles in Leonardo DiCaprio's early career as a child actor allowed him to be both a young boy with an edge and also still maintain an underlying charisma that offset that edge. The first film role that really got people's respect was This Boy's Life – which also happens to be the first time he'd share screen time with Robert De Niro. DiCaprio plays a teenager dealing with an abusive stepfather. Young DiCaprio leaps off the screen with how unafraid he is to go for broke with his anguish and how he is able to hold his own against proven veterans like De Niro and Ellen Barkin. He pulls off being a "bad boy" who acts out his frustrations – a traumatized victim lashing out at his abuser with weathered restraint and occasional rage. In This Boy's Life, DiCaprio demonstrates a range of emotions nobody was expecting from the at-the-time unproven actor. Later that same year, Leonardo DiCaprio appeared in What's Eating Gilbert Grape, a film that further boosted his newfound image as an explosive new talent. Here, he plays Gilbert's (Johnny Depp) younger brother Arnie, a person with an intellectual disability. DiCaprio's performance in this role is much different than his This Boy's Life performance. Arnie is a boy so easily lovable in his earnestness and charm. DiCaprio seamlessly switches from pain and aggression to sweetness and affection throughout the movie. The mainstream took notice, giving him his first of six total acting Oscar nominations for his performance. With this new platform, DiCaprio sprung into an incredible streak of performances that solidified his image. How Did Leonardo DiCaprio Become a Romantic Icon? The back-to-back phenomena of Titanic and Romeo + Juliet can't be understated, as both films did huge at the box office and cemented Leonardo DiCaprio's image as a romantic icon and the major male star of the future. Romeo + Juliet gave him more room to flex his dramatic chops; in a film full of the kind of excess and hysteria that only Baz Luhrmann can orchestrate, DiCaprio screams and smolders, carrying on the sacred tradition of doing justice to Shakespeare. Titanic presented him in a more matinée idol mode, fully selling us on this perfect man that makes Rose (Kate Winslet) feel like the only girl in the world, worthy of her spending an entire lifetime idealizing him. Once again, we see two extremes on full display, doing the absolute most effort and then the seemingly effortless with equal ease. All the while, the audience has been asked to see him as unambiguously charming and permit him to coast on that; this approach can only last so long, and DiCaprio moved on from this phase to prove that he had dynamic skill by starting to go for characters with much more conflicted moral makeup. What Was Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese's First Movie Together? Despite some unfortunate duds like The Beach, DiCaprio eventually found his footing by teaming up with Martin Scorsese on Gangs of New York, and while this isn't one of either of their finest hours, it does display DiCaprio's newfound drive to go for characters that could potentially be upsetting to some audience members. Amsterdam Vallon may be framed as a man traumatized by witnessing his father murdered while being an Irish immigrant to New York City in 1862, but he is also a man bloodthirsty for revenge against his father's killer (Daniel Day-Lewis), and the film goes out of its way to underline how much he's changed from the sweet boy he once was. It's tempting to read this as unintentional subtext about DiCaprio's career trajectory, but he himself seems uncomfortable in the role, with a shaky Irish accent, and he perhaps felt the uncertainty of untested waters. It doesn't help that he gets blown off the screen in every scene he shares with Day-Lewis in one of his fiercest performances. When viewed in the context of the rest of his career, it's a rough start to what otherwise becomes an incredible run of star turns where he gets more and more liberated to unleash his inner grot. When Did Leonardo DiCaprio Start Playing More Complex Roles? Starting with Catch Me If You Can, a delightfully underrated Steven Spielberg caper, Leonardo DiCaprio becomes more adept at finding new avenues to channel the underlying sickness that comes with his charisma. Frank Abagnale, Jr. was the ultimate con artist (so much so that even his claims of fraud wound up being fake), able to schmooze and woo anyone he came across, all while gleefully enjoying how easy it all came to him. DiCaprio is having the time of his life, gliding through every scene and doing everything he can not to wink at everyone he encounters. Even the later scenes where he gets caught have a pathos to them thanks to just how vastly humbled and ashamed he makes Frank, so regretful that his fun is finally over. If Gangs of New York was a test run, then the Scorsese double bill of The Aviator and The Departed were the successful races, as these feature two of DiCaprio's very best performances. Playing renowned billionaire recluse Howard Hughes and undercover cop Billy Costigan respectively, both roles are dazzling for how shredded to the nerves he is at all times. Whether he's trapping himself in a bathroom because he can't touch a doorknob or sweating bullets because he needs to keep his cover with major crime bosses in the room, he excels at playing men becoming trapped by social systems, both the ones they've created and are forced into. Both of these roles are essentially men building roles for themselves that they are compelled to uphold even when it's actively torturing them, DiCaprio was unafraid to make himself look ugly, cowardly, or downright disturbing to serve the truth of the character. Leonardo DiCaprio's at His Best Playing Truly Treacherous Villains Leonardo DiCaprio reached unparalleled heights of debauchery with arguably his two greatest roles, as Calvin Candie in the Quentin Tarantino masterpiece Django Unchained and Jordan Belfort in Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street. Here were arguably the two most disgustingly deplorable creatures he's ever done: as Candie, he was a monstrous slave owner with a fierce entitlement to his faux cultured sense of the world; as Belfort, he was a fraudulent stock trader reveling in his riches and smugly euphoric in his urge to share his insider knowledge with the audience. The key to why these performances in particular are so amazing is how unapologetically they take the "DiCaprio persona" we've grown comfortable with over decades of exposure and put them under pressure tests to see how far audience investment can be stretched. Tarantino ironized DiCaprio's tendencies, turning his charisma and swagger into a masterclass of anti-charismatic repulsion; look no further than the iconic zoom-in shot of Candie, flashing a smile that should have a foghorn noise coming out of it. Scorsese, on the other hand, magnified all of his traits to 11 and shoveled them into a shiny yet loathsome package. Jordan is always selling the idea that he's sympathetic, with even the mildest of introspective moments reflexively flung back in our faces, mocking us for thinking he'd change. His conspiratorial fourth wall breaks and manic commitment to the lack of shame Jordan felt is DiCaprio truly unhinged in a way that's unmatched at any other point in his career, and it's a wonder to think he didn't win the Oscar for it. Why Does Leonardo DiCaprio's 'Killers of the Flower Moon' Stand Out? This brings us back to now. Leonardo DiCaprio's performance as Ernest Burkhart is the culmination of a lifetime of learning how to break bad, at a point where he can no longer rely on the fallbacks of youth or natural charisma. If you were to argue this is his actual best performance, it's due to how it feels spun from whole cloth and not as reliant on his past history as other highlights. Ernest may have a boyish charm, and he may still look like Leonardo DiCaprio, but in every other way, he's a completely new invention. A thuggish, easily manipulated war veteran with a blighted sense of love and an abused puppy sense of loyalty, Ernest is a promising sign that DiCaprio is more committed than ever to pushing himself to the limit in exposing man's basest impulses for all to see. Fingers crossed he actually gets to play Jim Jones one day, he would crush it.