Jade Bahr

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.

So now Leo moved from "predicted nominees" to "next in line". Oscars Predictions: Best Actor – Bradley Cooper and Paul Giamatti Among Six Contenders Battling for Five Slots With overflowing talent, there isn't enough space for all the Oscar-worthy performances in the running 2024 Oscars Predictions: Best Actor Weekly Commentary (Updated Nov. 2, 2023): The best actor race will surely be a bloodbath, with every new contender dropping at a festival, living up to (or exceeding) expectations. The top six are dominating the buzz department, but there’s always room for some more. We know that Cillian Murphy (“Oppenheimer”) and Leonardo DiCaprio (“Killers of the Flower Moon”) will be in the mix for noms but we’ve seen big misses on nomination morning before. Nobody is “locked” until the names are read. Remember Tom Hanks (“Captain Phillips”) and Paul Giamatti (“Sideways”)? Speaking of Giamatti, “The Holdovers” is receiving very warm reception from the festival circuit. It could be a movie that lands in multiple categories, and could gain momentum as the days continue in the season. The strength of “American Fiction” will lie in the Actors Branch. Despite Emmys and Tonys under his belt, Wright has yet to be recognized by the Academy. He has garnered enormous respect over his career, and if he can clinch a prize such as a Golden Globe for lead comedy actor, he’ll be well on his way to an inaugural Oscar nod. There are moments while watching Bradley Cooper’s transformation into Leonard Bernstein where you just know you’re watching one of the great actors of our time doing what he does best. Four acting noms later (nine overall), isn’t it time he received a statuette of his own? And the Predicted Nominees Are: Bradley Cooper — “Maestro” (Netflix) Jeffrey Wright — “American Fiction” (MGM) Cillian Murphy — “Oppenheimer” (Universal Pictures) Paul Giamatti — “The Holdovers” (Focus Features) Colman Domingo — “Rustin” (Netflix) Next in Line Leonardo DiCaprio — “Killers of the Flower Moon” (Apple Original Films/Paramount Pictures) Andrew Scott — “All of Us Strangers” (Searchlight Pictures) Adam Driver — “Ferrari” (Neon) Matt Damon — “Air” (Amazon MGM Studios) Anthony Hopkins — “Freud’s Last Session” (Sony Pictures Classics) Other Top-Tier Possibilities Joaquin Phoenix — “Napoleon” (Apple Original Films/Sony Pictures) Zac Efron — “The Iron Claw” (A24) Nicolas Cage — “Dream Scenario” (A24) Austin Butler — “The Bikeriders” (20th Century Studios) ** Christian Friedel — “The Zone of Interest” (A24) Barry Keoghan — “Saltburn” (Amazon MGM Studios) Gael García Bernal — “Cassandro” (Amazon MGM Studios) Jamie Foxx — “The Burial” (Amazon MGM Studios) Kôji Yakusho — “Perfect Days” (Neon) Paul Dano — “Dumb Money” (Sony Pictures) Also In Contention Teo Yoo — “Past Lives” (A24) Alden Ehrenreich — “Fair Play” (Netflix) Benoît Magimel — “The Taste of Things” (IFC Films/Sapan Studio) Jesse Garcia — “Flamin’ Hot” (Hulu/Searchlight Pictures) Eugenio Derbez — “Radical” (Miercoles Entertainment) Michael Peña — “A Million Miles Away” (MGM) David Strathairn — “A Little Prayer” (Sony Pictures Classics) Jay Baruchel — “BlackBerry” (IFC Films) Mads Mikkelsen — “The Promised Land” (Magnolia Pictures) Michael Fassbender — “The Killer” (Netflix) Revisiting Leonardo DiCaprio’s 7 Oscar nominations in honor of ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ “Killers of the Flower Moon,” the latest acclaimed epic drama from Martin Scorsese, is now in theaters, and the film’s star Leonardo DiCaprio is already an early favorite to receive a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his performance. In honor of the new movie from Apple Original Films, let’s look back at his seven Oscar nominations and talk about why DiCaprio finally won his first gold trophy at the 2016 Academy Awards for “The Revenant” (2015). His first Oscar nomination came in the Best Supporting Actor category for “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape” (1993). DiCaprio’s only Academy Award nom of the 1990s put him up against older acting titans — Ralph Fiennes for “Schindler’s List,” John Malkovich for “In the Line of Fire,” Pete Postlethwaite for “In the Name of the Father” and Tommy Lee Jones, who won for his performance in “The Fugitive.” DiCaprio’s biggest hurtle that first time around was that he was the only Academy Award nomination for “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,” a film that did well with critics but was pretty much shut out of awards season. Many thought DiCaprio was going to receive an Academy Award nomination for “Titanic” (1997), but his performance was snubbed in a stacked year for Best Actor. He gave two more great performances in 2002 in “Gangs of New York” and “Catch Me if You Can,” but he also missed at the Oscars for those. His next Academy Award nom arrived in the Best Actor category for “The Aviator” (2004). DiCaprio won the Golden Globe Award for Best Drama Actor and was likely in second place to win the Oscar, but nobody that season could beat Jamie Foxx, who won nearly every prize he could for his celebrated performance as Ray Charles in “Ray.” Two years later, many thought DiCaprio was going to receive his third Oscar nomination for “The Departed,” but although the 2006 Scorsese movie went on to win Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director, DiCaprio was mostly recognized that award season for his terrific performance in “Blood Diamond.” Actors aren’t allowed to be nominated at the Oscars in the same category for two films, and so the academy elected to nominate him for “Blood Diamond,” which also netted a Best Supporting Actor nom for Djimon Hounsou. And once again, DiCaprio was no match for the front-runner, this time Forest Whitaker, who swept the season for his acclaimed performance as Idi Amin in “The Last King of Scotland.” DiCaprio’s best chance yet at an Academy Award win arrived when he received nominations for both Best Actor and Best Picture for Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street” (2013). Giving one of his most confident and courageous performances to date, DiCaprio won the Golden Globe Award for Best Comedy Actor, and if Matthew McConaughey hadn’t been winning most of the major prizes for his physically demanding performance in “Dallas Buyers Club,” DiCaprio probably would’ve taken the Best Actor prize at the Oscars. Sadly, he had to remain in his seat once again. However, DiCaprio’s time finally arrived two years later with his incredible performance in “The Revenant” from director Alejandro G. Iñárritu. For the first time in his many years nominated at the Oscars, DiCaprio had a massive box office and critical hit released at the tail-end of the year and had no formidable competition throughout awards season. Bryan Cranston for “Trumbo,” Michael Fassbender for “Steve Jobs” and Eddie Redmayne for “The Danish Girl” were just happy to be there, and although Matt Damon gave a well-liked performance in “The Martian,” nobody could get close to the overdue narrative for DiCaprio. Thus, he finally won the gold trophy in the Best Actor category for “The Revenant,” the crowd leaping to their feet after Julianne Moore announced his name. DiCaprio ended his speech by saying, “I thank you all for this amazing award tonight. Let us not take this planet for granted. I do not take tonight for granted.” After a four-year absence from films, DiCaprio returned in Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” (2019), which became a big hit with critics and audiences. Brad Pitt won numerous Best Supporting Actor prizes for his role in the movie, and DiCaprio was nominated most everywhere. When he lost the comedy Golden Globe to Taron Egerton for “Rocketman,” some might have doubted DiCaprio’s chances of making it into the Oscars. But after his performance was recognized with nominations at SAG and BAFTA, the Academy Awards became a sure thing, too. DiCaprio got in there while Egerton was surprisingly shut out. However, DiCaprio couldn’t compete anywhere against Joaquin Phoenix, who had his own overdue narrative that season for his celebrated performance in “Joker.” After being ignored at the Oscars for his turn in Adam McKay’s “Don’t Look Up” (2021), DiCaprio looks to return to the Academy Awards in 2024 with his eighth nomination to date for his well-regarded performance as real-life criminal Ernest Burkhart in “Killers of the Flower Moon.” Some of his potential competition will likely be Cillian Murphy for “Oppenheimer,” Bradley Cooper for “Maestro” and Colman Domingo for “Rustin.” Does DiCaprio have a shot at a second Oscar victory? Only time will tell.

And just another exclusive. This time Vittoria is REALLY THE ONE to seattle down with Leonardo DiCaprio and Model Vittoria Ceretti Are Exclusive: He’s ‘Completely Smitten’ Leonardo DiCaprio only has eyes for Vittoria Ceretti after sparking romance speculation in August, a source exclusively reveals in the latest issue of Us Weekly. The Oscar winner, 48, is “completely smitten” with the model, 25, the insider says, noting that DiCaprio’s inner circle think he could be moving toward finally settling down. “It’s going so well that Leo’s actually being exclusive,” the source tells Us. “Vittoria is all he thinks about.” The couple, who were first spotted together over summer, packed on the PDA last month while attending a Halloween party on Saturday, October 28. During the bash, DiCaprio was photographed getting cozy with Ceretti, which the insider says is something the Killers of the Flower Moon actor “doesn’t do that often.” DiCaprio’s public display of affection toward Ceretti is just one of the things that’s different about his relationship with the Italy native. “He says she’s not only gorgeous, but super down-to-earth, and they have a ton in common,” the source claims, adding that Ceretti’s ability to be unfazed by his career has been a bonus. “She’s not intimidated by his fame at all — she even makes fun of it, ‘the model and the movie star,’” the insider says. “Leo finds it refreshing.” While there is more than a 20-year age gap between the pair, the source tells Us, it “clearly isn’t an issue for him.” In fact, DiCaprio “says [Vittoria] is an old soul,” the insider continues. As DiCaprio’s relationship with Ceretti grows, his pals are “keeping their fingers crossed that Leo may have finally found The One,” the source adds. DiCaprio and Ceretti have had a whirlwind few months together after being spotted in August getting iced coffee and ice cream in Santa Barbara, California. Later that month, they were seen dancing and kissing at a nightclub in Ibiza, Spain. While Ceretti jetted off around the world in September for various Fashion Week gigs, she made time to see DiCaprio in Milan. The couple were captured leaving the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana Museum on September 24 alongside the Titanic star’s mom, Irmelin Indenbirken, according to photos obtained by Page Six. The twosome then reunited in Los Angeles the following month, just in time to cuddle up at a Halloween party. Prior to their relationship, DiCaprio had an on-off romance with Gigi Hadid, who is friends with Ceretti. Us confirmed in September that DiCaprio and Hadid, 28, are “still in touch” and “are friends” after parting ways earlier in the summer. Hadid, for her part, moved on with Bradley Cooper in early October.

Not the Brightest Killer of the Flower Moon Leonardo DiCaprio’s Ernest is unlike any Scorsese protagonist because, well, he’s dumb as rocks. And that changes the film in a fundamental way. Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart in “Killers of the Flower Moon.”Credit...Apple TV+ The demimondes depicted by the American master Martin Scorsese vary widely — his New York stories alone span three centuries — but they have one common requirement: It takes intelligence, of one kind or another, to navigate them. His protagonists are smart, street smart, shrewd, skillful or some combination of those qualities as a rule. That rule is broken in “Killers of the Flower Moon.” Normally, a character like Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) — a World War I veteran turned henchman in a plot to murder Osage people for their oil profits in 1920s Oklahoma — would either rise to the top of his uncle Bill Hale’s organization, or wise up and fight to stop it on his own. Ernest does neither, precisely because he lacks the qualities Scorsese has spent a lifetime depicting. Henry Hill (Ray Liotta with Lorraine Bracco) serves as our guide to the Mafia in “Goodfellas.”Credit...Warner Bros. The quintessential Scorsese protagonist, Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) also serves as the narrator of “Goodfellas.” It’s not just that he is a canny operator who helps plan a fictional version of the most lucrative heist in American history — his voice and his street smarts guide us through the Mafia’s underground society. It’s difficult to imagine Ernest having the know-how to pull off either task. DiCaprio in “Gangs of New York.” To survive, his character has to think fast. Ernest is not the first DiCaprio character to live a double life in Scorsese’s world. Amsterdam Vallon and Billy Costigan, his characters in “Gangs of New York” and “The Departed,” are undercover agents embedded in sophisticated crime organizations. They must think on their feet much faster than a man whose only task is to swindle a sick woman. DiCaprio in “The Aviator” as Howard Hughes, a leader more typical of a Scorsese protagonist.Credit...Miramax Films In his more antiheroic roles for Scorsese, DiCaprio has played leaders like the tycoon Howard Hughes (“The Aviator”) and the stock scammer Jordan Belfort (“The Wolf of Wall Street”), rather than stooges like Ernest. “Ace” Rothstein (Robert De Niro with Sharon Stone) dealt with various risks in “Casino.”Credit...Universal Pictures Sam Rothstein, a.k.a. Ace (Robert De Niro), the mob-associated gambling executive in “Casino,” and Jesus of Nazareth (Willem Dafoe) in “The Last Temptation of Christ” are also leaders, ones who operate under great personal physical risk at that. Their very different lives routinely present them with challenges the likes of Ernest could never surmount. Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer as a couple figuring out their position in a stratified society.Credit...Philip Caruso/Columbia Pictures The same goes for Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) and Countess Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer) from “The Age of Innocence.” Their doomed romance forces them to navigate the societal mores of wealth and status, with no all-powerful figure like King Hale (De Niro) to back them up. De Niro as Travis Bickle in “Taxi Driver.” He was expert with weapons, if not social cues.Credit...Sony Pictures No one would mistake Travis Bickle or Jake LaMotta, the iconic De Niro characters from “Taxi Driver” and “Raging Bull,” for geniuses, but each was brilliant in his own way at the application of violence. As a comedian, Rupert Pupkin (De Niro, with Jerry Lewis) isn’t too sharp but he has other skills.Credit...20th Century Fox Unlike Bickle or LaMotta, Rupert Pupkin, the painfully unfunny would-be comedian played by De Niro in “The King of Comedy,” is no good at all at his chosen field. However, he successfully carries out a plan to kidnap the talk-show host Jerry Langford (Jerry Lewis) and ransom him for a turn in the spotlight. Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne) has seen better days in “After Hours.”Credit...Warner Bros Perhaps the closest a Scorsese character gets to Ernest is Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne) in the black comedy “After Hours.” Like Ernest, Paul is a man in over his head (Hackett can’t hack it). But he’s an otherwise normal and competent person having one crazy night in downtown Manhattan, not a murderer. Ernest is not an average Joe suffering a series of mishaps, like Hackett. Nor is he able to serve as a Henry Hill-esque narrator-navigator for the criminality of King Hale. He barely seems aware of what’s happening with his own small stake in the wider conspiracy, much less able to explain the entire thing to others. With even the mean success of a normal Scorsese criminal out of reach, Ernest is good for little more than relaying messages about murdering unarmed sick people — a task at which he fails as often as he succeeds — and occasionally chipping in by poisoning his own wife. Indeed, Ernest is too thick — intellectually, emotionally morally — to do much of anything but allow his hand to be forced, first by King, then by the federal agents tasked with taking him down. He never really learns, never really comes clean, never really grasps the monstrousness of what’s happening until it’s too late. He’s just not sharp enough to see it, or to allow himself to be shown. The man is a zero — the mental and moral void into which King Hale’s Osage targets and their allies disappear. The Scorsese movie we get out of him is very different as a result. A sharper character would have implied that it takes some canniness, cunning or charisma to plunder a land and its people. Instead, Ernest shows us that the bigotry and greed that fueled the genocidal campaign against the Osage are ultimately stupid, and the resulting tragedy all the sadder for it.

Fun lighted, romantic movies. Those are movies I can watch again and again just to feel good

I'm sorry when some of you don't like such opinions here (and then claim people want to fail the movie what a bunch of sillyness) but when the osage community feel that way about the movie I think it's their right to express their disappointment. Saying critical/negative things about Leo (and his work) doesn't mean someone is a "hater" just saying ‘Killers of the Flower Moon,’ a missed opportunity Hansen Murray: “It feels disloyal to my Osage friends who poured themselves into this project, to suggest it could be different and better. Osages didn’t fail the project, Hollywood failed us.” After two years of anticipation, I saw Killers of the Flower Moon with Osage friends in Tulsa. Across the nation, Osages are gathering to see the film and sharing reactions on social media. Afterwards, we had dinner and talked. “Rate the film from 1-10,” someone asked. “What do you give it?” The group ranged from teens to elders. The ratings ranged up and down the scale—from 5 to 9. I was relieved to have my reaction reflected. We talked about scenes left out, details. Later, I also felt both let down and relieved of the anticipation, the hype and relentless promotion. As Osages we’ve watched the film being made from the set, or in town, or across the country with investment and with trepidation. We’ve watched via reports from community members and survivors’ descendants. We wondered if this would be more than another Hollywood Indian movie laden with the familiar tropes. The consultants were optimistic, and filmmakers insisted they understood our concerns. We waited. The film has many strengths. I loved the casting of the misfit criminals, the collection of FBI men, Lily Gladstone. The conversations between the sisters, which were too few. Loved seeing a summary of the many details we’ve heard from those days, the cemetery, the towns where we live on screen. Best of course, glimpses of friends and family in parade scenes, buying a car, gossiping, and the Osage people, our language, our ways. There’s a lot in the film for Osages to love. The film succeeds in some admirable ways. I enjoyed looking at the details of clothing, as I’ve done on a friend’s patio, pouring over old photo albums considering pins and shirt details. A strength of the film is the verisimilitude to the Osage of the 1920s. The hero in the film is the Osage language. It’s spoken by our Osage actors and extras, and by Lily Gladstone, Leonardo DiCaprio and especially Robert De Niro. It’s a joy to understand some of the words, the flow. The moral question, suspense about what motivates Ernest Burkhart is diminished by the suggestion that he is, as William Hale’s attorney says, “dumb.” Ernest is amiable and feckless; he was a cook in the infantry. The tension about whether he’ll stop poisoning his wife, or what he feels about his wife is not compelling. Part of what made William Hale so despicable was his hypocrisy with the Osage. Here, De Niro plays a genial devil, the breadth of his betrayals barely surfaced. The gratuitous gore present in David Grann’s book carries forward to the film, though I had understood Scorsese agreed to deemphasize the Native woman as victim trope. The victims are our relatives. The Osage characters have more depth than in the past, but they remain a backdrop. I found myself watching the slow demise of the Burkart family and wondering when intermission was, because then the film would deepen, the suspense would gather and spiral into the messy, shenanigans of the local and state politics the trial set in motion. But it did not. I made assumptions about the trajectory of the film from the scores of clips and stills that have been teased. In fact, by the time I watched the movie, it felt like an assemblage of those clips. Maybe knowing the story, as I do, as many Osages do, made this felt reductive. But I wasn’t bored reading Dennis McAuliffe’s book The Deaths of Sybil Bolton, nor the play adapted from it, nor Charles Red Corns’ A Pipe for February. The film would have been enriched by showing an intact Osage community struggling with this blight. With Chief Bonnicastle (Yancey Red Corn), spiritual leader (Talee Redcorn), and Chief Paul Red Eagle (Everett Waller) struggling to find the best thing to do and feeling the pain of the losses. With Molly’s family life and the tensions of her place in community. It could have been magnificent. I love seeing our Osage people brought to life in film, the range of our life together. The film is a gloss over Osage history with archival film and beautiful costume and set design, showing the ways Osages used their wealth, while maintaining their culture in a chaotic oil boom reality. It feels disloyal to my Osage friends who poured themselves into this project, to suggest it could be different and better. Osages didn’t fail the project, Hollywood failed us. Chris Côté went viral for describing how he reacted to the film. Among other things, he said, “this film was not made for an Osage audience.” I’m looking for a time when Hollywood trusts mainstream audiences to have empathy for characters in a community beyond their own. That failure of imagination cost us a film centering Osages and a rich portrayal of Osage people and community life within the web of the political and financial entanglements that continue to exist.

Seems like every tabloid is obsessed now with Leos "eras" as an actor: from hearthrob to scumbag. Here's VF latest. One thing for sure: It's never getting boring with Leo Leonardo DiCaprio Cements a Thrilling New Era in Killers of the Flower Moon The Oscar winner’s insidious portrayal of a bystander to genocide fits the recent theme of his filmography—and marks perhaps his most interesting stretch as an actor. A few years after Titanic made Leonardo DiCaprio one of the biggest stars in the world, Ethan Hawke expressed some concern about the record-breaking blockbuster’s impact on his peer’s career. “I’m a huge fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, and one of the worst things to happen to any Leo fan was Titanic, because now it becomes much more difficult for him to do the kind of work he so excelled at,” Hawke told Vanity Fair in 2000. “Like This Boy’s Life and Romeo + Juliet, even The Basketball Diaries, edgy out-there stuff, because everybody would be trying to milk him.” Romeo & Julliette, Titanic, This Boy's Life. from Everett Collection. At that point, DiCaprio was coming off poorly reviewed but commercially successful titles like The Man in the Iron Mask and The Beach, and he’d recently exited the thrillingly risky American Psycho due to creative differences. The director behind that eventual Christian Bale vehicle, Mary Harron, later commented on that decision: “[DiCaprio] brought way too much baggage with him—I did not want to deal with someone who had a 13-year-old fan base.” But if we look at DiCaprio now, 20-plus years later, megastardom has not stifled his growth into a more complex, surprising actor. By the mid-2000s, he had swiftly crossed to the other side of that “baggage” problem Harron had fairly identified, one of an A-lister vying to maintain his career amid financial pressures and industry shifts. The Man in the Iron Mask, The Beach. From Everett Collection. Then the physically torturous, nakedly campaign-driven survival drama The Revenant marked another turning point, as it finally won DiCaprio his Oscar in 2016. He’d already built a varied and impressive filmography, but since then, he’s only acted in three movies—Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood, Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up, and Martin Scorsese’s just-released Killers of the Flower Moon; each contains a revelatory performance. They play like moving portraits of Hollywood’s golden boy grappling with age, ambivalence, and even despondency. These roles are neither heroic nor antiheroic—not righteous or monstrous, not inspiring or punishing. They are instead mostly sad, that magical movie-star gleam in his eyes dimmed down to give off a reflective, almost mournful quality, facing down what feels like—or in the case of Don’t Look Up, actually is—the end of the world. The Revenant. From Everett Collection. When you get to be as famous as DiCaprio, at a certain point, you can do what you want. His collaborations with Scorsese neatly chart that evolution. During DiCaprio’s early-2000s period of creative drought, he and the director met on Gangs of New York, a fraught production overseen by Harvey Weinstein, before thriving on the studio-backed dramas The Aviator (Miramax), The Departed (Warner Bros.), and Shutter Island (Paramount). However corporate the machines were—something Scorsese has expressed regret about on his latest press run, from Weinstein’s Gangs meddling to the artistic limitations of Shutter Island—this was still Scorsese, and so DiCaprio operated in fresh shades of gray, tough morality dramas that challenged his sparkly persona. It’s no coincidence that his first Oscar nod since being recognized for the 1993 breakout What’s Eating Gilbert Grape came over a decade later, for his intense portrayal of Howard Hughes in The Aviator. In that era, DiCaprio also dabbled in transformative villainy, whether with the heavy prosthetics of Clint Eastwood’s J. Edgar or the nasty twang of Tarantino’s Django Unchained. But Scorsese’s first independently financed production starring DiCaprio officially turned the actor’s appeal inside out. His very presence in The Wolf of Wall Street, as the sleazy stockbroker Jordan Belfort, presented a brilliant challenge. For three full hours, viewers were stuck in his manically depraved world, which DiCaprio embodies fearlessly and, at times, grotesquely—trading his limitless audience goodwill for a discomfiting repulsion. It’s why critics at the time often considered the film to be in conflict with itself, on the brink of valorizing its despicable protagonist. Of course, Scorsese’s intention was exactly the opposite. DiCaprio was almost too good. Perhaps some weren’t ready. Don't Look Up, Killers of the Flower Moon, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. From Everett Collection. A decade later, Scorsese and DiCaprio meet again in Killers of the Flower Moon, with the latter in a fresh career phase—one less burdened by the peak of fame, perhaps, and thus less in need of subversion. How quickly things can change: The pathetic, weaselly skin of Ernest Burkhart, a dopey war veteran unwittingly entangled in a horrific conspiracy to extort and murder the Osage community in 1920s Oklahoma, fits him like a glove. The film begins as a kind of sweeping love story between Ernest and an Osage woman named Mollie (Lily Gladstone), then develops into a searing horror movie about his involvement in the deadly poisoning of her and her family. His mob-boss-esque uncle, William Hale (Robert De Niro), pulls the strings, but it’s Ernest’s utter indifference toward stopping him, and protecting those he’s destroying, that marks the film’s most insidious and tragic form of evil. Gangs of New York, Shutter Island, The Departed. From Everett Collection. Scorsese and cowriter Eric Roth had been developing this adaptation of David Grann’s book for years, and it took a while for the director to realize that his initial way into the story, through the FBI’s investigation of what happened, underserved the Osage perspective. In that initial plan, DiCaprio was to play the script’s original lead, agent Tom White (ultimately a supporting character in the final cut, portrayed by Jesse Plemons). As he and Scorsese explored the limitations of that frame, the actor presented an alternate plan. “[DiCaprio] looked at me and sat down and said, ‘Now, don’t get upset,’” Scorsese recently told The New Yorker. “He said, ‘But what if I play Ernest?’” The Aviator. From Everett Collection. The idea of DiCaprio throwing himself at this kind of part, a feeble bystander to genocide, is less shocking than it would have seemed even a decade ago. His turn in 2021’s Don’t Look Up, as an astronomy professor desperate to get the world to believe him about the planet’s looming crisis, deftly intermixed impassioned speechifying with a wimpy physicality. He took those geeky glasses and baggy clothes to heart, his star power shriveled down to the spark of an ordinary guy who lets a little media attention get to his head. His Howard Beale–esque monologue about waking up to impending doom inevitably generated the most attention, but he’s arguably at his most impressive—and, paradoxically, at his lowliest—when caught in an affair with a soulless news anchor (Cate Blanchett), or when quietly sitting with his family for what’s likely the last meal they’ll ever have. The Wolf of Wall Street. From Everett Collection. And while it’s surely because of the Western backdrop, I thought a great deal about Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood while watching DiCaprio in Killers. In that movie, his first post-Oscar acting project, he ceded the Hollywood-hunk ground to Brad Pitt while taking on the decidedly unsexy Rick Dalton, a washed-up ’50s TV leading man with a handlebar mustache who’s clinging on to any semblance of relevance. He cries alone in his trailer. He chides himself as “a fucking miserable drunk.” He confides in his eight-year-old costar, implying to her that he’s “not the best anymore”—and is “coming to terms with what it’s like to be slightly more useless each day.” There’s no swagger left in this man. Though DiCaprio still very much leads a glamorous celebrity life in private (and occasionally in the tabloids), what he wants to be onscreen is vulnerable, contemptible, about as far away from the glow of stardom as one can get. He’s got nothing left to prove—which means he’s got something new to show us.

Daily fail got another exclusive LOL EXCLUSIVE - Leonardo DiCaprio, 48, is officially off the market! Actor is 'crazy about' 25-year-old supermodel (...) The Titanic star, 48, is 'crazy' about the Italian supermodel, who turns 26 in June, with insiders claiming he is now dating her exclusively as she has 'all of the qualities he looks for in a partner'. (...) 'Leo is crazy about Vittoria and he finds every aspect of her intriguing,' a source told DailyMail.com exclusively. 'He likes where this is going and he is only seeing her right now. She is very intelligent and has all of the qualities that he looks for in a partner.' (...) Among these attributes is Vittoria's interest in environmental causes, which was a 'huge draw' for the Killers of the Flower Moon actor. Vittoria was previously featured on the cover of Vogue Italia, holding a stone which read 'Protect Venice.' Touted as 'Italy's most famous model' in the accompanying article, she used the opportunity to raise awareness of the impact of rising sea-levels in Venice. (...) 'This gives them so much to talk about,' the insider added. 'She was an environmentalist before meeting Leo, so it's not like she met him and suddenly she cares about the earth. 'Vittoria is successful and beyond financially independent. She is obviously stunning and he finds her incredible. But for now, they are intent on keeping much of their romance private.'

BTS (love his hands)

Even though I wanted to wait I now pre ordered OPPENHEIMER via amazon because I'm just too curious which movie I like better. A friend of mine (also a big Leo nerd) who already watched both movies thinks KOTFM is the better one. Thoughts (for those who watched both)? Also oscar voters calling Oppenheimer "overpraised" because of Barbenheimer makes me lol Nolan is constantly overpraised but that's just my opinion. Oscars: Is Best Picture A Race Between ‘Oppenheimer’ and ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’? I agree with the Gold Derby experts’ latest consensus, that “Oppenheimer,” “Killers of the Flower Moon” and “Poor Things” are the frontrunners in the Best Picture race. The narrative that’s been all the buzz of late is that it’s going to be a fight between “Oppenheimer” and “Killers of the Flower Moon.” That’s probably what you’ve been reading as well— pundits are desperately trying to make this happen. Wouldn’t it be something if it came down to Christopher Nolan and Martin Scorsese’s 3+ hour epics? Question for our readers: if you had to choose between both of their films, which would you have winning Best Picture? I don’t believe “Killers of the Flower Moon” will win Best Picture. Maybe Scorsese gets Best Director, but Nolan does have the better narrative. The problem for ‘Killers’ is that it has its fair share of detractors and that 3.5 hour runtime has been the cause of much-heated debate. Then again, “Oppenheimer” isn’t a walk in the park either. The last section of the film, primarily focused on Robert J. Oppenheimer’s battle with Senator Strauss, didn’t win everyone over. I’ve even spoken to a few Oscar voters who believe the film was massively overpraised amidst the ‘Barbenheimer’ phenomenon this past summer. Of course, Yorgos Lanthimos’ “Poor Things” is going to be a major player in a slew of categories. It’s the best reviewed movie of the year and has some real passionate fans backing it up. “Poor Things,” which I’ll be posting a review of next week, is basically a much more deranged and artful version of Gerwig’s “Barbie.” So, we have those three titles as the main frontrunners, but don’t be surprised if another film comes out of nowhere to dethrone them. The one I would be keeping an eye on is Alexander Payne’s “The Holdovers” — an absolute crowdpleaser, set during Christmas, that will feel like cozy comfort viewing, for many voters, this holiday season. It’ll also take some more convincing for me to include “The Color Purple” into my predictions. It still hasn’t screened yet and the latest trailer wasn’t that impressive — test reactions were fairly positive, but with attendees citing that the supporting players outshine lead actress Fantasia Barrino. The rest of the “experts” list is fairly predictable and has all of the contenders, so it’s looking like a fairly easy season to predict. From #4-10 you have “Barbie,” “The Holdovers,” “Maestro,” “Past Lives,” “The Color Purple,” “American Fiction” and “Anatomy of a Fall.” I like how “The Zone of Interest” has fallen out of the top 10, because I’ve been saying ever since May that Jonathan Glazer’s film is absolutely not an Oscar movie. It’s for acquired tastes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan, but its austere, stone-cold arthouse style is going to be a very hard sell for Academy voters. Also outside the top 10 (#11-15) are “Across the Spider-Verse,” “Saltburn,” “Air,” “Napoleon,” “Rustin,” “All of Us Strangers,” “Origin,” and “The Boys in the Boat.” Still left to be screened are next month’s Ridley Scott-directed “Napoleon” and Blitz Bazawule’s “The Color Purple,” which comes out in December. Unless one of these titles two makes a dent in the Oscar race, then we most likely are going to have a three-way race for Picture and Director between Nolan, Scorsese and Lanthimos.

The book got a new cover (german edition) Grace Dove (The Revenant) being supportive

He's hot. Even with a mustache lol

Shutter Island (2010)

LACMA is coming.

Also looks like the strike is finally coming to an end SAG-AMPTP Deal Might Finally Be Reached Soon The actors at SAG-AFTRA are holding steadfast, negotiations are ongoing, but rumor has it that we might be very close to a deal. A source tells Deadline that the 100+ day strike might finally come to an end. The senior studio source stated, “There is a feeling of optimism. Looks like we’re in the final stretch.” Talks are off for today, but both parties will be back at the negotiating table tomorrow. The AMPTP has threatened that, if a deal cannot be reached by this week, they will not continue any negotiations until the beginning of next year in January.

I remember back in DJANGO times Tarantino stated in a german interview americans are highly unwilling to deal with their dark past not only in real life terms but also in making/and watching movies about such unpleasant events (unlike for example the germans who make movies about the nazis all the freakin time and apologize to the jewish community at any cruel anniversary). Maybe he was right. I mean did any of your goverments ever apologized to the indigenous people for what they did to them? By the way the predicted numbers for NAPOLEON are even worse. I wonder if apple decide after two massive bombs going back to streaming exclusive. ‘Napoleon’ Long-Range Tracking $16-$21M Opening

for De'Longhi 2023

Chanel Cruise 2024