Jade Bahr

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.

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)