**Fair Play continues to crank the tension higher and higher, with paranoia, fear, and betrayal exploding in a stressful and well-done finale.**
I saw Fair Play at Sundance 2023 in a crowd of cinema enthusiasts, making the theater experience electric and engaging! While Fair Play isn't my typical movie taste, it was exceptionally well done, with tension and stress building consistently from start to finish and exploding into all-out insanity and paranoia in the film's final act. My heart was pounding as the selfishness and jealousy of these characters devolved into pure hatred and disdain. Once the credits rolled, I finally felt like I could breathe for the first time in an hour! Domont did so much with so little, mastering suspense and keeping the audience on edge. With such arrogant and self-centered characters, it is hard to "enjoy" the film, but the craft and skill are undeniable, and it's no surprise why it was so well received at Sundance and scooped up so quickly by Netflix.

Het geheugenspel or The Memory Game, is a watchable crime, thriller from the Nederlands.
Not in any way special or unique but well rendered enough, in terms of story and acting to represent a decent crime thriller.
Regrettably, as always, these days, there's a shrill dose of wokeism. Thankfully, its limited to one scene. That said, this film, like all others, would have been better without it.
Its worth mentioning too, that unless you speak Dutch, you will have to contend with subtitles. Personally I did not find it a problem, nor did it detract from the enjoyment of the film.
In summary, a decent enough crime thriller for a slow day or evening.

When it comes to making what’s touted as being a grand, sweeping epic, a filmmaker had better have his or her ducks in a row before beginning. Unfortunately, in the case of director Ridley Scott’s latest, that’s only half true. This account of power-hungry 18th Century French emperor/dictator Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix) does a fine job of getting the picture’s technical aspects down pat, with its excellent production design, costuming, makeup, cinematography and visual effects (especially in the well-orchestrated battle sequences, even if they border on the gratuitous at times). However, the film sorely misses the mark on virtually everything else. The biggest problem here is its poorly composed script, which provides almost no back story about the European politics of the day (both inside and outside of France), leaving viewers who know little about the period puzzled beyond belief. The screenplay is also weak on character development, portraying the autocrat as a monodimensional buffoon, someone whom it’s hard to believe could have accomplished so much (for what it’s worth) by being a loutish dolt. And then there’s Phoenix’s hammy overacting, coming across like a tantrum-prone spoiled little kid than a head of state. It could be that tactic was intentional, perhaps to make a statement about the current political climate and one of its chief players, but falling back on ambition alone as a defining character trait is overly simplistic, even if it’s meant to resonate symbolically. In light of the foregoing, it seems like this project could have used some more in-depth development beyond its production aspects, and perhaps the best way to accomplish that would have been to expand the scope of the story. At a current runtime of 2:41:00, though, the only way to realistically achieve that would have been to grow the story by at least another hour, which means that this venture would likely have worked better as a miniseries than a standalone film. It’s rare for director Scott to drop the ball as much as he has with this offering, but I suppose it’s not too surprising when it comes to tackling something as big as this, an epic that ends up being anything but.

Hearing over and over on the internet about how Napoleon led his army to die in the cold Russian winter, I always assumed he just died there along with them. Turns out, he didn't, and what an unfortunate turn of events that was because it resulted in another hour of movie to watch! I liked the cannon stuff. I would have liked to see more cannons. Getting pretty tired of the whole mumbling Joaquin Phoenix act. If you put this ham on your face, be sure to turn on subtitles!

Based on a screenplay by David Scarpa (that is writing the screenplay for Gladiator 2 too... oh oh) rather than a history book this is as epic as Ridley Scott makes his movies technically.... and that's it. After Ridley's Scott last movie (the magnificent and accurate "The Duel" of 2021) went under the radar on its year my expectation bar was set too high for this one.
I can't dismiss all technical work because I just love all Ridley Scott movies because of his singular style, and the movie is truly breathtaking in the major battles parts.
But as a whole it simplifies the real personality of the character (that Joaquin Phoenix plays) as a commander and personality of the time (maybe the most famous of that era) and minimizes the intrincancy of his relations with Empress Joséphine (played by Vanessa Kirby). Joaquin plays Napoleon role very well, even with the limitations of being just a caricature here.
The gaps and errors in historically accuracy and battle scenes tactics are just fathomless deep, and history is compressed as it where from a history book name and resume of chapter to another, loosing the chance to achieve something grandiose here.
I can just dream on a well made screenplay and accurate movie here with the same quality of Ridley's work - nevertheless that it would take more than just one movie to get that chapter of Europe's history.
Maybe it will get one or two nominations at Academy for production, costume or cinematography here but that's it.
If it was a historical movie of a lesser known character or just focused on one part of his life it the score could be higher but here I just can get a 6.0 out of 10.0 / B - (but with a A for the technical side).
It seems thar a version with 92 plus minutes will be released on Apple, but without a final director's cut version date.

I had high hopes for Napoleon but the final product was, for me, disappointing.
Lets start by saying this feels more like a cinematic biography than sweeping saga.
The approach taken is to move from set piece to set piece through the passage of this famous figures life. Regrettably, the handling, like Napoleons tryst with Josephine, is quick and crude. Set piece gives way to yet more set pieces,with no real contextual cohesion.
There are a number of historical inaccuracies too. The most glaring being the absence of a younger actor in the earlier part of Napoleons career. This could have worked better with Joaquin Phoenix playing Napoleon in his latter years, married up to a actor of similar appearance, playing the younger Napoleon. Napoleon did change markedly over the years, why not take this approach?
I will say too, I think the American accent that's pretty hard to ignore, does not sit well, with a production set in this era.Brit accents are more believable because they were a well established presence on the world stage, at the time. I wasn't always sure if I was watching a film about Napoleon or Washington. A role I think Phoenix would be fabulous in, BTW.
This is not to say this film is "all negatives". A ton of money has been spent on this lavish production and it shows. Sets are amazing, as are costumes and locations. The gruesomeness of warfare be it domestic, Royalists dispatched by cannon in the streets of Paris or enemies on the battlefield, is laid bare. This really brings home the fact that warfare and imperialism, which we still see today, is ultimately an ugly, sinister, destructive thing.
In summary, issues with the handling of this historical production are its biggest shortcoming. From the choice of approach, with almost obsessive set pieces, the use of an older actor in a younger role and other aspects of how the character is presented.
On the upside, lavish and at times, brutally frank, especially the bloody spectacle of conflict. There are no hero's in war, including Napoleon himself.
NOTE: For anyone interested Napoleon was not short. He was around 5.7" tall which was the male French average height for the century he was born in (height of people varied century to century based on factors like food availability). The reason people think he was short, was propaganda from his enemies. I guess propaganda does work, after all!

Didn't really get much of a read on this movies take on Napoleon the person. He walks around, is terrible at fucking, and does not appear to be as short as history had made him out to be. As for historical accuracy, I doubt he really wore the hat so often, and I did not see him jam his hands into his armpits a single time. French Braveheart goes through all the beats these giant war epics go through [yawns uncontrollably], it does it well enough [farts loudly], and has some fun blowing apart flesh with cannons [gets slightly hard].

I'm afraid Napoleon is a little boring. Josephine is the best part of the whole project. Amazing cannon stuff, though. Just blew their load a bit early... 10/10 if it was over after they shot the citizenry...but the horse. Damn. That was a rush worth filming. All told, the film left me wishing Napoleon had died before another hour and a half could get tacked on. Was somewhat like watching a tiny old man die in exile on an island.

Impressive battle sequences aside, 'Napoleon' fails to deliver.
Just my own opinion, of course, but this Ridley Scott movie just didn't click. I didn't feel attached to what I was watching, I wasn't hooked on the events that were occurring onscreen. Joaquin Phoenix gives a solid enough performance, I don't have any complaints with him - nor Vanessa Kirby.
It's just the film in general that disappointed. None of the non-battle scenes did anything for me, it's all so heavily forgettable. The added humour/quirkiness from the titular character felt out of place, or at least wasn't blended with the more serious stuff all that well.
The long run time, whilst certainly overdone, isn't actually all that much of a hindrance - it's moreso how poorly the run time is utilized. I, fwiw, have zero issue with historical inaccuracies. Judging it solely as a film, I highly doubt I'll want to rewatch this anytime soon unfortunately.

Not worth the subject: the movie neglects completely how innovative Napoleon has been, just focusing on his relation with his wife. Written for English public that ignores history. A mistake.
The movie is worth for battle reconstruction, even though in Austerlitz, now Vyskov in Check Republic, there are no latest.
Joakim is great as always as some sights give the sense of power.

"Napoleon" ambitiously sets out to condense the colossal life of the French emperor into a single film but ends up biting off more than it can chew. The movie, while visually stunning and energetically directed, suffers from an overly ambitious script and a plethora of historical inaccuracies that distract rather than enhance. Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of Napoleon is inconsistent, struggling to meld the complex dichotomy of the character's reputed brilliance and egotism with a more vulnerable, human side.
The film's pacing is erratic, attempting to navigate through two decades of dense European history and personal drama within a limited runtime. Key events feel rushed or underexplored, leaving viewers longing for the depth and development that a miniseries format could provide. Vanessa Kirby's Josephine provides a glimmer of intrigue and depth, yet even her story feels truncated and secondary to the hurried historical epic. Overall, "Napoleon" exemplifies a missed opportunity to deeply explore one of history's most enigmatic figures, hinting that a more expansive, serialized approach might have better served such a monumental story

I think this is one of those films, like his "Kingdom of Heaven" (2005) epic that Sir Ridley Scott has made for aficionados of grand scale historical cinema, not for historians. Indeed it may well be that for this film, the less you actually know about the subject the more you might enjoy it. We start with the demise of Marie Antoinette and see Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix) watching from the baying crowd. He's a relatively junior officer but an aspirational one who manages to sell a plan to relieve the British occupied city of Toulon to his boss Barras (Tahar Rahim). This success sets him on a parabola that sees him rise, his falling in/out/in of love with the charismatic Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) and his overwhelming desire for European domination. The narrative clearly illustrates the fickleness of dynastic politics, trust and betrayal, love, lust and shrieking hypocrisy in a colourful and vibrant fashion. I didn't love Phoenix in this role, but maybe because Rod Steiger was so convincing in "Waterloo" (1970) that at times he looked a little like a mimic. That said, though, he puts his heart and soul into the role and the increasingly toxic dynamic with Kirby manages to stay on the right side of melodrama throughout. Again, as with Sir Ridley's tale of Jerusalem from eighteen years ago, he manages to pull off some spectacular battle scenes and the cinematography captures well the hostile environments - human and natural - faced by the soldiers as his empire building rose and fell. Although it's over 2½ hours long, I felt the focus was rather imbalanced. A long time spent on his rise to power then his decline and fall rather rushed. Dare I say it, but this might have worked better as a part one and a part two scenario. It looks stunning and the creative forces behind the costumes and visual effects are bound to be picking up a slew of gongs in due course. The acting, well that's less impressive and though I do enjoy the genre, I fear this may just end up being famed for some historical inaccuracies rather than being for an outstanding biopic of one of the world's most enigmatic and flawed megalomaniacs.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/napoleon-review-a-dispassionate-hollow-spectacle/
"Napoleon contributes to a troubling trend in cinema, transforming significant historical narratives into hollow spectacles driven by mere visual entertainment.
Despite compelling performances and visually stunning battle set pieces, Ridley Scott fails to control the shockingly inconsistent tone, leading to abrupt shifts between heavy drama and spontaneous comedy. The dispassionate treatment of the millions who suffered through Napoleon's acts testifies to the dissonant messages of the movie, which ends with an unclear feeling about the status of its protagonist. Too much creative liberty leads to absurd historical inaccuracies, including a questionable lack of French accents and actors.
Despite efficient pacing, the 157-minute runtime surprisingly feels rushed, but I don't believe the rumored four-hour cut will fix so many massive problems..."
Rating: C-

Dr Cheon and the Lost Talisman is a weirdly watchable supernatural joy ride, mired in Korean mythology and mysticism.
To a degree this film is inaccessible. Supernatural elements reflect a Korean view of the other worldly, that's not that familiar or comprehensible, to most Western audiences.
That being said, what this film does do is present a darkly humorous, entertaining supernatural joy ride that's kind of a similar to Ghost Busters, India Jones and series like Supernatural but at the same time, very different.
Its certainly entertaining for the most part, with decent atmosphere, action and acting to back up its at times, strangely complex story.
In summary, an entertaining departure from your standard western supernatural fair. Certainly worth a look.

A perfectly enjoyable superhero flick.
By comparison only, 'The Marvels' is one of the weaker MCU movies (there are still 6 releases that I'd rank lower, mind) but there's still no doubting that I had fun with this one. Brie Larson, Teyonah Parris and Iman Vellani are a trio that work well together, Vellani is especially good.
I liked watching the story unfold, it's told in a sharp enough fashion that I wasn't ever bored at what was in front of my eyes. The more humerous stuff is solid, the cat stuff particularly so; the standout being the 'let them do their thing' scene. Zawe Ashton's antagonist could've been done a bit better, though I think her Dar-Benn is more than decent.
I'm intrigued to see where they head with that teaser of an ending.

A lot of the hatred towards this movie was brought about by Marvel's lack of quality control in recent years, and perhaps rightfully so in terms of projects like Quantumania and Love & Thunder -- but this is, without a doubt, the most harmless and over-hated movie in this cinematic universe. A lighthearted joyride that takes inspiration from some of Captain Marvel's (and her predecessors') comic book space adventures, while finally allowing Larson to sprinkle some well-needed love into the amnesiac Danvers -- whose lone wolf persona is addressed about as explicitly as they could without force-feeding the audience. The chemistry between the three leads genuinely rocks, especially with Kamala Khan acting as the glue, and I wish they'd just let the movie breathe for another half hour. Carol & Monica's relationship strain and Dar-Benn needed the extra time to develop.

After all the bad press about this movie, I finally watched it. I enjoyed the movie and don't think there was anything wrong with it. It's entertaining and has a bunch of action. I generally like most of the Marvel movies and I am happy they are still being put out there.

Who watched the Mrs. Marvel series already knew the tone the movie would have. It achieves what it wants, and it is fun and cute, not a cinema masterpiece (and it never intended to be).
One things that annoys most people are the connections - literally to know much stuff here you needed to be catch up with all the movies and series related on MCU. Also the space between Mrs Marvel are too long to remind of the character.
Not a "normal" Marvel movie as could be done in a series, but I think the intent was to show to more people the "new" characters and create interest (could be a series).
Score: 6.0 out of 10.0 / B-.

Its not just that Larson is deeply uncharismatic, or that now the whole marvel thing reeks of try hard desperation to restart the previous two decades longest running gravy train. Its mostly that all of the marvel movies always have been, low grade cartoons for lame brained adults. The fuckheads who slurped it all are now pretending like this is any worse, it isn't. Its the same thing, and you wasted a lifetime of watching hours on all the other marvel nonsense, you lose.

If this movie was 30 minutes I'd have 10 starred it. The rest just kind of falls into the typical colourful, bombastic garbage. Too much Marvel garble. I'm not the target for this by any means but if your kids feel ripped off and angry after watching it, congratulate them and discuss why. Fans of original Star Trek will find something familiar here.

Better than I expected. Go go girl power! Boooo to all the haters!
66/100

A trashtastic conclusion to an epic failure of a series of movies. Maybe finally the M-SHE-U can rest in peace and we can get some actual good movies made.

When I first heard the title of this movie, I thought it was about a 1960s girls’ singing group. And, frankly, that would have probably made for a better movie. Writer-director Nia DaCosta’s third feature outing and the latest in the Marvel Universe paradigm is a wildly inconsistent superhero movie that tries too hard to do too much and doesn’t have a script to support it. Too many of its plot elements aren’t adequately explained until well into the story, while others aren’t explained at all, leaving viewers who aren’t comic book laureates wondering what’s going on (particularly at film’s end). Meanwhile, other narrative aspects frequently appear gimmicky and grow old quickly, such as the introduction of the primary superpower that its three protagonists share, one that almost becomes slapstickish after an all-too-brief while. On top of that, the CGI effects vacillate from one end of the quality spectrum to the other, creating a mix of images that are either startling to look at or stunningly cheesy at best. Add to that a villain that isn’t particularly menacing, along with attempts at humor that either succeed brilliantly (cat lovers take note) or fall flat and look incredibly lame (as aficionados of musical theater will undoubtedly attest), all of which further add to the picture’s pervasive inconsistency. The inclusion of ample clues for advancing the overarching Marvel Universe storyline continues here, too, furthering a trend that’s growing tiresome in the studio’s releases, a development akin to the “Paul is dead” legacy come to life with every passing picture. Then there’s the trio of heroes themselves, who often appear more like they’ve been plucked from a giddy slumber party flick or a Cyndi Lauper video than taking center stage as seriously empowered champions in an action-adventure offering. All of these failings combine to make this production more of a forgettable placeholder in the Marvel mythology than a standalone feature (not to mention a pale substitute for a sequel to the far-superior film that launched the Captain Marvel franchise in 2019). In short, “The Marvels” is as much of a mess as it is a movie, and that’s troubling for several reasons. It lends credence to the growing criticism that films like this aren’t to be taken seriously. It reinforces the notion that they’re cookie-cutter in nature, easily interchangeable with one another. And it raises questions about the career choices of lead actress Brie Larson, who, though quite capable of playing roles like these, is running the risk of becoming type-cast, a troubling prospect for an Academy Award-winning actress who possesses a depth of talent and is handily adept at taking on better and more serious material than this. In the wake of this release, Marvel Studios should take a step back and seriously assess where its future is headed, especially if movies like this are any indication. As pictures like “Wakanda Forever” (2022) show, the studio is capable of better work – and it’s time to show viewers that.

When Kree ruler "Dar-Benn" (Zawe Ashton) unearths a powerful bracelet, she unleashes a power in it's sister being worn, decoratively, by the enthusiastic but a bit annoying "Kamala" (Iman Vellani) and next thing we find chaos ensues. It appears that her new powers connect her to "Danvers" (Brie Larson) and her slightly estranged cohort "Rambeau" (Teyonah Parris). When they use their powers they find themselves transported into each other's shoes - causing mayhem all over the place, especially at the family home of the rookie superhero who is as yet unaware of just quite how powerful her shiny amulet is. "Dar-Benn" is out for revenge. After "Danvers" destroyed the AI that controlled their planet, it has gone into terminal decay and so she decides to reinstate her world by stealing the atmosphere from one world, then the water from another - where they only speak in song, so perhaps no great loss - before deciding to borrow the sun from Earth to reinvigorate their own failing star. With a little help from "Nick Fury" (Samuel L. Jackson) the three have to galvanise their powers and focus on thwarting this dastardly design before it's too late. Now there is nothing even remotely original in this. It's all join the dots Marvel adventure with the usual pyrotechnics, spectacular visual effects and thinnest of stories. The denouement is never in doubt and actually feels rather rushed after a first half hour of repetitive combat scenes that don't draw breath but don't really entertain either. Larson is a natural actor (she reminds me a lot of Grace Kelly) but nobody here really has much by way of dialogue to work with as we see this film manoeuvred into the path of another franchise that it would appear destined to join with next time. Barbra Streisand makes a surprise (vocal) appearance during quite an innovative scene herding cats and simultaneously saving people, but I found the rest of this to be same old, same old and though shorter than we are used to, it's still all a bit old hat. Looks good, but I doubt that you'll never remember it.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.firstshowing.net/2023/review-nia-dacostas-the-marvels-is-a-solid-mid-tier-mcu-movie/
"The Marvels is a film that showcases some of the well-known strengths and weaknesses of the MCU. It struggles with script and editing issues that hinder its narrative cohesion and character depth, besides an unnecessarily short runtime that doesn’t help its villain.
Fortunately, it excels in its ensemble cast and their chemistry - Iman Vellani is the clear MVP - creative action set pieces, impressive visual effects, stunning costumes, and well-timed humor, which all together push the movie into safe harbor.
Nia DaCosta offers a light, entertaining superhero blockbuster that may fall short of greatness, but leaves room for improvement in future installments of the franchise."
Rating: B

Pleasantly surprised by this!
I have no idea how 'Rise of the Footsoldier' has managed to reach its sixth (sixth!) installment, but to be fair I actually truly enjoyed this entry - to the point that I'd even say this is the best of the series. Admittedly, I am someone who only likes the second film; 1 and 3-5 are all forgettable, at best.
Craig Fairbrass is, despite the aforementioned, someone I do appreciate from these flicks. I wouldn't class his acting as anything incredible, though he does definitely have enough screen presence about him and undoubtedly fits the character he portrays. This film, in my opinion, holds his best performance as Pat Tate. Elsewhere on the cast, Geoff Bell has an impressive (albeit brief) appearance.
What helps this movie is that it doesn't only rely on the cringey wannabe gangster clichés of drugs, guns and women, like most of the other five productions do; 'Rise of the Footsoldier 4: Marbella' particularly falls victim to that, from what I remember. It's still in there, just not as front and centre as before. Here, the story has a bit more meat on its bones as my interest remained throughout. The score is quite good too, a few well chosen tracks.
In conclusion, a film that is vastly more entertaining than I thought it would be. Credit to all those involved with making 'Rise of the Footsoldier: Vengeance'. Incredibly, a seventh release has already been confirmed! You know what, after this, I'm actually here for it. Fascinated to see how many of these they end up making, the UK's very own 'Fast & Furious'...

So "Tate" (Craig Fairbrass) and his buddy "Kenny" (Josh Myers) are holding up a security van when things go a bit awry and the latter man ends up shooting one of the guards. They get away ok, only to discover that there is a distinct paucity of cash in the box they pinched. Furious, they fall out and "Kenny" heads into Soho where he meets his pal "Billy" (Ben Wilson) who does a turn as a drag act in the "Freedom Club". Turns out these two rather amateur villains are planning to make some large ones dealing cocaine and a meeting is set up with an unscrupulous dealer who decides to have his cake and eat it... It now falls to "Tate" to find out who did what to whom in as bloody and violent a fashion as possible and seek his revenge on the culprits. This picks up on some of the characters from the last outing for Fairbrass and Phil Davis's stereotypical and underwhelming gangster "Hexell" but is so clearly just an episode in what Nick Nevern wants to be a continuing series of these episodic and all-too-predictable dramas. Thing is with these stories, we don't get any depth to, or investment in, the characters and so I really couldn't care less about who was chasing who, nor did I really see the need for the undercooked "queer" storyline that was there, but for no apparent purpose. The production is way, way, better than the "Origins" (2021) effort with the direction and photography coupled with the dark London scenarios and a decent soundtrack going some way to creating a sense of menace. It's just the storytelling that's pretty weak and feeble and the acting little better.

This is as slick a production as Scorsese ever made. Story aside, this film just feels like pure, unadulterated Oscar bait. In the end, isn't it just a bunch rich, Hollywood, white men exploiting the Native Americans again? I'm not denigrating Lily Gladstone here, who was fabulous.Even she said "So many films are made on Native land, why did it take so long for an Indigenous actor to be nominated for an Oscar?" yeah, why? Well, the 5/10 stars I gave it are only for her and David Grann. If not for those two, I would just be kicking myself for even trying to watch a Hollywood movie when I know damn well they always disappoint me.

Needlessly long, boring and utterly useless Oscar bait. It relies on clichéd tropes, wooden performances, and an extremely dull script. The movie wastes the talents of its star-studded cast, especially DiCaprio and De Niro, who seem bored and uninterested in their roles. The movie also suffers from a lack of tension, suspense, and emotion, making it a tedious and forgettable watch.

Another must watch movie from 2023 and another hit from Martin Scorsese. Currently it holds 10 nominations to the 96th Academy Awards (Best Picture, Director, Best Actress, Supporting Actor, Cinematography, Editing, Production Design, Costume Design, Original Score, Best Original Song).
It is based on the 2017 nonfiction book "Killers of the Flower Moon"
by David Grann, that basically investigate the Osage Indian Nation that occurred between 1920 and 1930. Just as an outline oil was discovered on Osage lands in the end of 1800, but with the boom of automobile industry it value boomed, making the Osage people one of the most rich on Earth at that time, even if the jurisdictions of the legal rights were done by white man. Based on legal attributions and heritage marriage occurring on that time a wide spread of sordid murders and interracial marriages between Indian woman and white men occurred putting a whole af the money in white mens blood dirty hands.
Of course being a 3 and a half hour project (after all not all stories can be condensed on 2 hours, and the rhythm is right), the second of Scorsese after 2019's "The Irishman" - the movie (which had the rights buyed in 2015 by 5M) was to start production in 2019, but obviously it halted because of COVID what gave Scorsese time to get the money for a USD 200M production (by Apple and Paramount) and started the works in 2021.
I will not enter in details of the characters here, but all is historically researched, and many details were affected by Osage contributions. On the Acting part, Leonardo DiCaprio, as Ernest Burkhart, Robert De Niro as William King Hale, Ernest's uncle and Lily Gladstone as Mollie Burkhart, Ernest's wife are just perfect.
The nominations of Cinematography (Rodrigo Prieto - Argo, The Irishman, Brokeback Mountain among other sublime works), editing (Thelma Schoonmaker), Production Design (Jack Fisk and Adam Willis), Costume Design (Jacqueline West), Best Original Score (using musics from Indians and from that time, in a discrete, but at the same time prominent in the last work of Robbie Robertson) are all spot one.
Maybe the best achievement of the movie is bringing to the spotlights another history side of the evil side of USA, as Tulsa was in the same age.
I expect a lot of Awards for this ones, even with some strong competition - and give this one a 9,2 out of 10,0 / A score. Do yourself a favor and see it, if you like Scorsese epics.