Killers of the Flower Moon 2023

[6.3/10] There’s a story worth telling in Killers of the Flower Moon. The tale of an indigenous population being murdered for their oil money, of state and local authorities ignoring blatant murders because it serves their prejudices and interests, and the feds finally stepping in after so much blood has already been shed, is ripe for the cinematic treatment. What such an event in the not-so-distant past says about our society, and the people involved, could make for an incredible film.

This is not that film. It has the wrong protagonist, the wrong pacing, and only intermittently hits the most fascinating and poignant parts of the story.

The film centers on Ernest Burkhart, a suggestible numbskull. Ernest deliberately and unwittingly does the bidding of his uncle, W.K. Hale, a local operator who’s ingratiated himself into the Osage Nation in Oklahoma at the same time he’s conniving ways to knock them off so he and his family can inherit their oil rights. As part of these machinations, Hale nudges Ernest to court and eventually marry Molly Kyle, an Osage woman with full rights and a family full of people who’ve been the target of Hale’s murderous plots.

Burkhart is our entree into this world and the fulcrum at the center of the movie, and the big problem is that he’s not especially deep or interesting. At best, he evokes the same sense of co-star Robert de Niro’s character in The Irishman, a hapless but good-natured goon who finds himself falling into bad company and regretting where his “just do what your told and keep your head down” mentality leads him.

But there’s very little depth to Ernest. He’s a dope at the beginning, and he’s a dope at the end. He seems to harbor genuine love for Mollie and his children with her, but otherwise he’s just a schmuck who seems too stupid and influenced to fully comprehend his choices or their consequences, which makes him pretty tepid and unengaging as a central character. That might be overcome by the acting, but star Leonardo DiCaprio gives the same affected, labored performance you’ve seen him give in a dozen other movies. While not bad, necessarily, it doesn’t have the lived-in character to make you invest in a thin, flat character who takes up too much of the spotlight.

It’s especially frustrating when Lily Gladstone’s Mollie is right there. The tale of a woman who loves her husband, but knows he’s connected to people who only want her family’s money, while trying to convince stodgy government officials to intercede on behalf of a group they either don’t care about or are actively working against, could be incredible. In places, we see glimpses from her perspective, or delve deeper into how the Osage Nation of 1920s Oklahoma reacted to all of this, and it’s the best part of the movie. Filtering it through Ernest’s perspective instead feels like a sad, missed opportunity.

It doesn’t hurt that in a film with multiple Oscar-winning actors, Gladstone gives the best performance in the film. There’s an understated subtlety to Mollie’s responses and reactions that evinces a sense of layers otherwise missing from most of the film’s players. A minor change in her expression, a simple shift in her gaze, can communicate more than the film’s bigger stars can in dramatic monologues. Gladstone steals the show, and the only shame in it is that director/co-writer Martin Scorsese doesn’t lean more into her character as the focus of the piece.

That assumes there is a focus to the piece. While ostensibly adapting the story of the Osage murders, Scorsese and company leave no bit of texture excluded, no cinematic cul de sac unexamined, no narrative rabbit hole unexplored. Some of the inclusions are good! The chance to see glimpses of Osage rituals and traditions amid the broader events is engrossing, and you can understand the filmmakers’ desire to share them with a bigger audience.

But many of them feel like wheel-spinning in a film that barely gets going until it’s two-thirds of the way through. Unlike Scorsese’s best films, this is not a movie with a sense of build or progression. Killers of the Flower Moon establishes early that Ernest, Hale, and Hale’s operatives are steadily taking out those with oil rights, and then it just keeps happening for two hours.

There’s very little difference, very little progression, very little interest as Burkhart acts the fool and Hale and enacts his plan in the same, undifferentiated fashion for the bulk of the movie. There’s no tension or intrigue to it, because there’s little sense of growth or change, let alone mystery, as to what’s happening. The notion of Ernest feeling divided loyalties to the woman he loves and the complicated father figure doing some bad things could be worthwhile! (Hello Departed fans!) The notion of him feeling trapped by the authorities but unsure how to unravel the net with either family could also be an idea worth exploring. (Hello Goodfellas fans!) Sadly, Killers of the Flower Moon never really capitalizes on any of this, instead offering reheated versions of the same thing for much of the movie with little in the way of differentiation or momentum.

To the point, god help the pacing here. Even in the film’s most interesting stretch (which is basically when the feds are working through their investigation and tightening the net), Scorsese and company let scenes drag and drag. You could fairly argue that Scorsese needs to trim the fat at a big picture level, jettisoning scenes and sequences that might be alright on their own but don’t add much to Killer of the Flower Moon’s larger project. But even in important, meaningful, gotta-have-’em scenes, the conversations lurch and lumber on, while the emotion and energy in any given moment drains away. Tighter discipline in the editing bay could have salvaged some of these scenes, but as is, they, and the movie as a whole, feel bloated and ungainly.

This all makes me sound more down on the movie than I really am. Most of the film is solid at worst, with a few keen bright spots. (The clever radio show epilogue is the most inventive and affecting highlight on that front.) At this stage in his career, Scorsese is a master of his craft able to attract some of the best talents in the business. As a result, there’s some memorable, textured performances in even smaller roles, impressive imagery in sequences like the ones where Hale burns up his property for the insurance proceeds, and even a few piercing human moments between Mollie and Ernest as they weather this storm together and then apart.

In that vein, Scorsese also deserves credit for telling the story, with his heart clearly in the right place even if his focus isn’t. Apart from the quality of the art, using your clout and platform to shine a light on an under-recognized injustice that is a metonym for broader problems in the treatment of indigenous communities is commendable. The events depicted here are both galling and horrifying, and the subject matter is worth the time, even if the execution leaves much to be desired.

But you do a disservice to that worthy cause by centering its fictionalization on an uninteresting dolt, and burying it in three-and-a-half hours’ worth of turgid cinematic bloat. Killers of the Flower Moon isn’t outright bad by any stretch. There’s too many talented people across the production for that to happen. But what’s maddening about the film is that amid its missteps and flaws, you can glimpse the outline of a better movie, one which shifts its perspective, kills its darlings, and honors the tragedy, but also the humanity, of the people unjustly cut down, rather than laying its focus on shaming their betrayers.

Just loved the movie. It is long, and it feels long but there's nothing to be cut. It's just a story that needs to take some time, otherwise it wouldn't be as effective. It is a tragedy and I feel making it shorter would ocncentrate all the tragic events too much or just gloss over them. I also think that there is just something about this setting that I love, this mix of 'wild west' freedom meets lawful civilization.
What I think I loved the most is how punchy all the emotional scenes are, and Lily Gladstone really delivered andelevated those tragedies. I also loved how the tone is set from the beginning. We see all these white people just swarming for the money and when we meet King, you can tell he is not a very good man and is doing something exploitative, but you just cant tell yet.
I havent read the book, but from what I understand the story is flipped to make it less about FBI investigation, and more about the actual cases and situation which I think works for this movie very well. I don't think the feeling would be the same if it was a crime thriller or a whodunnit. This way we get to see how awful everything and everyone was and instead of wondering about the mystery. Also I think the Ernest's character is wonderfully done where you cannot tell if he is just really stupid or just super greedy (though he does tell us that he is not dumb and he does really love money, so I guess that's it). The whole thing about no one spelling out the plan, but everyone understanding exactly what needs to be done is also brilliant. And it was interesting how in a couple of instances where it seemed Ernest had a novel idea of doing something by himself, it again turned out that it was King's idea all along (and though a dumb game of telephone the plans go catastrophically wrong).
The ending was also reallly interesting. One of those instances where you can't immediatelly put your finger on what's wrong with it - but your brain knows. I think it only works in current time, where we can see from the lens of current situations that it is kinda wrong that they are making a radio play with people doing the accents, and butchering native names, and done as a show for laughs and pastime. The cameo just puts it in perspective of the movie and makes it meta, which i didn't really appreciate or understand right away.

Killers of the Flower Moon - spoilers

Amazing Scorsese film and was wonderful to see in theatres. Barely knew what to expect and came out of it not quite knowing how I felt about the movie. There was a alot to take in. All the performances were amazing. The set design was really well done that it felt seamless throughout the movie. There were many actions and topics discussed that help give sense of the time period but aren't delved into or discussed later. Things were given creative freedom but seemed to keep it to a minimal, Except for DiCaprio and De Niro's characters who are given the most time in a movie about the murders and later the investigations of the Osage people. The way they showed the effects of diabetes and how it was used as a weapon with the rest of the community involved in some way was very well done. Made me recall diabetic episodes I've been part of. Wonderful experience seeing a Scorsese movie with all these amazing actors involved in theatres and with nice seating.

The length of the movie wasn't an issue but instead the content shown, it felt like it could have delved deeper into the details. Understanding that the movie was based on a book that kept things as documentary style as possible and didn't embellish the people helps understand why there so many questions left after the movie. Many of my issues don't matter after knowing that. What was in the bottle, how did Mollie or Ernest not care enough to ask about it earlier or try another doctor, was their love really that blind, did Ernest care more about his family or the money, would someone that loves their wife really just stand by and participate in the killing of her family, why make such a distraught person seem to not be impacted by all the dealings, etc.

Once the movie started dealing with the manipulation, bribing, sneaking around, assassinations that just seem like normal part of life, backstabbing, politics interfering, , etc I kept wanting it to go more into the details. It felt surface level and didn't connect with me too much. But that seems to be just me and might be due to already experiencing media that was more brutal, conniving, mysterious or emotional etc recently has clouded my judgement. In a way its nice to have such heavy topics done simplistic and basic level. Maybe I've become too desensitized about all the actual realities of the atrocities. It all just blends together to me now and I felt the need for more thorough dialogue/scenes while watching this movie which wasn't the movies fault. There were scenes that seemed like they were going to that point. Like the body that was found for Anna, had markings on her legs and bloody torso like there was more done to her than just a gunshot. Or when William visited Mollie and then we see marks on her legs that weren't there before. Like rape or physical abuse was implied as part of the cinematography for something that could have happened but not the story since there wasn't evidence after all these decades.

Creative liberty was used but kept to a minimum. Why wasn't it used elsewhere. For the length of time there could have been more depth given or just cut out. It became less about the Osage victims and all about Ernest.

The Osage people being Catholic but also following their own customs. Why weren't those customs delved into deeper or the tensions shown. We see celebrations and funerals, would have been nice to have more showcase of the native peoples customs just as more background development. How kids are raised in mixed households. The differences between the skin colour of the kids being explored more. Just more small stories of the Osage people, there must have been events recorded that could have been adapted to fit in the movie.

If they wrote that intense argument between Ernest and Mollie to use the doctors medicine instead of old traditions then why not add one for when they sent out the little girl who had whopping cough. Why would someone as prideful as Mollie just sit there and take that mockery of her peoples beliefs when she still practices them with her children. Ernest made up the story of things getting worse before they get better for the insulin thing and not getting more info from other hospitals. Like "hey honey, while you are meeting the president, maybe chexk out nearby hospital and see what they say."

All the women knew they were being targeted for their money but was it too much trouble to show just a little back and forth questioning instead of jumping to them getting married like asking how their white husband can protect them and their kids. Maybe some tensions with the maids that were around the house. Who even were those old people judging the kids colours that were just there for that one scene at their home. Why did Mollie not notice that happening in her home.

William was using the native people to get money and was portrayed so charismatic and well liked. He wasn't shown like a devious person so things like what his true feelings of the native peoples were was left vague. Was it implied that William was also running the KKK in that area? That would explain some why he held so much power and of his mannerisms of being manipulative but knowing how important a public image is.

Ernest talking to Brendan Frasers lawyer character was so small. That he was convinced that quickly. Ernest shown as a very impressionable person while Behaving like he runs the place due to working with his uncle and all the land rights. Byron just appears when he gets to kill someone or keep and eye on Ernest. No personality given, he's just there. But he's Williams main right hand man so why not give him more screen time.

Seriously, what is a reasonable assumption of what was in the bottle. Really annoying me.

The ending radio show moment was great. Want to see more endings like that instead of text/image summary. It was great when Legend of Korra did it and I'm surprised it's taken this long for a big movie to do it.

So many good things about the way this movie was made. Lots of questions remaining. The intention of all the scenes would make an interesting discussion video when the blueray extras with directors commentary comes out. The book is supposed to have those Osage people details that the movie just shows it as waste eggs for the people that know them. Should be worth a read.

The best possible movie they could’ve made of this version of the story. Which sounds much more damning than what I mean. Is it primarily for non-Indignous- especially White- audiences? Yes. Is it funneled through the White perpetrators rather than the native victims? Yes. Would the ideal story be told from their POVs? Yes. Should Scorsese be the one to tell that version? No, and he knows it. Would that version get made with this budget and marketing? No, and he knows that too, as no other director of his era and stature has done more to preserve diverse film from marginalized creatives the world ever. His heart and intentions are good, he consulted heavily with the Osage who were paid and will be paid for it, and this is the lane he could get the story told. And that involvement of the Osage made me personally more comfortable and interested in seeing this movie than Oppenheimer.

Conversely, it’s absolutely valid for Osage and other indigenous people to criticize the film for that point of reference it’s being told from, and that a film from an Osage filmmaker could never get made like this. I think Scorsese would agree with them. I think he would welcome engagement with the film, wrestling with all these complicated feelings, and that it’s part of why he loves cinema. You should absolutely seek out those voices; they’re better than anything I could say. Christopher Cote’s say on the red carpet, for example, is vital. And Ali Nahdee’s review is a devastatingly affecting illumination of the affect this can have on Native women sidelined and brutalized in their story.

Those voices should be heard and taken into account, and they’re part of why this doesn’t resonate fully with me. But the story that is told is executed very well. Scorsese is a master of his craft, and even today he’s still growing and taking inspiration. At times the pacing and cinematography echoes the horror of today- the ticking clock of what’s to come, the way the environment almost seems to breathe at times, the above shot of the very end ebbing and flowing with Osage, it all brings to mind Ari Aster and his Ilk.

Lily Gladstone makes the most of every second and stands out in a cast that’s all putting in the work. It’s an engrossing watch for every second of its length, every shot considered, and the true crime radio show as the denouement was a beautiful bow. I do think it’s ultimately not harsh enough on Ernest- his and Lily’s last scene is her walking away from him, but there could’ve been more. DiCaprio and much of the script seem in agreement that he’s ultimately a slimy, pathetic man who uses his simple nature to avoid accountability and blame for actions he’s happy to undertake knowingly and over great lengths of time. But then others still seem fo give him leeway, in ways that make sense- Plemons’ agent is trying to get him to testify, and Mollie is torn by love and her natural instincts and brain telling her what’s before her eyes. But there could’ve been a little bit more to fully dispel his illusion, to make it clear he deserves no sympathy.

Still, for the story it tells, it’s told expertly. It’s hard hitting and absorbing, and just about as good as this version and framework of this story could be. It’s totally understandable to criticize that version on its very base, and indeed, that factors into my enjoyment. But the craft, sentiment, cast, and skill still carry this film a long way for me.