[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.
This has everyone involved play to their strengths. It's another tale of Scorsese deconstructing the myth of the American dream, but with a thematic approach I found quite refreshing for him. The way that the film tackles racism, and how it's tied to issues of money, power, greed, trust and systemic injustice, feels authentic and well constructed. It's a movie that's unsettling and will leave a mark on your brain emotionally, you should know that going in. De Niro has a lot of fun playing a sinister crime boss with a wholesome facade, it's a performance that could be compared to Giancarlo Esposito in Breaking Bad. DiCaprio is always at his best when playing a pathetic dumbass, and he also shines here. It almost feels like he's in Tarantino mode, it's not similar to any of the previous work he's done with Scorsese. Yet, despite both of Scorsese's go-to actors having prominent roles here, it's actually Lily Gladstone who ends up delivering the most emotional, subtle performance. Technically the movie is pretty much flawless. The production design, lighting, cinematography and score are all immaculate, and despite the long running time, Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing kept me engaged for the entire runtime. However, the pacing is still somewhat of an issue. As Scorsese has matured as a filmmaker, the choices he's making are becoming more and more understated. The tracking shots and montages are still here, but they're less energetic and he's relying more on pauses instead. There's nothing wrong with that, given that the substance carries the movie, but with a movie this long I want a little more pop. There's one scene involving fire that'll stay with me, as well as another couple of haunting moments, but besides that he's not turning up the intensity too much. It would've been nice if the movie ended with an extended courtroom scene where all the actors get to really show off with some incredible dialogue, for example. This movie still ends in a pretty weird way, having some creative use of what are essentially ending title cards, but it involves a major tonal shift that didn't work for me. Finally, I thought Brendan Fraser's performance was flat out bad, showing up for a small part and overacting every line. All in all, while I do recommend this movie, I don't think it's a masterpiece. Martin 'this is cinema' Scorsese would probably hate me for saying this, but given the pacing issues, there's an argument to be made it would've worked better as a miniseries.
7/10
It was undoubtedly very longggggg and pretty boring at times but surprisingly, I was mostly captivated. It is such a horrible tragic true story that is worth knowing and therefore I say take your shot and suffer through it…
The characters actions and reactions are often so stupid and unrealistic that if it were not (supposedly) very close to what really happened, I would say that the writing is terrible and that audiences would never play along. A perfect example of how true stories can be so whacked that they would not fly as fiction.
Mostly good acting and sometimes great but it took me a while to get used to DiCaprio making a constant and incredibly sever frown with his mouth. He and Lily elegantly portray village idiots with depth and finesse. DeNiro plays himself perfectly as a total megalo a-hole. Frazer is scary as heck. Someone needs to cast him as the monster in a new horror franchise.
Anyone know what McDouffus was adding to the insulin? Was Mr. Cob a white dude and did he end up with the headrights? They should have taken a lil fat off the three hours and put it towards meat on the tail end…
Without a doubt a story that needed to be told. A perfect mix of relevant themes to back it up. Very dramatic, knows when to get emotional, the mystery was very catchy I wanted to catch the culprit myself, great romance, some western vibes and even some well-placed and funny comedy. On a cinematography level there's not much to be said, it's near perfect!
De Niro, Gladstone and DiCaprio all felt pretty equal in terms of performances for me but I found DiCaprio overdramatically out of place in some parts (and it's clearly not his fault, he was most likely told to do it like that but the result was straight out cringe). Excellent characters that were such a treat to disect and the character arcs feel satisfying by the end. Wanted more of Lily Gladstone in the middle but her presence never leaves the movie even though she's off-screen.
Didn't like the last scene at the end, so weird and out of place, it reduced the impact of the ending of the third act. My biggest criticism and what really kept this from being great is the 3h26 runtime mixed with the slow pacing. It kills! Exact same thing happened with Oppenheimer. It felt like being forced to binge a series.
If you stay to the end, you'll understand this comment. It needed to start with the way it finished, and it would've been a 10. I'm saying 9.5 but can only give it a 9.
The main issue is unless something is wrong with you, like you're a total racist sh1tbag, you're going to walk away from the movie feeling disgusted on so many levels. I felt like we, as in Americans, have so much to atone for, and even more disgusted by half of a "white America" that all thinks sweeping this kind of garbage under the rug is the way to handle it. This garbage happened because "white America" never wants to take responsibility for the hate we have allowed.
The film is spectacular in the settings chosen, but also loved how Scorsese invoked that Orson Wells camera views to illustrate some of the later scenes better. Very Citizen Kane-esque. Just fantastic cast, acting, directing, costumes.
But WARNING. you will have a feeling of filth of what these men did. The raping of these people's wealth is just one of many disgusting parts of American history that we can only atone for by acknowledging it happened and never allowing it to happen again.
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.
I’m not going to bury the lead. Killers of the Flower Moon is crazy good. It’s the frontrunner for this year’s Best Picture Oscar.
Lilly Gladstone’s performance as Molly is riveting… She keeps this movie centered and credible in a way that few actresses could ever match.
DeNiro is a different kind of villain. He plays William King Hale as an entitled manipulative Patriarch who thinks his selfish desires for power and his covetous need to obtain the wealth of others serves the greater good of his community.
Hale’s chosen instrument to steal anothers fortune is his charming but dimwitted and obsequious nephew Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio).
King Hale sets his nephew to woo the heart of Osage Indian Molly (played by Lilly Gladstone). Lilly is the daughter of a family who’s property was one of the fortunate acreages blessed with rich deposits of Oklahoma oil. Discovered early in the 1900s
Molly is a wealthy woman. But she also has sister’s who will inherit part of her mother’s wealth — But King Hale is playing the long game and that puts Molly’s entire family in danger.
Scorsese uses the first ten plus minutes of this 3:30 minute film as a prelude explaining how the Osage tribe came to live in Oklahoma and how the oil that was found there put the people in Jeopardy.
Like most of Scorsese’s movies this story is about greed and corruption and it involves gangsters. The gangsters here are not the smooth thieves of the big cities. The hard men in service to DeNiro and DiCaprio are as dangerous as they are inept. Frontier men who have principles they adhere to but will make murderous exceptions when it comes to members of Oklahoma Indians.
The Osage are aware they are being hunted for their wealth but they cannot fathom that man they consider a great white uncle has anything to do with their plight.
Scorsese’s film personalizes the larger story of the Tribe through Molly’s eyes.
I’ve given much away in this review. So let me wrap this up by lauding the actors involved.
De Niro is as solid and evil as he’s ever performed. Yet you wonder if his King Hale thinks he is truly doing evil.
Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson (Americana musicians of note) both have significant supporting roles; Isbell plays DiCaprio’s brother in law his southern drawl exaggerated to make him appear slow witted and dangerous where Sturgill Simpson is plays a sharp outlaw specialization is referring the right bad guys for the wrong job. Simpson in particular is showing a strong appetite for the acting profession.
Jesse Plemmons turns in a nuanced portrayal as a lawman. John Lithgow and Brendan Fraser are prosecutor and defense attorney. They are proof that when scorsese calls…. You say yes.
DiCaprio’s portrayal as Ernest Burkhart is my favorite performance since What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. DiCaprio character was motivated by greed and avarice was equally tempered by fear and respect for his uncle and a geuine love for his Indian Bride. He should get a nod for best supporting actor pr best actor — It was both a simple and complex character. I’m not his biggest fan — but he’s very very good in this.
Lilly Gladstone is pitch perfection and holds this sprawling film together. She is a frontrunner for best actress.
I loved this movie and will watch it again as soon as it hits Apple TV.
—-
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5537002/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
—-
Between 1983 and 1997, Jim Varney gave us the Ernest anthology of films. This series was seemingly resurrected by Martin Scorcese, in this unofficially subtitled addition "Ernest Tap Dances On My Last Nerve For 3 Hours".
Come on folks, this is a Scorcese film. The man who gives us endlessly rewatchable films like Goodfellas, Casino, Wolf of Wall Street. Fantastic pieces of work that will last forever.
This is not such a film.
It is bloated. Poorly paced. Starved of any real emotions for much of its duration. And when the end comes to finally put it out of its misery, it lacks any punch. Much to the chagrin of the director who casts himself in an overly-wrought cameo.
It isn't a catastrophe. De Niro puts in a great day's work, Di Caprio is consumed by the role. There are plenty of fine actors around them doing fine work. It's just a mess of edits and lacking focus.
I struggle to see a great film in this even if the fat was taken off it. It just isn't a masterpiece in hiding. And that's sad because the bones of the story itself is well worth telling.
They say every great fighter has one great fight left in him. I wonder if we have seen that already from Scorcese and this is one fight too many...
So to start, I do need to highlight that the movie, which clocks in at 3.5 hours, is definitely something that needed some stronger editing. Certain sections manage to feel rushed (!!!!!) despite the runtime, while others drag. The pacing is not nearly as tight as it should be, and the length itself is not the issue. I did not have this engagement issue with Oppenheimer which clocked in at 3 hours, so definitely something that knocked KotFM down a few pegs in my rankings. I'm fascinated by Scorsese's career trajectory, which has now arrived at this exploration of the American story as a story of sin, as a story of unspeakable horrors slowly unwinding in the guise of the moral high ground. It's a powerful thematic core that is explored to great effect here, though I do wish we got more from the perspective of Molly since she's the beating heart of this movie (and absolutely fantastic). In general, the performances all around are exceptional, with small side characters becoming fully inhabited and feeling like they live rich interior lives. The cinematography, soundtrack, score, technicals are all well executed as can be expected from one of the greats, but I don't know if there is any scene truly exceptional from a technical level that will stick with me like from some of his other movies. Though the penultimate scene is acted so phenomenally, so hauntingly, that I am sure that will. Finally, while something should be said about Scorsese turning a story centered around the birth of the FBI to a story grounded in the horrors the Osage experienced, it does still feel like an outsider's perspective. A story where the Osage are often passive, reactionary. I feel like this could have been executed better to make the actual characters more central to the story because the movie is at its best when that happens. Some really strong aspects, but noticeable weaknesses as well.
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.
Leonardo DiCaprio's performance is expectedly excellent. The heartbreaking true crime story is devastatingly compelling. Those two elements alone are enough for me to recommend the film. That said, the glacial pacing was excessive in my opinion. I read somewhere that Martin Scorsese referenced the pacing of Ari Aster films as an inspiration (e.g., Hereditary, Midsommar), and as someone who isn't the biggest fan of "elevated" horror, that inspiration isn't a plus in my book. It often results in unnaturally slow/stilted dialogue or sometimes no dialogue at all. I recognize that these performers are capable of delivering a lot of emotion with facial expressions alone, but I could have done with a bit more dialogue and a bit fewer extended/silent close ups. My brother came out of the film claiming that it could have been an hour shorter without losing anything critical. While I think that might be an exaggeration, I definitely noticed the length. To be clear, even if arguably unnecessary, everything in the film is incredibly well executed. It is Scorsese after all.
A couple of other minor thoughts: (1) John Lithgow and Brendan Fraser felt a bit superfluous/wasted as practically cameos in the final act; (2) I quite enjoyed the live radio broadcast, both for being an effective epilogue as well as being an interesting window into a historical entertainment medium.
Review by ToralfVIP 3BlockedParent2023-10-19T22:23:07Z
I remain unconvinced that a film needs to last more than two, let alone three hours. "Killers of the Flower Moon" also was far too long for my personal liking. To be fair, though, I have to admit that I was already pretty tired when the movie started. The extremely slow pacing definitely didn't help, though. Still, there's a lot I really like about this movie. For example, it looks fantastic, has an intriguing and previously unexplored setting, and impresses with strong performances by the actors. Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, and especially Lily Gladstone are all more than convincing, although the latter unfortunately disappears from the film for long stretches. De Niro's character was also a bit too one-dimensional in my opinion.
Looking at the story, I hoped for a long time that it would pick up speed, at least in the last third, when the "investigation" of all the murders starts. Unfortunately, that didn't really come true, although the pacing was at least a bit brisker at the end. Overall, it's hard for me to give a final rating, but I'm relatively certain that even in a less tired state, I wouldn't see "Killers of the Flower Moon" as Martin Scorsese's next masterpiece. However, the film is good all the same.