Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,309 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Somewhere in the middle for me
petervd29 October 2023
I'm not a die-hard Martin Scorsese fan. I have a deep appreciation for some of his movies, while others don't quite resonate with me. This particular film fell somewhere in the middle for me.

Considering its extensive three-hour runtime, the pacing held up well. I never found myself bored, though I can't say I was thoroughly thrilled either. There were moments when it seemed like some of the conversations lacked significant impact on the narrative. The movie truly hits its stride in the final third, where the tension escalates significantly.

The acting across the board was outstanding, especially from the lead cast. DiCaprio and De Niro, as always, delivered great performances, and I've become a fan of Lily Gladstone. The visual and set design were also top-notch.

I believe it's an important story, and it's skillfully told. While I don't have a strong urge to watch it again, I'm glad I had the chance to see it.

07/10.
195 out of 253 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Touches upon an often overlooked piece of American history in the best way possible thanks to the talents of its director and cast
MrDHWong19 October 2023
"Killers of the Flower Moon" is a Western crime drama film co-written and directed by Martin Scorsese, based on the non-fiction book of the same name by David Grann. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, and Lily Gladstone, it touches upon an often overlooked piece of American history in the best way possible thanks to the talents of its director and cast.

In the early 1920s, the discovery of oil on land belonging to the Native American Osage Nation turns the tribe into some of the richest people in the world. This sudden acquisition of wealth attracts the attention of white businessmen looking to seize the opportunity at stealing as much from the Osage tribe as possible. Among this group of interlopers is Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio), whom upon arriving in Oklahoma is encouraged by his uncle William King Hale (Robert De Niro) to marry a member of the Osage as a way of inheriting their fortune. Ernest soon falls in love with and later marries Mollie (Lily Gladstone), a young Osage woman who has strong ties to her family's riches. As the white occupation of native land continues, members of the Osage tribe are repeatedly found murdered under mysterious circumstances, with some of Mollie's close family being among the most prominent victims.

One of my favourite things about movies is that in addition to being an enjoyable means of entertainment, they also function as a great method of preservation. No matter obscure the topic may be, if a film is made about it and released into the mainstream, then it has already been permanently preserved in some way. This is especially effective if the filmmaker believes that people should be made aware of something that may otherwise have been forgotten with time, and in doing so, has helped maintain its relevance with the general public. One event that is often glanced over is the Osage Indian murders, a series of slayings of wealthy members of the Native American Osage tribe during the early 20th century. However, thanks to Martin Scorsese's film "Killers of the Flower Moon", audiences now have the chance to be both educated and entertained about this overlooked historical occurrence in a movie that provides a sophisticated, eye-opening look at America's treatment of one particular group of their indigenous population.

Much like most of Scorsese's best known work, the film is framed as an epic, in-depth study of the dark side of human nature. We watch how the Osage tribe, who live in harmony among themselves, are forcibly thrust into the sights of the outside world after oil is found on their land. In spite of the vast wealth they have all accumulated, the Osage are unable to hold back against the large tide of white people showing up and attempting to steal away everything that is rightly theirs. Because of this, the tribe's happy existence has been compromised as they are subjected to frequent discrimination, first verbal and then physical. It is here we see the sinister plan of William King Hale come into play, where he marries off his nephew Ernest into the Osage as a way of pilfering their riches when the time is right. What makes this scheme so intriguing to watch is not only the patience required to pull it off but the ethical ramifications that result from it. Only a filmmaker like Scorsese could explore a topic like this with such complexity, and in a style that remains as timeless as ever.

Additionally, almost all of Scorsese's visual trademarks as a director are on full display here, from his wide-open cinematography designed to immerse the audience in the world of 1920s America to his creative framing of characters in shot to give a certain perspective on a scene. One in particular that stood out to me was during a conversation between Ernest and William as they discuss business regarding the Osage. We see the two seated inside a darkly lit room discussing what type of future lies ahead for the entire tribe, with Ernest choosing to remain loyal to his Osage wife Mollie, while his uncle William reminds his nephew of the important reason why he married her in the first place. Here, Scorsese places the characters in a way that makes them look out of place inside a single bright spot in the dark room. The darkness surrounding these two can be likened to a perfect visual representation of their true intentions and the supposed brightness focused on them is in actuality a metaphor for their tainted presence on everything the Osage have created up until this point.

Due to the scale of its theme and plotting, the film rightfully earns its long runtime of almost three and a half hours (206 minutes in total). This is because there are so many different facets to explore with each of the characters, as their actions and the resulting consequences make for a compelling viewing experience. While I personally think this made the film more interesting to watch, I'm not entirely sure the same can be said for casual viewers. The film's pacing is intentionally slow as a means to build tension in the air, which I believe works rather effectively, and the minimal musical score is used as a method to showcase a more realistic point of view during scenes of raw emotion. In other words, this is a film that requires patience and an attentive mind, something of which is greatly rewarded to anybody who manages to display both of these virtues. To that effect, Scorsese has made a film that is heavily reliant on atmosphere rather than the frequent action of most other Hollywood blockbusters.

In his sixth collaboration with the legendary director, Leonardo DiCaprio delivers yet another memorable performance in the role of Ernest Burkhart. What makes DiCaprio's character so intriguing is his indecisive nature, in that he is torn between supporting his own white family or his Osage wife Mollie. On one hand, Ernest's loyalty towards his birth family is what made him go ahead with his uncle's idea in the first place, while on the other hand when he truly falls for Mollie he cannot bring himself to end her along with her entire tribe. DiCaprio displays his signature range of emotion here, alternating between a strong family man and a submissive weakling doing his uncle's bidding, both of which he pulls off quite effectively.

After working on ten films together, Robert De Niro steps back from his usual spot as the Scorsese lead and into the supporting role as William King Hale, where he is essentially the main antagonist of this story. Hale is a man who is determined to weasel his way into wealth, regardless of whether or not he has truly earned it. His intentions are malicious and are only meant to serve his own personal gain, with little regard for the wellbeing of others, even his nephew. What I consider to be his worst character trait is that he believes all of his actions are justified by what the Bible says about spreading the Word of God. His claim that God wants him to participate in the genocide of an entire race of people is nothing short of evil, and he demonstrates this at numerous points throughout the film. A role like this is perfect for an actor like Robert De Niro, and what better director to show this to the world than Martin Scorsese?

However, the film's true standout would have to be Lily Gladstone as Mollie, who is truly the heart and soul of this story. Here is a woman who has experienced so much pain and heartbreak in her life, whether it's her own physical ailments or the sudden death of her relatives. Yet, despite all these hardships, Mollie remains as steadfast as ever, choosing to be a loving wife to her husband and caring mother to her young children. Mollie essentially represents all of the positive values that her tribe upholds, and she is among the last of her family who hasn't completely sold herself out to the ideals of a rich lifestyle. This is easily a career defining role for Gladstone, and she certainly has potential to be noteworthy star one day.

For the American history buff and the Martin Scorsese fan, "Killers of the Flower Moon" represents a fascinating look into the best of both worlds. It brings attention to an often neglected historical issue through use of another well-crafted cinematic addition to a beloved filmmaking veteran's library. As mentioned previously, it is nice to know that this story has now been effectively preserved through the medium of film, which means that future generations will be able to watch it back and learn about the horrific events that took place during this time period. After all, as the classic saying goes - those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I rate it a solid 9/10.
694 out of 976 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not the masterpiece that was hyped
Truedutch19 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Straight up it is a good movie but somehow just feels lacking it multiple places which drags it down. First, the acting by DiCaprio was great and I'm not his biggest fan but after 'Don't Look Up' he once again just pours this emotional effort into scenes he doesn't need to and makes them all elevated which I think helps this movie a lot. Gladstone, De Niro were decent and Plemons wasn't asked to do a whole lot but was fine.

Secondly, after seeing Oppenheimer which was a dialogue heavy movie and being gripped from start to finish with the tension building being 10/10 to seeing this and not for one second feeling any tension. As the FBI came knocking I felt I should've been getting itchy for DiCaprio and De Niro but for some reason it just wasn't landing with me. The script was nothing special and I haven't said this for awhile about a movie but it was truly boring. Scenes I could feel like 000o this feels like it's going to escalate here but it doesn't, just keeps this one pace tone the whole way through. The murders just felt so... bleh like it wasn't a big deal and provoked zero emotion from me each time.

Lastly, I don't need non-stop action, in fact I don't need any action in a movie to be gripped from go to whoa but the acting and script need to be top tier to do that and this just missed with that. The story would be more interesting if it really did show the bigger picture more and made it feel more impactful, where this just felt like kinda one family with people dying that barely had screen time, that you didn't get to know and therefore care about.

Killers Of The Flower Moon is the not masterpiece you expect it to be and is a bit of a slog at times to keep your interest peaked. I'd wait for it to come to Apple TV.
436 out of 628 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A bit disappointing actually...
itsahoverboard21 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I am really bummed about how this one turned out. I love the very politically, morally, and racially charged story. I love Eric Roth, I think he's a living legend screenwriter. I loved DiCaprio and Gladstone, they were both brilliant and had beautiful chemistry together. DiCaprio's character is really interesting, he kind of reminds me of the murderer from Act of Killing. Just so dumb he doesn't realize what a monster he is.

But this freaking movie is too long and a big mess. The first two hours are very repetitive, and I had a hard time keeping track of all the characters, and who was who, and who was supposed to be murdering who, and for what reason exactly. When Jesse Plemons shows up it does pick up finally, but by then I was so overwhelmed and fatigued that I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd have liked.

Also, oddly enough I noticed the sound was TERRIBLE in some scenes. Really crappy dialogue recording. Very surprising.

Anyway, I might read the book now, cause the story seems really compelling but I don't think they really did it enough justice here.
220 out of 333 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Killers Of The Audience's Bladders
boblipton22 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Leonardo Di Caprio returns from World War One to Oklahoma, where oil has made the Osage Indians rich. After long, meandering talks with his uncle, Robert De Niro, Di Caprio runs a taxi, and picks up Lily Gladstone, a pure-blood Osage, and begins to drive her regularly. They fall in love, and eventually have three children, while someone is busy killing off Osage Indians.

This being a Scorsese movie with a stellar cast, it is impeccably written, directed, and shot. I don't know what Thelma Schoonmaker, Scorsese's long-time editor, was doing. At more than three hours before he wraps it up with a ten-minute epilogue, presented as an episode of Gangbusters talking about where everyone wound up spending the rest of their lives. It goes on too long for a movie, at least for a movie without a break. This is the upside and downside of companies like Amazon and Netflix having the wherewithal to tempt great film makers with large gobs of money. Because the viewer at home will watch a movie like this at his leisure, taking time to go to the bath room, having a meal, and so forth, it's made for him. There is no need to edit this down. What could have been cut to a reasonable length without DiCaprio's army career and finding out that he lived in a trailer in his final years is left in, with only the audience's bladders telling them it's time to leave this story. What would have made a fine mini-series on television must be watched in one go in the movie theater, trapped between the gorgeous images, and the fact that every minute of screen time cuts two points off the IQ of DiCaprio's character.

It's a movie that really should be seen in the theater for the size and audience, and yet makes it impossible.
359 out of 517 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A true story every American should know brought to the screen beautifully by its actors and director
jessica-nussbaumer9 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, I would like to address the reviews that state this film is about pushing "liberal white guilt". It is not, it is a true story with villains who were tried and convicted in the American court system after an investigation led by the conservative head of the FBI, J Edgar Hoover. I highly recommend that everyone reads the nonfiction book of the same title by David Grann prior to watching this film.

I was fortunate to see an advanced screening of this film yesterday at the Zurich Film Festival. Martin Scorsese certainly satisfied the monumental challenge of bringing this story to the cinema. The actors fully possess their tragic and complicated characters, especially Leonardo DiCaprio and Lily Gladstone (who I hope to see more of). The score, cinematography and featured songs only contributed further.

Despite its length, the rather abrupt but appropriate conclusion left me feeling melancholic to depart this cinematic masterpiece and it has remained in my thoughts for hours since. Please go and watch this film and recommend it to others once you do.
263 out of 402 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Will someone tell Marty he needs to edit his movies down.
Features_Creatures20 October 2023
I really loved this movie but it simply was way too long. I like long movies, I like slow cinema but there is still the concept of economy or story telling. I wish he would allow himself to "kill his darlings" and cut like almost an hour out of this. One of his justifications is that people "sit and binge tv shows for 4-5 hours" but it's not at all the same. The form and structure of television and film are completely different, he knows that. It really just feels like self indulgence because he's at the end of his career and nobody is going to tell him no. Self indulgence is the death of a lot of great artist once they find success. Particularly Scorsese, all of his most respected films (maybe with the exception of casino) even if they had a slightly longer run-time were completely trimmed of fat. Every shot, every line has a point in advancing the plot and was very economical. This adaptation felt like it made all the mistakes of adapting from a novel to film. I would absolutely love an edit of this film that is maybe 2 hours long and could easily been done. It would have been more emotionally impactful, interesting and still honored the story and the people it was about. The Osage, which was definitely the most interesting part of the film. But gets swept up in a stale courtroom drama that we've seen a million times and could have been a couple of short scenes.
374 out of 553 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Mr Scorsese, I wish you a very long life
deospam-049621 November 2023
I never heard of Osage Nation before this. It was a 3 hour 26 minute education not just of the oil wealth and of American Indian culture but of sensitive filmmaking crafted so beautifully Michelangelo would have cried. Lily Gladstone has a classic, timeless, renaissance Madonna face and Robbie Robertson's tender score embellished her sensitive performance perfectly. True to Mr Scorsese's form, it ran so long and needed a deus ex machine ending that while innovative, brought (for me) the film to a premature end. Dessert was served too soon. Otherwise, I could not say a bad thing about this show. Mr Scorsese, I wish you a very long life so you can continue your master craft for mere mortals like me for a long time to come.
130 out of 195 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Grim & an hour too long
ScottoMac31 October 2023
This is a very good movie, but it could have been told in an hour less. The material is grim, but I guess that's part of the story telling.

I can't understand why this couldn't have been done in 2 hours. The plot didn't warrant it, and the acting almost held it up. But we could all see where this was going.

The court sequence was way too long and muddled the nature of the story. Is it an historical account of what happened to these poor people? Is it a story about duplicity in a relationship? Is it about greed and human nature? Is it about psychopaths? Or a court room drama?

For me, it would have been an 8/10 if it didn't drag on unnecessarily. Great acting. Great story. Just drawn out.
174 out of 252 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not the magnificent masterpiece I was hoping for. Not by far...
imseeg21 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The good: 2 brilliant actors, Leonardo Di Caprio and Robert DeNiro acting quite well. Not extraordinary well, but they really deliver solid performances. It's always a joy to watch them perform.

The bad: this movie LASTS WAY TOO LONG. Come on, 3 hours and 20 minutes! BEWARE: this aint no gripping masterpiece, this aint no fastpaced spectacle, this aint no visceral drama. It's merely a SLOWburning portrait, which was already wearing my patience thin after half an hour...

The first 90 minutes into the story we get to see nothing else but money hungry men, marying Indian women for their land (rich on oil) and then (once married) slowly poison those Indian wives with an altered "medicine" which makes them terminally ill. And when they die, they own their oil rich land. Copy repeat. On and on the same plot. May sound vicious and intrigueing, but it was the opposite.

How did director Martin Scorsese manage to ruin such a devestating story? By simply NOT restraining himself in time. And by not injecting any TRUE drama or thrill. It just toddles along. Only after 2 hours, the pace takes up and there is some spark and punch to be experienced.

There are more faults with Martin Scorsese's direction. His choice of editing, photography, soundscore, are all below his usual level of quality of directing. Not terrible, but quite average. Martin Scorsese's movies used to be wild and dangerous and fast. None of that is to be seen in Killers of the Flower Moon.

Disappointed. Not a terrible flick, merely a tedious one and that's a huge pity when you have such talent and money available with the potential to make something truly great...

Thank you for reading my 2100 th review on Imdb !
1,360 out of 1,890 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Coyote want money
ferguson-618 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Greetings again from the darkness. Read the book and see the movie. The order doesn't much matter, as David Grann's best-selling non-fiction novel is an incredibly emotional read, while Martin Scorsese's film is an example of elevated filmmaking. Of course, it's understandable if a book detailing a repulsive historic travesty is not your cup of tea, or if a three-and-a-half-hour movie on the same subject holds no appeal for you. However, if you are up for the challenge, both are extraordinary works of art, though surprisingly, quite different experiences.

Oscar winner Scorsese worked on the script adapting Grann's novel with Oscar winning screenwriter Eric Roth (FORREST GUMP, 1994), and Scorsese has stated Leonardo DiCaprio encouraged some changes in perspective. Scorsese also spent a great deal of time with Osage folks making sure to gain insight on how to properly tell their story with all due sensitivity and respect. And what a story it is. While reading Grann's book, I remained in a state of disbelief that this tragic story from the 1920's was not common knowledge. In contrast, I felt the telling of this story in the movie, softened the edges just a bit.

Oscar winner DiCaprio stars as Ernest Burkhart, a man returning to town after serving in WWI. Ernest is a simple man, and DiCaprio plays him with a SLING BLADE jaw line and a constant state of being a half-step behind goings on. He's not a total sap, but close enough that he can be manipulated. This is especially true when it comes to his rancher Uncle William King Hale played by two-time Oscar winner Robert DeNiro. The two men are related but seemingly share no other characteristics. "King" is a master schemer who has spent decades cultivating a relationship and image with the Osage, only to secretly take advantage of their trust at every opportunity. Ernest is a self-described lazy man who 'loves money', though he has little interest in earning it the hard way.

There are multiple relationships that are crucial to follow closely. Ernest and his Uncle, Ernest and his Osage wife Mollie (a brilliant Lily Gladstone), Hale and the Osage, Federal investigator Tom White (Jesse Plemons) and everyone to whom he speaks, and then the network of interactions between Ernest and the locals. The long roster of characters jumps in numbers again during the final act, which offers a courtroom drama and interrogations that deliver the conclusion. It's the first act where Scorsese portrays the dramatic shift from the "old" Osage culture to their staggering newfound wealth. Of course, at the core of all of this is the despicable scheme used by Hale in a heartless strategy to steal the wealth. For those who haven't yet read the book, it's best if no more of the story is known prior to seeing the movie. One thing that can be disclosed is that this true story proves the exception to "them with the gold make the rules." This was also the first case of the newly formed FBI under J Edgar Hoover.

As always, Scorsese has assembled a deep supporting cast to complement the stellar leads. A few of those playing key roles include Tantoo Cardinal, Gene Jones (the coin flip clerk in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN), John Lithgow, Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, Cara Jade Myers, Jason Isbell, Jillian Dion, Scott Shepherd, William Belleau, Sturgill Simpson, Ty Mitchell, Tommy Schultz, (personal favorite) Barry Corbin, Pete Yorn, and Jack White. With apologies to Jesse Plemons who is solid as Tom White, it's the three leads who captivate us. DiCaprio turns in what is likely his best ever performance, while DeNiro eerily captures the sneaky and devastating evil of Hale (and we get a nod to his Al Capone role from 36 years ago). What can we say about Lily Gladstone? She was a standout in CERTAIN WOMEN (2016), and here she is the heart and soul of the story (though DiCaprio's Ernest gets much more screen time). Her expressive eyes convey so much, even when she speaks no words.

In addition to the talented cast, Scorsese's technical group is just as outstanding. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, 2005) perfectly balances the vastness of the setting with the intimate moments. Production Designer Jack Fisk (THERE WILL BE BLOOD, 2007) delivers the look and feel of the times, while three-time Oscar winner Thelma Schoonmaker works her magic as an Editor to create a manageable flow of this epic. The film's score, expertly tied to the story's measured pacing, comes from Robbie Robertson (longtime leader of The Band), who passed away soon after. There is a Scorsese cameo, and I left the theater thinking how usual it is to find a movie so ambitious in scale, yet so intimate and searing in its personal moments. Some may find the larger story a bit difficult to grasp, and that's likely due to our humanity and desire to believe in the non-existence of this level of evil.

Opens in theaters nationally on October 20, 2023.
309 out of 488 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
tough watch
SnoopyStyle2 January 2024
Warning: Spoilers
Oil is discovered under Osage Nation land in late 19th century Oklahoma. It's 1919. The oil companies have moved in and Osage people are some of the richest folks in the world. All that wealth attracts a lot of workers, capitalists, criminals, and general scammers. Everybody is looking to get a piece of the Indian oil pie. War veteran Ernest Burkhart (Leo DiCaprio) returns to join his brother Byron and his uncle William Hale (Robert De Niro). William has become a wealthy leader of the town by having his family and friends worm their way into the native community. He is known as King Hale and has ingratiated himself into the tribe. He directs Ernest to woo and marry Mollie (Lily Gladstone), a shy and sickly native woman.

I put off watching this for as long as possible. I don't want to spend three hours watching evil people stealing from helpless Indian folks. As I started watching this, a phrase pops into my mind. This is "stealing candy from a baby" and it's not a fun time to watch it over and over again. It's a tough watch for two hours. I find myself stopping or just multi-tasking with my iPad. When the FBI shows up, this becomes a tradition howcatchem and that's a little bit more watchable. I don't have to stop anymore. This would be a great two hour mystery movie with the FBI. Martin Scorsese probably wants the native characters to have more time. He is not shy about making these characters evil. Leo is doing something like Brando and I don't like it. It seems much more fitting that he be handsome Leo so that Mollie would be powerless to his charms. As for Mollie, her cluelessness is rather frustrating. There is no denying Scorsese's filmmaking mastery or his sincere intentions. The first two hours are a grind, but it is still a rewarding watch.
63 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Emotional, brutal
jpismyname19 October 2023
This is my fifth??? Martin Scorsese movie, so I was expecting to like it since I liked/loved most of his other works. My verdict: yes, I really like this one too. I have to note that the cinema I watched it in had a pretty bad sound system and a few times I couldn't hear characters whispering. So I might rate this even higher on a future rewatch, hopefully on Apple TV soon.

Killers of the Flower Moon is based on a book, which is based on a true and forgotten story of the Osage Nation in the 1920s.

All the cast members really did great, which is an understatement. This is the first I see of Lily Gladstone, and she's just superb. Leonardo di Caprio, my favorite in this movie, is at the top of his game as well, and Robert de Niro is unsurprisingly amazing too. Despite a three-hour run, the story feels well-paced and doesn't really drag much. The story is also really distressing in some parts as well and this might be his most brutal film yet. I really cannot forget it, some of those scenes are still stuck in my mind and still makes me feel a bit emotional. I also love the minimal use of score, makes things feel more...I dunno...raw?

I also love the ending, very creative. I highly recommend for you to watch this.
143 out of 234 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Read the book
K_9223 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Positives: I loved the casting. Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert DeNiro, and Lily Gladstone did a fantastic job in this film.

Covers the book well, touching on most of the major highlights of it.

Negatives: I read the book and that was 1000% more intense, paced well, and left you hanging on every word. The movie revealed everything to us in chronological order in a very slow fashion, thereby eliminating all suspense and mystery.

The movie was 1.5 hours too long. Martin could have cut down the movie and made it more concise by highlighting the greed of white man when they struck oil, how many of those men swindled Osage out of their fortunes, covered more of the introduction of J. Edgar Hoover and the birth of the FBI (all of his trials and tribulations, including mistakes made during this investigation), included some small but crucial moments like mentioning that Ernest was Mollie's guardian, bring up that Lizzie's death was suspected posioning, reduced some of the cinematic shots that Martin seems fixated on (you'll know when you see them), and I wish he introduced this movie from the perspective of the FBI.
29 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the greatest movies in years.
tfpdbbxck13 October 2023
As the title says, I believe this is one of the best movies we have seen in many years. To start out, the acting is just incredible with DiCaprio, Gladstone and De Niro all at the top of their game. I was very hyped for this movie and I wasn't not disappointed. Despite the 3hr 20m runtime, this movie goes by in an instant. You could watch it 3 times and it would only feel like you'd watched the original runtime. The score, the acting, the story, the cinematography, the writing, the directing, it's all absolutely masterful and incredible. I would one hundred percent recommend this movie to anyone.
224 out of 385 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Disappointing Failure in Editing
chmstewart28 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Martin Scorsese has produced a lot of all-time great films. Lately he's made overhyped and under-edited time wasters.

The history of the willful execution of the Osage people to swindle their oil wealth is an important tale to tell. With incredible actors to tell the tale this should have been a masterpiece. It was with this in mind that I was extremely excited to watch this film.

Instead Scorsese's inability to make proper cuts to his films (see The Irishman) makes an otherwise well told story a drag. Good moviemakers know how to compress good books to fit a two to two and a half hour window. He seems to have lost this ability and the result is too many redundant scenes that are repeating the same dialogue.

This is especially the case with the constant manipulation between De Niro and DiCaprio, both of whom put in captivating performances even if they are inappropriately cast as characters that are supposed to be decades younger. Multiple scenes between the two could have been removed with only positive results.

The ultimate conclusion to this film is predictably clear after about an hour, yet it takes well over two more hours to get there leaving much of the audience exhausted and disinterested by the end. This is such a disappointment and a disservice to this subject that I actually felt anger towards the director instead of the people who perpetrated such atrocities against the Osage people.
148 out of 224 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
People eating this up
AfricanBro20 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Not the masterpiece I was expecting mainly because the leisurely pace overshadows all the good qualities. "Killers of the Flower Moon" is a tragic nonfiction murder tale that I was really looking forward to. My expectations were high, especially after Martin Scorsese's passionate rants about what qualifies as cinema. From a technical standpoint, almost every aspect of the movie was excellent. The visuals were stunning, the story had good intentions and emotional depth, the dialogue was well-crafted, and the acting was top-notch. Lily Gladstone truly shone in a cast that included Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, so it should have been a great film, right? However, there was absolutely no reason for it to be 3 hours and 30 minutes long. It felt like a real chore to sit through.

The movie had a slow pace, which would have been fine if it were around 2 hours long, but for a nearly 4-hour runtime, it simply wasn't engaging enough. I know that film enthusiasts and Scorsese fans who believe superheroes ruined cinema will likely praise this film, but as a regular moviegoer, it didn't resonate with me as much. Some people even walked out during the screening, but I stayed, hoping the movie would pick up later on. It got to the point where cinema staff had to wake up some people after it ended. The movie could have easily conveyed the same emotional depth and told the entire story in just 2 hours.

DiCaprio plays a villain, and although the extent of his villainy is slowly revealed in parts, De Niro is the mastermind behind the plot. There is some humor, the kind that might be frowned upon today but was likely just everyday conversation in the 1920s. The film had selective subtitles, and while more subtitles would have been helpful, maybe they didn't add much context to those scenes.

The movie lacked liveliness, high points, and because of that, it failed to engage the audience. While Leonardo DiCaprio and Lily Gladstone were standout performers, I mostly remember DiCaprio for how much he frowned, second only to Karl Urban in "Dredd." I wasn't expecting to see a spanking scene either. The rest of the cast's performances were decent but not particularly memorable.

The film felt flat, with no real climaxes or peaks. It likely rides on the reputation of the big names associated with it. It's a profoundly emotional and tragic story, but the movie's extended runtime and lack of engagement overshadow the sadness and brutality of the narrative.
161 out of 279 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A story that needed to be told
JR_1_31 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I think this story is so important, and I wish the film had been made long before 2023. I admittedly knew nothing about the Osage Nation prior to watching the film, or most of the events, yet I was crying in anger and disbelief throughout it. So if I feel that way, I cannot imagine how the people directly impacted, and current members of the tribe must feel. Shocking to think that something so unfair and devastating actually happened! The real Molly Kyle was a woman ahead of her times, and Lily Gladstone portrayed her so perfectly. Robert De Niro is also brilliant in his depiction of William King Hale. It made me unexpectedly emotional to see Martin Scorcese in the film at the end. I thought that this was very moving, and demonstrated how important the telling of the story was to him.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Killers of the Flower Moon
CinemaSerf19 October 2023
First things first. There is absolutely no need for this to be 3½ hours long. It follows the story of the ambitious "Ernest" (Leonardo DiCaprio) who arrives at the Osage home of his venal uncle "King" (Robert De Niro) who encourages him to ingratiate himself with the wealthy, indigenous, population. He ends up meeting and driving the independent, no-nonsense, "Mollie" (Lily Gladstone) and after a while she starts to fall for his charismatic charms, they fall in love and marry. Though he does love his wife, "Ernest" proves to be a rather fickle and violent man who loves money more - and at the behest of his outwardly benign relative starts to implement schemes that will ensure the rights to the oil well heads move swiftly - and frequently brutally - to more "suitable" owners. This sudden spate of "accidents" and killings and the prudent action of the fearful local council alert the authorities in Washington who despatch a team of FBI agents led by the tenacious "White" (Jesse Plemons) to get to the bottom of things. Perhaps the "King" house of cards might now be becoming just a but precarious? DiCaprio is very effective here. He plays well a man who juggles internal demons and conflicts as he is cleverly manipulated by an on-form, slightly menacing, De Niro. It's Gladstone who steals the show for me, though. She plays the role of the decent and loving - but shrewd and savvy - "Mollie" strongly. As she starts to become a victim of her husband's avarice she exudes a sense of desperation that is both pleading and dignified and her struggle is potently illustrative of just how far the "white" man was prepared to go to get to - and keep - the money. The film is beautifully shot with a plausible look that helps generate for the audience a true sense of just how this outwardly genteel and civilised society was really anything but and the writing clearly interweaves the clandestine aspects of the the plot with the more noble ones. Perhaps sacrilegious to say, though, but at times it does really drag. I felt it could easily have lost an hour, condensed the story and immersed us more quickly in the characterisations and not really suffered. It's a good film, but it's not a great film and unlike Scorsese's far better "Irishman" (2019), I'm not at all sure I will rush to watch it again.
235 out of 368 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Extremely Long & Incredibly Morose
Some films warrant long runtimes. Epics like 'Lawrence of Arabia' or 'Das Boot' are both over three hours in length, and rocket along at a brisk pace, largely because of fastidious editing. The duration of both those pictures is necessary, one could argue, to tell their stories without sacrificing details, coherence or excitement. Then, there are films like 'Heaven's Gate,' which also has a runtime of over three hours, and is a bloated, self-indulgent and unaffecting watch thanks to director Michael Cimino's arrogant refusal to cut anything.

Martin Scorsese's 'Killers of the Flower Moon' teeters somewhere between both camps. It has elements deserving of high praise, but is inarguably too long, with pacing, structural and narrative issues galore. Based on the non-fiction novel of the same name by David Grann, the film centers on Emmet Burkhart, a simple-minded World War I Veteran who returns to The Osage Nation, to the home of his uncle William King Hale. There, Emmet falls for an Osage named Mollie, who- his uncle tells him- is set to inherit much of her people's oil headrights. Meanwhile, someone is killing off the wealthy Osage in the area; and it looks like Mollie's family might be next.

On paper, it sounds like a fascinating, exciting picture, with dashes of psychological intrigue. However, Scorsese's version of the tale is dour, swollen and predictable. Grann's riveting story is transformed into a formulaic meditation on moral corruption and greed, lacking any kind of suspense or momentum. Screenwriters Scorsese and Eric Roth cram too much into the narrative- namely too many characters and unnecessary scenes leading to redundant dialogue and vice versa. They have to scrabble to end proceedings neatly; which they don't do, preferring to hastily sum up events rather than let them play out.

Had Scorsese and longtime collaborator Thelma Schoonmaker been more active in the editing booth, things could have been different. There are some brilliant sequences in the movie, in fact, the first third is engaging and intriguing. The mystery is successfully set up, the location established and the characters introduced, then things start going downhill. The pacing slows to a crawl for the remainder of the runtime; until the end, of course, when it rushes to its sloppy conclusion. Beyond pacing, there are some fundamental flaws editing-wise that are inexplicable, considering Scorsese and Schoonmaker's prestige.

For example, seemingly important characters are introduced, then disappear for long stretches of time. Similarly, the fate of some characters is either driven home multiple times, or overlooked; leaving us in the dark. Furthermore, at times, cuts occur just as someone is opening their mouth to speak. All this- including the fact that the runtime could have easily been trimmed by forty minutes without negatively affecting the narrative- is amateur work; far below Scorsese and Schoonmaker's level.

This is not to say, however, that 'Killers of the Flower Moon' is without redeeming elements. To make a film about cultural appropriation is always a just cause worthy of commendation, no matter its effectiveness. Scorsese should also be applauded for trying something new- although he fails to deliver a compelling or insightful story about the exploitation of the Osage people. The film doesn't explore the historical or cultural context of the Osage Nation, nor the psychological and emotional impact of the murders on the survivors.

Scorsese and Roth's narrative also fails to challenge the stereotypes and prejudices that the white characters have towards the Osage, or the systemic injustice that they face. Their characterisation lacks depth or nuance, relying on familiar tropes and cliched attitudes. Had he focused on the perspective and agency of the Osage, rather than the corrupt, inept white characters; Scorsese could have had a masterpiece on his hands.

Conversely, Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography is evocative and enchanting. It makes for a stunning watch, proving Scorsese's eye for visuals has not been blinded. Under Scorsese's direction, Prieto captures the beauty and brutality of the Oklahoma landscape astutely, while Jack Fisk's detailed production design lends proceedings authenticity and textural richness; which Adam Willis's set decoration and Jacqueline West's costume design only compounds.

Moreover, the late, great Robbie Robertson's score is striking, bearing a resemblance to the work of Ry Cooder. Full of sleazy slide guitars and Indian chants, it complements the narrative perfectly. The inclusion of period-accurate songs also lends the movie a dose of realism, which- in the times of Baz Luhrmann, who insists on bizarrely using modern music in period pieces- is most welcome. The last project Robertson worked on before his death; his contribution to the picture acts as a powerful swansong.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Emmet, alongside Lily Gladstone as Mollie and Robert DeNiro as King Hale. DiCaprio has the ability to turn in brilliant performances, but here takes a page out of the Daniel Day Lewis playbook: the most intense acting must surely be the best. DiCaprio spends the whole film frowning, scrunching his mouth up and completely overdoing his character's expressions and eccentricities. In the first third, he has a bit of range; though for the latter two thirds gives a tonally one note performance.

As does Lily Gladstone. Initially, she creates in Mollie a nuanced and witty character, who can see through people. She doesn't suffer fools, and we find her both compelling and captivating. However, after the first third of the film, she becomes subservient, unquestioning and dull- and all this before there are medicinal reasons for her being, shall we say, slowed down. DeNiro, for his part, plays King Hale like an evil George Burns: manipulative, darkly funny and morally bereft. Anytime he's on screen, the film is a joy; he's the best thing about it.

They are supported by a large cast of talented actors, some of whom do great work. Ty Mitchell is excellent as John, a poor man drawn into Emmet and King Hale's plans, who has more dignity then the both of them combined. Jesse Plemons does typically fine work as FBI man Tom White, while Louis Cancelmi is seedily slick as Kelsie Morrison, a stooge of King Hale's. On the other hand, the likes of Cara Jade Myers- as Mollie's alcoholic sister- and Brendan Fraser- in a thankfully small role as King Hale's lawyer- are both so miscast and over the top, they distract from everything going on around them.

It's a sad indictment of a film when its central message was summed up more succinctly in a Dean Martin song (The Money Song) from 1948: "Them that have it, get more of it. The less they need it, the more they love it." Such is the thesis of the film: greed spreads like a plague, and the richer you are, the greedier you are. It's not original, nor is it profound: this very same tale was told much more impactfully back in 1959, in Mervyn LeRoy's 'The FBI Story.'

At the end of the day, 'Killers of the Flower Moon' is a truncated adaptation of a great non-fiction book, overlong and devoid of any original or meaningful message. Despite its stellar cinematography, evocative score and a few powerful performances, Martin Scorsese's 'Killers of the Flower Moon' is an underwhelming disappointment.
641 out of 881 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
so incredibly disappointed
productionsbyiac25 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I was anticipating this movie like crazy let me start off by that.

Martin Scorsese, DiCaprio & Robert DeNiro? I would be stupid not to be excited .The trailers were amazing, I would literally recommend everyone to just simply watch the trailers because it is not only the best parts of the film shown in the trailer, but the whole plot as well. I love long movies, I really do, but there is nothing worse than a horribly paced movie. Not slow burn no, this was horribly paced. When were first introduced to Osage its so cool & interesting, but that interest dissipates within the first hour. My three stars is for this : The fact that it is a period piece, the costumes and set feel authentic.... and ...... well nothing else honestly. There's no music really at all, Im a strong believer that a good movie is where visual expression , meets a musical expression, meets a human expression. If ya know what I mean. The aspect of this film that made me loose.any interest was this one fact. I couldn't understand the fact why it was told from Ernest and not Molly. Really . It was so boring, from the first ten minutes we know , that DeNiro is the bad guy who's going to sway DiCaprios character we know right away.. I wish we got to spend time with the Osage people & their richness, I never once felt that Ernest (DiCaprio) loved Molly (Gladstone) . Everything about them felt rushed. & the whole "it's about greed, he really loved her but greed took over he couldn't see how terrible it was that he was poisoning her" Please.... how could you poison the mother of your children and claim to love her ? I know Scorsese loves to focus on the human aspects of the " bad guys" and usually it's a home run for me, but this time it was such a strike out. If it had been told from Mollys POV we could have had inside views to the richness that the Osage people had, their lifestyles, we could have felt comfort in that money, till Ernest comes around. She falls in love and its an earnest love . Her heartbreak when her family members keep dying, who can she trust ? & not in a "whodunnit" way, in a real way. Showing one's emotions when you don't know who to believe. I wish we had seen the King from the Osage peoples eyes, they believed him he was the white man they "trusted" for a long while and I wish we could have had that trust built to be broken . It was such a long movie there was definitely the space and the budget. The whole time , the minute earnest gets off the train this is how I felt: This guy is going to do anything is uncle tells him, his uncle is bad news he s the rotten egg in the bunch , the girl won't realize till its too late, of course the white people are working against the osage people. It was predictable, & the ending was very weird too I have nothing to comment on it , truly like three hours just to wrap it up like that? I wish for once this was told from a different side. It was like a god awful boring western ( even though it isn't a western) .
25 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wonderful Remembrance for the Lost Osage Oil Heirs
akoaytao123419 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Killer of the Flower Moon

The film tells of the Osage Indians, who after finding oil in their land, are riddled with mysterious deaths within their close knit community. Focusing on the lives of Mollie Burkhart and her family, the film pieces together a slow but harrowing awakening of a small family built under false pretense.

Okay, shocked how well paced the film is.

Interestingly, it took an different approach to the maximalist and "Hollywood" styling of Oppenheimer - a film I personally hated. It's just very direct and slowly build its story up.

It opened talking about how and why they are killing, how the White men of Osage is hateful and would use everything to get above the "unworthy" Indians - not so much glamorization just pure unadulterated hate.

It slowly quivers into much more sinister murders while it posits that the Osage's does know that they are targeted. In addition, the film posits that the Osage's are also a victim of new found wealth. A bunch of them where not in particularly great shape NOR does any take action (sans Mollie) with growing deaths in the area, which is a neat commentary to compliment the deadly ruthless ness of Hale.

The way it told the story reminds me so much of Edvard Munch (1974). Its pretty precise and almost documentary-like fashion. The details are direct yet substantial. And given that this is a true crime film, has elements that is both "Anti-Suspense" and "Anti-Western" that worked tremendously AND compares quite nicely against Marty's flashier fare.

And all and all, it just hits perfectly without being too much and also commenting fully on all sides. Everything was particularly fleshed out for your judgment. Its clearly for the Osage BUT is willing to show the problems on their side too.

The only real negative I would say about the story is how they handled Molly and her husband plight. They were somewhat trying to make it a story of love crossed against his Uncle's wishes. I wish they took a harder stance in his overall portrayal. That man did not love that woman - just from what the screen shown.

In addition, I think Scorsese was not particularly confident in portraying her. She was fully supporting all throughout the film AND that felt like sad for a film ABOUT the Osage Indians.

Performance-wise, even with a less screentime - Gladstone ate the scenes she was in. Her simple but effective presence gave depth in a character that is shoved behind the scenes. Sadly, I think the Oscar's would surely bump her down to supporting BUT she deserves that win. Di Caprio and De Niro is subdued AND wonderful in respective role. Plus points for De Niro's pitch perfect accent work. Very consistent to be honest.

Also, I particularly love how the sound in this film is mixed. Lot of silence in this one BUT compliments the slow burn element of the film.

Highly recommended BUT has some flaws.
74 out of 125 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
OH MY GOSH
evalove-439-2485518 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I just saw in a special screening this movie . It's absolutely fabulous in terms of the direction . All of the actors give amazing performances , especially the actress that plays Molly ( sorry i don't remember her name ) , Robert de Niro and brendan fraser ( although his sceen time was little ) . I understand why some people may have problems with the runtime , i think it's as long as it should . About the theme of the film also maybe it's not for everyone and at some times it becomes a bit more depressing than you already expect , but i think it could easily become a classic . It deserves all the hype and more and i have to say although the enormous runtime , everyone should see the movie on the big screen .
75 out of 128 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Great actors, lovely scenery, far far too long
johndavidson-122 October 2023
Just back in from Killers of the Flower Moon.

Sad to report that what could have been a taut and thrilling portrait of the evils that men do for money - particularly when it comes to acquiring the money that belongs to people they look down on, is instead a ponderous meditation on wickedness.

On the upside, Di Caprio is convincing as the idiotic foil, caught between the schemes of his uncle and a genuine affection for Mollie his Osage wife, and De Niro is always watchable even when he verges on pantomime as the conniving villain, while Lily Gladstone shines as Mollie .

The script and even worse, the edit is where my issues lie. It is simply far too long and the large parts of the film proceed at a snails pace.

Rather like the portrayal of the Tulsa race riots at the start of the Watchmen TV series, it does shed light on an ugly slice of 20th century American history, but for a film that purports to champion the cause of the Osage people (and perhaps remind Us citizens of the plight of first nation Americans in general) it provides them with no agency at all. Despite their new found riches they are presented as largely passive, often easily duped and in need of saving by the good ol' FBI (though only after receipt of a fat old fee).
162 out of 263 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
No one does it like Scorsese
Jeremy_Urquhart19 October 2023
Scorsese's done it again. Killers of the Flower Moon is another masterpiece, or close to it. I have next to no complaints. It finds the legendary filmmaker at the top of his game (he's been there since 2013 it seems, with an amazing unbroken streak), telling what might be his bleakest and most emotionally distressing story yet.

It was expected that a film about a series of real-life killings committed by greedy people against indigenous people was never going to be easygoing, but it's the execution here that counts. It's constant dread and an exploration of twisted, manipulative, and often downplayed evil (at least in the eyes of the evildoers) that's always in the shadows, and just hidden enough to ensure such violence continues. It disturbs and creeps up on you in ways that are difficult to anticipate or prepare oneself for.

It's an exploration of the death by a thousand cuts equivalent of atrocious, systemic murder. Seeing blatant crime against a race or group of people is troubling when it's out in the open, but in depicting it as both blatant and sometimes in a more insidious and calculated way, it makes you think about how many similar cases might've happened that weren't noticed or brought to light - not just in America, but anywhere with indigenous populations. It's here where Killers of the Flower Moon isn't just powerful for the specific story being told (and it is), but for what it suggests on a broader level.

It's like Shoah, in that way - the lengthy and soul-crushing Holocaust documentary from 1985 that is as much about the horrifying banality and numbing effect of great, widespread, non-stop evil as it is about laying bare what evils were committed. The pacing and length of Killers of the Flower Moon are essential to conveying these things. Having to spend so much time with this story and these troubling themes makes them all the more impactful.

The film's beautifully shot, masterfully edited, and the three leads - Leonardo DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone, and Robert De Niro - are all deserving of awards recognition. Those who thought The Irishman dragged might feel the same here, but I thought it earned just about every minute of its 3.5 hour runtime.

Complaints? DiCaprio contorts his face like a bulldog the whole movie - I only noticed at about the 2.5 hour mark, but I couldn't shake the mental image. It's still a great performance, and the character he portays here is unlike any other he's ever played. There is also a sense of creeping familiarity to parts of the final act, but some interesting turns are taken. And then the ending... the final scene and then the very last shot are both brilliant, and helped the film end on a powerful note. That being said, I do expect the final scene to be divisive. Good, I think.
279 out of 524 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed