Killers of the Flower Moon

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.

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.

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.

The film is ultimately hampered by its miscasting and excessive length.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro are both undeniably talented actors, but they are simply too old to play their respective roles. DiCaprio is 47 years old, but he is supposed to be playing a man in his early 30s. De Niro is 79 years old, and he is supposed to be playing a man in his early 60s. The age difference is distracting and makes it difficult to believe in their characters.

The film's runtime of 206 minutes is also excessive. The story could have easily been told in 2.5 hours or less. The film's slow pace and meandering plot make it feel much longer than it actually is.

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.