Killers of the Flower Moon

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.

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.

Before a premiere, I try to steer clear of trailers, reviews and other opinions. I just got a glimpse of a few loving reviews. Nevertheless, my expections were high because of Scorsese, De Niro and DiCaprio.

I hoped for a masterpiece, but this isn't one. It's a very well told story, that's historically relevant. The greed motives are very well implemented in this movie. As expected, the acting and casting was pretty good. De Niro was great, Leo did well (although at some points it felt a little over the top), but Lily Gladstone stole the show for me as Mollie. There's only one big BUT that doesn't make me give this a higher rating.

I looked a LOT at my watch too see how long was left. I don't mind slow pacing, but this is just too much. There's not really a point for this to be 3.5 hours long. In The Irishman I wasn't bothered by it. Now I was. Every other aspect was good - but not great.

The costumes, camerawork and scenery were lovely.

"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.

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.