Killers of the Flower Moon

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.