Film Killers of the Flower Moon | Scorsese's next

It was good, pretty pretty pretty good.

You can tell this was a total labour of love for Scorcese. An important/horrific story that needed to be told, but which may have been better served as a miniseries, it was such a slow burner.

Not sure about the reviews that mention it being some kind of epic about the "Birth of America"; it's much more contained than that. De Niro was exceptional, his best performance in a long time. I'm usually a big LDC fan but I'm not sure he's best suited to playing regular Joes, his endless gurning got a little tiresome, and there were a couple of cameos towards the end that pulled me out of the movie a little.

As per usual, the production design and cinematography were outstanding.

The final quarter centred around Hale's trial felt a bit out of whack with the rest, it reminded me of Oppenheimer in that regard (but not as good); I did enjoy the radio play epilogue, points for originality (cameo notwithstanding!).

I'd rank it as mid-tier Scorcese, The Departed/Shutter Island level.

Movie: 8/10

Mid-movie interval: 11/10

Sir Matt said:
I think my biggest criticism is that Scorsese didn't include an epilogue about the unknown scale of the murders. Dozens, if not hundreds, of Osage were murdered by white people, and many of them were unrelated to William Hale.
Click to expand...
The Native American Chief did say they believed 100+ had been murdered.
horsechoker said:
Seems like he's trying to do what Marvel did with Black Panther which restored trust between African Americans and the US.
Click to expand...
This comment is even funnier given the Osage Native Americans' pronunciation of their word for God.
 
I saw it yesterday and it's been in my mind all day. Signs of a very good film. Not sure I'd want to sit through it all over again so soon but it's definitely a very poignant film. Love the understated performance by Lily Gladstone.
 
I have no issues with extremely lengthy movies but this did feel that either it needed some editing to chop off around 45 mins or that it was meant for a limited TV series. It was still a very very good movie but I do believe that it stretched on too long.
 
Is a 3+ hour run time too long ? Well James Cameron has the correct answer

F9jVt-WWUAAQUF1
 
Wonderful film. Directing is top notch, cinematography is gorgeous, the acting is great - De Niro's best performance since forever - the story is quite fascinating... the music overall is nice but I felt it lacked a bit of an epic edge considering the scale of the film. Also loved the epilogue - very unexpected and masterfully done.

Runtime didn't bother me at all, didn't see the film go by.
 
I enjoyed it too, justifies its runtime for sure. I was very skeptical of that but it's very well paced and tells the story very well.

I actually don't think it's De Niro's best work - he's good but Di Caprio and Gladstone steal the show. Plemons is good and it's a shame he's only in half of it.

Agree on the music, there seems to be music where it doesn't belong, and sometimes none where it does. But that's only on reflection and doesn't harm the film.

The production value is great, really authentic and I really do think it's one of the best films of 2023.
 
I thought this was a fantastic movie. The story is just so engrossing that it really shows that the truth can be wilder than fiction. I thought there were a few weird inconsistencies or little things that didn't make sense but that could be just because they had to cut scenes to even bring it down to 3 1/2 hours. I bet the directors cut is 4 1/2 hours. I'd have it in my top 3 films I've seen from 2023 (with Past Lives and Oppenheimer) and it was probably my favorite of the year. Definitely agree that this was a great performance from Leo and Gladstone is amazing as well. I liked the Lithgow and Fraser cameos but would have liked a little more Plemons.
 
Very good film with some great acting performances from Di Caprio, De Nero and Lily Gladstone.

To me, it didnt feel like a 3.5 hour movie. Im not sure which parts could have been cut in order to reduce the run time. All felt required.

Just heartbreaking that these people, and this family, were taken advantage of. One would have thought that tribal leaders would have protected this family more.

Didn't love the radio show ending. I wouldn't have minded if the move started in that same way, but it felt like it was almost making a satire of a very serious story.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
It did, in which he was good throughout and one of the only redeeming qualities of season 2.

I've just weirdly started a rewatch of that show!
Click to expand...
I am about to re-watch it after I get through the last season of Justified & the recently released season.

I recently have become friends with DW Moffett who played that little fecker JD McCoy's father in FNL. I spent a breakfast with him describing how amazing the whole shebang was being in the show.

That sealed the deal for me to rewatch it next.
 
I saw it last night. It’s not one of my favorite Scorsese films. There are some well-directed scenes but it’s so fecking long that you start feeling every little extravagance and button on every scene. At 90 minutes into the movie, I was thinking holy feck I still have 2 hours to go, and all the moves are being telegraphed but still have yet to happen.

DiCaprio is not a good actor, I don’t know what people get out of his performances. Jesse Plemons, who plays an FBI agent, should have been the lead. The hype over Lily Gladstone is also mystifying. She was very stoic, understated performance, which is fine, but not really award worthy.

Absolutely no reason this needed to be 206 minutes long. Whoever wrote that it could have been a miniseries was right. So, I thought it was okay. For 3.5 hours, you feel like you should be getting some cathartic amazing content, but it never rose to that level. Maybe because so many deaths were just presented dry. I think this story is a very important one to tell, similar to Dances With Wolves, Americans need to know this especially as there’s a whole distortion of dealing with history where they term it “being taught to hate America” instead of “learning actual history “.

The ending with
the radio show explaining what happened was a novel way of finishing the story, but having Scorsese himself read the obituary as the last image
was a strange choice.

6/10
 
Last edited:
Wing Attack Plan R said:
The ending with
the radio show explaining what happened was a novel way of finishing the story, but having Scorsese himself read the obituary as the last image
was a strange choice.
Click to expand...
I thought that as well at first but then read online that it’s done to show one of the brutalities of colonialism is the natives struggle and their death is turned into a show for society. Ultimately the Osage Nation story ends with it becoming a form of entertainment for the rest of American society(Just like the the film is I guess).

Best ending of the year looking back now imo.
.
 
Sweet Square said:
I thought that as well at first but then read online that it’s done to show one of the brutalities of colonialism is the natives struggle and their death is turned into a show for society. Ultimately the Osage Nation story ends with it becoming a form of entertainment for the rest of American society(Just like the the film is I guess).

Best ending of the year looking back now imo.
.
Click to expand...
It’s better than reading a bunch of title cards at the end, but Jack White? (The actor doing the voices was Jack White from White Stripes). I felt that ending had no impact, you didn’t feel anything.
 
Last edited:
Wing Attack Plan R said:
It’s better than reading a bunch of title cards at the end, but Jack White? (The actor was Jack White from White Stripes). I felt that ending had no impact, you didn’t feel anything.
Click to expand...
I felt the ending was hollow but done deliberately so which made it brilliant. It’s Scorsese attempt at a gut punch to the colonial project and even the role modern Hollywood still plays in it.
 
gaffs said:
Very good film with some great acting performances from Di Caprio, De Nero and Lily Gladstone.

To me, it didnt feel like a 3.5 hour movie. Im not sure which parts could have been cut in order to reduce the run time. All felt required.

Just heartbreaking that these people, and this family, were taken advantage of. One would have thought that tribal leaders would have protected this family more.

Didn't love the radio show ending. I wouldn't have minded if the move started in that same way, but it felt like it was almost making a satire of a very serious story.
Click to expand...
There were over 100 people killed, I read.
 
It’s a weird one. I definitely enjoyed it. But it simultaneously managed to feel both too long and too rushed. It definitely would’ve been a better 6 part mini series for me.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
It’s better than reading a bunch of title cards at the end, but Jack White? (The actor doing the voices was Jack White from White Stripes). I felt that ending had no impact, you didn’t feel anything.
Click to expand...
I felt on the contrary that the seemingly "empty" ending left a much more lasting impression than anything else. It was quite haunting.

Incredible film. Not one I'd go back to anytime soon, but so so good. Proper filmmaking.
 
I'm sure they had good intentions but the film felt like it was an ego trip for both Scorsese and DiCaprio. The script was too repetitive and lacked focus and the main character just wasn't interesting enough to spend all of that time with. The ending wasn't earned and Scorsese making an appearance takes away even more from the experience.

A filmmaker getting all of the freedom to do what he wants isn't always a great idea and they become too self-indulgent. It somehow worked for The Irishman but here it turned the film into a mess.
 
I think it's an interesting watch. It's ambiguous enough to where you're not sure if Di Caprios character is stupid, ignorant or easily manipulated. It was just nice to watch a film that takes its time. I really liked it.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
I felt on the contrary that the seemingly "empty" ending left a much more lasting impression than anything else. It was quite haunting.

Incredible film. Not one I'd go back to anytime soon, but so so good. Proper filmmaking.
Click to expand...
Honestly I had to redo my review take on this film because I read how much you liked it, made me doubt myself! I don't know why, but the film didn't resonate with me. Maybe my expectations were too high.
Idxomer said:
I'm sure they had good intentions but the film felt like it was an ego trip for both Scorsese and DiCaprio. The script was too repetitive and lacked focus and the main character just wasn't interesting enough to spend all of that time with. The ending wasn't earned and Scorsese making an appearance takes away even more from the experience.

A filmmaker getting all of the freedom to do what he wants isn't always a great idea and they become too self-indulgent. It somehow worked for The Irishman but here it turned the film into a mess.
Click to expand...
I think this is very true. DiCaprio would have been better if you saw him weighing the moral complications of his actions, or saw him behave to his wife differently than he did around his uncle. Instead, he plays it all the same, like he's a simpleton. Maybe they should have given him a war wound to explain why he was so dumb and / or easily manipulated, or just plain evil.
Gringo said:
I think it's an interesting watch. It's ambiguous enough to where you're not sure if Di Caprios character is stupid, ignorant or easily manipulated. It was just nice to watch a film that takes its time. I really liked it.
Click to expand...
It was interesting, for sure. Would not watch it again, which is saying something though, when I've seen Taxi Driver a dozen times.
 
I think I set my expectations lower than I should have, maybe because The Irish man was just decent but this was really good, not quite top tier Scorcese but still a stellar work.
 
It's the only best film nominee I've gone to see twice at the cinema.
 
It was too long i felt, especially the first hour and half - he could easily have knocked 25 minutes off that part and another 20 off the final hour.

For a film basically about murder and then getting caught its pretty good. DeNiro is brilliant in it - he could get an oscar. Di Caprio didnt quite pull of the idiot character he was playing - certainly wasnt as good as DeNiro.

3.8/5 for me.
 
I was bored to the death, even more than when I was watching The Irishmen. the effort is obviously there, but it all sounded better on paper than it actually was. precisely because of movies like these I'm mostly into shows these days, so I always have some catching up to do and when I finally watch the movies I missed during the year, they only push me towards watching shows again.

I'm an experienced watcher, I enjoyed long movies even in my younger years - when the movie could justify it. and I'm not talking about blockbusters like Titanic or LOTR movies, nor Dances with Wolves, Ben Hur, Gone with the Wind or similar movies. I'm talking about some Bergman, Tarkovsky and Kurosawa movies that are far less acessible and certainly more challenging to watch than the ones I mentioned.

but you have to offer me something and make sure I'm actually pleased to waste 3 or 4 hours on it.

I don't get what is it about movies these days. like've I said, I always have plenty of catching up to do, so I finally watched the most recent Batman, latest Indiana Jones and latest Guardians of the Galaxy movie. Batman was 3 hours, the other two about two and the half. none of them actually justified the length. on my watch list for the rest of the week I have Babylon, Oppenheimer and John Wick. how the feck does movie like John Wick last 3 hours?

my favorite show is Twin Peaks, which makes a fool of your first time in 90's when it's canceled without proper ending, then the second time 25 years later when it returns only to offer even less answers. so I'm actually a very patient man. but most of these recent three, three and the half an hour movies have no business lasting that long.

I gave up after about 80 minutes and seriously doubt I'll ever revisit it.
 
Last edited:
Bole Top said:
I was bored to the death, even more than when I was watching The Irishmen. the effort is obviously there, but it all sounded better on paper than it actually was. precisely because of movies like these I'm mostly into shows these days, so I always have some catching up to do and when I finally watch the movies I missed during the year, they only push me towards watching shows again.

I'm an experienced watcher, I enjoyed long movies even in my younger years - when the movie could justify it. and I'm not talking about blockbusters like Titanic or LOTR movies, nor Dances with Wolves, Ben Hur, Gone with the Wind or similar movies. I'm talking about some Bergman, Tarkovsky and Kurosawa movies that are far less acessible and certainly more challenging to watch than the ones I mentioned.

but you have to offer me something and make sure I'm actually pleased to waste 3 or 4 hours on it.

I don't get what is it about movies these days. like've I said, I always have plenty of catching up to do, so I finally watched the most recent Batman, latest Indiana Jones and latest Guardians of the Galaxy movie. Batman was 3 hours, the other two about two and the half. none of them actually justified the length. on my watch list for the rest of the week I have Babylon, Oppenheimer and John Wick. how the feck does movie like John Wick last 3 hours?

my favorite show is Twin Peaks who makes a fool of your first time in 90's when it's canceled without proper ending, then the second time 25 years later when it returns only to offer even less answers. so I'm actually a very patient man. but most of these recent three, three and the half an hour movies have no business lasting that long.

I gave up after about 80 minutes and seriously doubt I'll ever revisit it.
Click to expand...

I don't blame you. Very long movies are basically vanity projects for directors accomplished enough to have studios greenlight them. Because of everything from YouTube to Tik-Tok to IG to streaming binge series, audiences have much shorter attention spans these days, which sort of reinforces the futility of a few directors swimming upstream by releasing absurdly long movies.
 
There was talk saying it should have been a 6 episode tv show because so much was shoved in it. So it'll be the most boring tv show in history if all the "best" parts were in the movie.
 
The film was a bit dull. Technically great and story was terrifying but it raised no emotions of any kind.
 
AaronRedDevil said:
There was talk saying it should have been a 6 episode tv show because so much was shoved in it. So it'll be the most boring tv show in history if all the "best" parts were in the movie.
Click to expand...

That could've worked if they split it into 4 or 5 episodes, where each episode ranged from 40-50 min. On the other hand, the structuring of story didn't really lend itself well for a streaming series since there were no cliff hanger plot points that would've kept the audience coming back for the next episode. It was more of a long story that was probably better told in one viewing.
 
I'm not sure length was a problem so much as the pacing being glacial. I watched one of his older movies - after hours a few days after seeing it and the contrast in what it fit into 90 mins vs. how this film used 3 hours reflected so, so poorly on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.