Killers of the Flower Moon reviews

[Sabin]

Rewatched Killers of the Flower Moon. I think it's an easier movie to admire than to love but there's lots to admire. It's full of exciting filmmaking and it's an engrossing (if still a bit unclear) world. But in talking what's so great about it, I can't help but feel it's like describing a beautiful table and ignoring the fact that the legs are a bit imbalanced. The legs (IMO) are the characters propping it up: De Niro, DiCaprio, and Gladstone. I could write for a while about where and why I think these characters fall a bit short in their duties in supporting the story, but I won't. I will say, I am glad that we got this version of the film vs. the FBI framing angle. We've just seen that film so many times and wobbly or not this one is unique and unforgiving in what it plunges us into.

I will say there is a scene I keep looking back on that is a great example of why the film doesn't wallop you in the end. It's when Ernest tells King that Molly is going to marry him (y'know, their ethnic cleansing plan) but the vibe is "That's great! You're getting married!" Scorsese zooms right past it but there's a major disconnect between not just the mood of the scene and us, the viewer, but a significant one between DiCaprio and De Niro. DiCaprio is telling De Niro "The plan worked and I love her!" What really should be happening in this scene is for De Niro to remind him "You remember what we're doing here, right?" Or maybe DiCaprio didn't need to know the plan so soon and figure it out later in the film.* I think that's why DiCaprio is getting so much slack for this performance. It's a good piece of acting but at the end of the day it's either too ambitious for this borderline idiot character to embody so many dimensions or the storytellers don't know how much of a meal to make of what this guy does and doesn't understand. Either way, the marriage story isn't effectively dramatized, it's never clear how this guy is compartmentalizing (or living with?) the horrible things he is doing to his wife and his family, and it isn't haunting.

But there is a bigness to his acting. It's hard to imagine what the movie would look like with a different take. I'm perfectly fine with admiring this film if not quite loving it like The Irishman. I've seen the world of The Irishman before. I've never seen this one.

*I see that Tee already pointed out. It's really challenging to imagine how that scene plays out, with De Niro sitting DiCaprio down and explaining to him that they're going to ethnically cleanse his wife and her family. Or maybe it's just never said. Or maybe it's just glaringly obvious but he doesn't see it. I can understand why they didn't want to give him that leverage but I think they miss an opportunity to ask an even darker question. "What did you think was happening?"

[Big Magilla]

While it's still too early to say whether this is the clear front runner for Best Picture and Director, these reviews clearly indicate that the film and Scorsese will be in the running as will DiCaprio for Best Actor. DeNiro becomes a major contender for Supporting Actor.

Plemons is likely out of the running. Gladstone, however, goes from being a frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress to the presumptive lead for Best Actress. While all the other contenders for the award are being presumed worthy based on past performances, she leaps ahead with some of the best reviews ever for a heretofore taken for granted actress. This is Vivien Leigh in Gone with the Wind territory and Scorsese's first real shot at having directed a Best Actress winner since Ellen Burstyn in Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. Give her spot in Supporting Actress to the always watchable Tantoo Cardinal.

And then they all laughed. Looks like Gladstone is having the last laugh, though.

[Sabin]

Fantastic review.

Mister Tee wrote
I think maybe the film’s biggest problem, for me, springs from what I think of as noble intent: Scorsese clearly chose not to present this as simply White Lawmen Swoop in to Stop Osage Murders, but, rather, why the Osage were legally vulnerable to such an outrage, and how the entire country’s system made it so difficult to prevent or stop....

Another problem I had was the fact that DeNiro’s initial colloquy with DiCaprio, while it didn’t quite blurt out “We’re going to marry up these Osages, then kill them and steal their land”, got close enough to it that we didn’t have the narrative satisfaction of watching the scheme be uncovered. I’m reminded of what Roger Ebert said about the final act of A Few Good Men – he noted that Tom Cruise told his team just what his strategy was going to be to trap Nicholson, and, with Nicholson on the stand, he did exactly what he’d laid out, no adjustments necessary. Where, Ebert asked, is the drama in that? Same here. When the fledgling FBI guys come in and round up the guilty, it’s more a matter of “Wow, you guys finally noticed the obvious”, rather than “Congratulations on cracking the case”.

But another yet: there’s a whole lot in those first two-hours plus that I wouldn’t have wanted to do without.

Yup. Unlike The Irishman, which justifies a three hour running time with new perspectives and revelations along the way, this is a powerfully depressing experience to sit through two+ hours of waiting for people to realize what's going on. I realize that's probably how it happened but that doesn't make it great drama. And what we're confused by at the beginning remains confusing at the end.

That said, when you do sit through the movie again, I will be interested in knowing if the first two hours play a lot more engrossing on repeat viewings than the last act because I suspect that will be the case for me.

[Mister Tee]

I’ve been putting off writing about Killers of the Flower Moon, because my feelings about it are so various/conflicted that I don’t know exactly where to start – whatever point I choose might be misleading as to my overall feeling about the film. It is, unquestionably, a big swing of a movie. (One of the few positive things you can say about the current film scene is, bless the streaming services, giving big-time directors a place to make ambitious projects when studios have lost all appetite.) I think there’s a ton of great stuff up there on the screen. But I didn’t respond with total abandon, a la The Irishman; there were issues along the way that make me reluctantly concede it’s not the full-on late-career triumph I’d hoped for.

I think maybe the film’s biggest problem, for me, springs from what I think of as noble intent: Scorsese clearly chose not to present this as simply White Lawmen Swoop in to Stop Osage Murders, but, rather, why the Osage were legally vulnerable to such an outrage, and how the entire country’s system made it so difficult to prevent or stop. Thus, we get a lengthy depiction of how the privileged white residents so resented the Osage’s oil wealth (something, in these white folks’ view, they’d done nothing to merit) that they schemed to snatch as much as possible away, by cynical and ultimately fatal means. This is a big and worthy subject, but it makes for a somewhat meandering narrative. We meet so many characters it can be difficult to keep them all straight in one’s mind. There’s a clear central story – DeNiro’s use of DiCaprio and others to pull off this land grab from Molly’s extended family – but others pop into view and distract somewhat from the through-line. Are any of those random murders we see in quick throwaway shots related to DeNiro’s scheme? Were they ever solved/avenged? The film never tells us, which makes it feel extraneous to the film (as well as bloating of the running time).

Another problem I had was the fact that DeNiro’s initial colloquy with DiCaprio, while it didn’t quite blurt out “We’re going to marry up these Osages, then kill them and steal their land”, got close enough to it that we didn’t have the narrative satisfaction of watching the scheme be uncovered. I’m reminded of what Roger Ebert said about the final act of A Few Good Men – he noted that Tom Cruise told his team just what his strategy was going to be to trap Nicholson, and, with Nicholson on the stand, he did exactly what he’d laid out, no adjustments necessary. Where, Ebert asked, is the drama in that? Same here. When the fledgling FBI guys come in and round up the guilty, it’s more a matter of “Wow, you guys finally noticed the obvious”, rather than “Congratulations on cracking the case”.

And yet…this last hour of the film is the most dramatically satisfying, simply because it has a solid unraveling structure, and there are some narrative twists involved (DiCaprio’s swaying between defiance and cooperation, Molly’s willingness to believe in DiCaprio right up to the moment she can’t). Despite Scorsese’s laudable attempt at a wider approach, the simple police procedural ends up being the strongest part of the film.

But another yet: there’s a whole lot in those first two-hours plus that I wouldn’t have wanted to do without. The visuals are incredibly striking – possibly the western outdoor setting played a part, but I’d say Prieto’s work here is far more memorable than his work on The Irishman, and Scorsese gives him multiple breathtaking shots to light. Scorsese’s long-established “I was born to make films” ability shines through at every moment, with visual imagination at every turn. I also was fascinated by much of the material centering on Molly – for me, clearly the most fascinating character in the film. Her opening line, identifying herself as Incompetent, tells us how limited she was by the strictures of Oklahoma law (at a time when Oklahoma was only in its adolescent years as an official state), but her every action (or interaction, with DiCaprio) tells us how much is going on inside her head, how strong her persona is. I liked her relationships with everyone in her family, with DeNiro, with DiCaprio…she’s clearly the central figure of the film, for Scorsese, and a very worthy character. I just wish I’d had more a sense, in this long introductory section, that Scorsese was confidently guiding us precisely where we needed to go, throughout. (As he did in The Irishman.) He knew where he wanted to end up – and I loved the radio-show coda, for the final notes it struck – but it was a bit of a wobbly journey getting there. Which makes one really feel the 3 ½ hour runtime.

Caveat: it may be that some of my qualms would be offset were I to watch the film a second time. Knowing who all the characters are might make those opening hours cohere better. Unlike Sabin, I don’t regularly revisit films, especially ones that fully satisfy me. But those that leave me with questions I sometimes track down and further explore. Since I have AppleTV, I’ll be watching this again, and will see if the film works better for me from that vantage point.

As for the actors involved: I understand that Gladstone recedes some from the film once she starts being drugged, which could justify a supporting placement. But, as I mentioned, she’s so much the moral center of the film that I think anything but a lead classification sells her short. I also think she’s extraordinary in the role. It’s turned out a pretty sensational year for actresses, but she ought to make the Oscar slate with ease. I can also understand some being dissatisfied with DiCaprio’s work; he definitely does a great deal of Acting. But I found it worked for me. He’s not a “must be nominated!” for me, but I won’t have any problem if he makes it. As for DeNiro…he’s solid, impressive, quietly evil. But I’m a bit surprised at the number of people talking as if this is some kind of major comeback for him. He's good, but in a way he’s been several other times over the past decade or two; I never found myself thinking, Wow, what an amazing moment! (The Irishman performance, for me, was far more distinctive, and harkened back to the great DeNiro of Mean Streets through Raging Bull.) I’m also surprised there aren’t at least a few arguing his supporting placement is category fraud; he’s as much a co-lead as many performers (Casey Affleck, Jake Gyllenhaal) who’ve got blood boiling here and elsewhere over the years.

So, to summarize: a big, impressive attempt, with enough success along the way that I salute the achievement, but enough potholes I can’t give my heart to it fully – at least, not without a rewatch that alleviates some of my doubts.

[Reza]

They should have stuck with the original casting of DiCaprio as the FBI agent and Jesse Plemons as the conflicted dolt who loves the wife but is compliant in helping kill her family at his uncle's urging. Plemons excels at those kinds of roles.

Only if the scenario changed to allow more screen time to the FBI character. DiCaprio was not going to play a miniscule role in a Scorsese film which Plemons eventually played.

DiCaprio obviously wanted to go the dim-wit route as it allowed the actor to emote - all those contortions with his mouth to signify a dolt - which is why he chose to play it. Don't think he was interested in playing the somewhat dull role of the detective which is why he switched roles.

[Big Magilla]

I think it's in the casting. DiCaprio is simply not believable in the role. He played a mentally challenged teenager in his breakout role in What's Eating Gilbert Grape but one with a heart of gold, which he nailed. That character could never evolve into a coldblooded go-along killer and neither in my opinion could the actor who played him. He tries but doesn't succeed.

They should have stuck with the original casting of DiCaprio as the FBI agent and Jesse Plemons as the conflicted dolt who loves the wife but is compliant in helping kill her family at his uncle's urging. Plemons excels at those kinds of roles.

[Sabin]

This is an excellent piece by Owen Gleiberman which mirrors some of my frustration with the film.

https://variety.com/2023/film/columns/k ... 235772356/

[Sabin]

Still mulling this one over... It's definitely of a piece with The Irishman in that it's the story of a generally dull-witted tool of a human who enacts the will of others over epic length. The biggest difference for me is that I thought The Irishman was a more cohesive film about a human-tool. It was full of questionably pathetic people who just so happened to have their fingerprints on some major moments in history. With Killers of the Flower Moon, these people aren't just pathetic. They're evil, stupid, and incompetent and their victims are just waiting around to die. The film gives them the respectful treatment for sure, but you can't help but just pity them by nature of the story. Occasionally, I just found it frustrating to endure. Aside from (in typical Scorsese fashion) it's just packed with one astonishing scene after another, I found it most interesting as a portrait of an ecosystem. One of my favorite moments (hard to phrase it like that) involved the character played by Gene Jones as just a casually-but-not-actively intolerant figure of the town. I forget his job in the film. But almost an hour later during a march, it's revealed he's a member of the Klan. Not just a member of the Klan but a marching member. De Niro walks by and gives him a nod. Earlier in the film, De Niro (excellent) mentions not being a fan of the Klan but we realize in that moment that justice for these people is just impossible because they live in a city where the KKK isn't close to the worst thing they have to deal with. Credit the cinematography, production design, and costume design for their monumental work at creating a lived in world. Also, De Niro for a chilling portrait of the banality of evil, a phrase bandied about but really brought to chilling effect here. In his last scene with DiCaprio I wish the camera stayed on him longer for the horrific nature of what he's saying.

Definitely a major accomplishment and a story I am very glad is being told. Also, there's plenty of comedy in the film and it doesn't necessarily gel with the horrific nature of this material. These people are very stupid. You can get away with spiel in a film like The Irishman because there's substantially less ethnic cleansing.

[Big Magilla]

I had no problem with the film's length but thought that its focus was off. It should have been more about the victims than the dimwitted killers.

DiCaprio was originally supposed to play the FBI agent but switched with Jesse Plemons when the script was rewritten to put more of a focus on the character that he ended up playing. He probably should have stuck with the role he was originally supposed to play. There was no subtlety or nuance to his characterization that I could see.

De Niro was good, though, better than he's been in a lot of things lately, but the real star of the film is Lily Gladstone. I don't understand the criticism from a lot of critics that she doesn't do anything. She does plenty with her eyes, yes, but also with her voice. She has plenty of dialogue. It's definitely a leading role. If the film had been made in the 1950s or early 60s, the part would have gone to an Elizabeth Taylor or Audrey Hepburn, and they would have been given top billing.

It will be nominated for a slew of Oscars but other than a possible win for Gladstone, I don't think it's going to take anything home. DiCaprio will indeed be lucky if he's nominated among the strong field of leading male actors in consideration.

[OscarGuy]

Meditative to the point of lethargy is how I would have described The Irishman. I'm concerned that that is sounding like an apt description for Killers to some. Since I'm not a Scorsese stan, I'm worried this will be a tough sit.

[Okri]

“Casually chilling” is the exact way I described DeNiro’s performance in my initial review last Wednesday. Lol.

Yeah, I definitely filched that.

[flipp525]

There's a little bit of talk going around about how the "birth of the FBI" angle was minimized in the film. Did you find the movie that we ended up with lacking in any way? Or needing something like that?

Refresh my memory, how did you feel about Scorsese's last handful of projects and how does this stack up?

De Niro is casually chilling whenever he's on the screen and Scorsese shoots him for maximum effectiveness.

“Casually chilling” is the exact way I described DeNiro’s performance in my initial review last Wednesday. Lol.

[Reza]

But much of the film is centered on DiCaprio's character and I'm not quite sure why he's our entry into this world.

I believe initially DiCaprio was offered the part of the FBI agent but he wanted to play the dim-witted role of the nephew. So the screenplay was overhauled to provide DiCaprio with a bigger part.

[Okri]

There's a little bit of talk going around about how the "birth of the FBI" angle was minimized in the film. Did you find the movie that we ended up with lacking in any way? Or needing something like that?

Refresh my memory, how did you feel about Scorsese's last handful of projects and how does this stack up?

I've been a fan of Scorsese's post Oscar work. Loved The Wolf of Wall Street, Silence and The Irishman and have fondness for Hugo. I'd say the first three films listed are better than this one.

I'll be curious to hear what other people have to say, but (without having read the book), I do feel like there was something askew with regards to the perspective. When the film focuses on Lily Gladstone and the Osage people, it's remarkable . But much of the film is centered on DiCaprio's character and I'm not quite sure why he's our entry into this world. The outsider who becomes a gradual insider is certainly a trope, but I spent time wondering if his character was opaque or just stupid. Gladstone's performance can be opaque, but always in a way that made me lean in so I could figure her out. De Niro is casually chilling whenever he's on the screen and Scorsese shoots him for maximum effectiveness. But I don't quite feel DiCaprio got a handle on his character and that stops the film from being one of Scorsese's best achievements.

Make no mistake, this is a major work from a major filmmaker and I was never not interested in what he was doing. If he wins the Oscar for it I'll be happy for him. But that's not the way I'd bet, to be honest.

[Reza]

Just left the theater.

As most of Scorsese movies, this left me cold. He’s probably the best director with whom I find it very hard to make an emotional connection with. I preferred Wolf of Wall Street to both The Irishman and this. It was an uncompromising movie. And Scorsese is much better at that in my opinion.

It’s a towering achievement though. But it waaaay too long. The last half hour is very good.

Both di Caprio and de Niro are tremendous. This is de Niro’ best performance this century by far.

I'm totally with you on the film's excessive length. It could easily do with a 60 minute trim. It just went on and on and on. Otherwise it is a handsome production, a compelling story with three very good performances by DiCaprio, Gladstone and De Niro. I doubt this film is going to win any Oscars - Gladstone would win in a heartbeat if nominated in support. She is the female lead but if nominated in the lead category where she is being campaigned she will not win.

I don't know if it was the screenplay or the direction but the film had a very clinical, flat feel to it. While I could tell awful things were happening to the victims I felt no sympathy for any of them nor any hatred or revulsion towards De Niro or the killers. The killings are presented in such a dull way one felt no horror.

Even the last half hour was presented in such a flat way except for the absolute last few minutes which stood out dramatically but in a quirky way - something which was completely missing from the entire film - good old fashioned drama.

Unlike how you felt about Wolf it left me completely cold but I instead loved The Irishman which I think suffered because of the Netflix backlash way back then. It was a crime De Niro missed out on a nod for his superb lead performance which ran circles around the hammy turns by both Pacino and Pesci.

Very disappointing film - Flower Moon.