Killers of the Flower Moon

Martin Scorsese is a butts-in-seats director, at least for the cinephile community, though I believe that applies to some general audiences as well. He's known for his big, sprawling, (usually) American-based epics that often include detailed stories and living characters. When I heard he was directing a film called Killers of the Flower Moon, I very quickly - as I do - moved the book up to the top of my "read" pile. What I encountered was a horrific, almost unbelievable account of the Osage Indians, a tribe who had been forced to move several times, and eventually landed on "bad" land in Oklahoma. 

It turns out, that "bad" land was brimming with oil, and the Osage Indians became insanely wealthy. As you'd expect, the American businessman (and government) stepped in to "monitor" the money for them and this story is about certain men who went even further, killing Indians in succession to ensure the head rights (aka oil rights) and extreme wealth would go to them. This also coincided with the beginnings of the FBI, and was one of their first, most significant cases. 

Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon is a tremendous film, in many ways...not all of them great. Due to early reviews of epic praise, I was very excited and with the move of Dune Part II into next year, this was easily one of my most anticipated films of the year. And believe me, it is a very good film and has many of the staples that make Scorsese's films great...including bloated runtimes. Now, I'd like to think I can sit and enjoy a 3+ hour film more than most. But damn. I felt the runtime on Killers of the Flower Moon a lot. Almost to a degree that shocked me, especially as someone who went and gleefully saw Oppenheimer twice in theaters this year, which I think is a pretty apt comparison. With Killers, I genuinely think it could have been an hour shorter and would have become an overall better film and story. This is not a wildly long book and while I can't pinpoint whole swaths of scenes I would eliminate, I'm confident they're there. It's a case where the length felt like it was so gargantuan because it could, without anyone asking if it should. 

And truthfully, that's really my only problem with Killers of the Flower Moon. It's a big one, and it bleeds into other things I'd cite (e.g. the screenplay feels a tad disorganized). Otherwise, Scorsese continues to remain a master of this craft and one of the best living directors we have today. His grasp on scenes, lighting, editing, details, and cinematography are impeccable. It's as clear with Killers as with any of his films that he had a vision, one of a much earlier Oklahoma, an American lifestyle, and the film transports you there. He co-wrote the script - which is also a highlight - and he may be one of the most effective directors at getting award-winning performances out of his cast. 

"The film is how long did you say?!?"

That last point is clearly abundant with our "Big 3" in Killers: Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, and Lily Gladstone. All other cast members do their duties - there isn't a single weak link - but it's these three that have the most to do, and are the anchors of the movie. DiCaprio plays a somewhat dumb, but ambitious Ernest Burkhart. A man easily influenced by others, especially his uncle. One of the best things about Killers in comparison to the more documentary-esque read of the novel, is that these characters are given much more personality. It may be fictitious in the details, but the wider ranger themes of each are the lifeblood of the film. DiCaprio gives a career-high performance (hard for me to say if it's his outright best) and commands the screen like few other actors do these days. De Niro partners with Scorsese yet again and gives a career-high performance as well as the manipulative and very smart, William Hale. Again, this is a character whose deeds read shockingly on the paper, but thanks to the screenplay are made even more intricate, nuanced, and devilish. De Niro toes the line between hero and villain perfectly for the entire runtime. Lastly, is Lily Gladstone who breathes a ton of life into Molly, the primary Osage character of the story. She has a lot of heavy lifting to do, especially across the aisle from DiCaprio, but handles it with ease. Her life is a hard one and Killers reminds of you of that time and time again.

Reminiscing on Killers of the Flower Moon is a mixed experience for me. Part of me does want to watch it again at home in order to fully appreciate the scope and performances one more time, but another part of me remembers how sore my butt was getting, how some sections were fairly disengaging, and how this 3.5 hour film felt more like 4-4.5. I believe there's a masterwork of Scorsese hidden within Killers, it's just a much shorter version.

CONS

• Overlong for a story that didn't need to be. I've been to some 3+ hour films over the years and I felt the runtime on this one
• Screenplay can be sporadic at times and feels like it needs to pack in every detail, meaning there are lots of cuts that could have been made

PROS

• Scorsese's direction is at the best of his game. He has full control of his vision and creates a film that transports you back to an era, while introducing rich characters
• Highly likely there are 3 acting nominations coming for this core cast. DiCaprio, De Niro, and Gladstone all turn in some of the best performances of the year, and their careers
• Awesome and fitting original score throughout
• Visually stunning with captivating cinematography
• Interesting and tragic story about a key event in American history that not many people know about
• Biggest upgrade from the book is the life this breathes into the characters, their motives, their strengths, and weaknesses

Rath's Review Score | 8.5/10