Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

Seconded. It's a brutal and emotionally draining story but by God is it masterfully told.

Yeah, the trailers sort of sold this as a West Side Story/"Love conquers hate" thing but that is absolutely not the movie Scorsese made. If anything, it's more in line with something like Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte.

One thing I'd like to note is specifically why the FBI got involved, because it had little, if amything to do with the Osage or even Molly in particular calling for help at Washington. Namely, that Hale got too cocky and sloppy. The FBI didn't get involved out of Justice, they had to intervene because shit had gotten too bad for them to ignore. It's rather evocative of Scorsese's gangster films where the criminals get taken down due to their incompetence, not the legal system having morals.

Edited by 1upmushroom on Oct 22nd 2023 at 6:43:14 AM

A runtime of 3:26 means it'll probably be the longest movie I've ever seen in the theater. I recently sat through Oppenheimer in the theater without having to leave to use the bathroom. Killers of the Flower Moon be one of four 3:00 movies I've watched in the theater and I probably won't have to leave to use the bathroom—as I always make it a point to use said bathroom before the movie begins.

I hear the film's not totally representing the side it should. Gonna still give it a chance though to see what I get—especially because I tolerated/respected both Tár and The Fabelmans for their artistic and creative choices even though those movies were not really movies with mass appeal—less so with Tár though.

The first time I watched The Irishman was with my cousin and his girlfriend at the time and we barely stopped the movie—which is longer than Killers of the Flower Moon, though I admit I checked the time stamp often too. I use a timer with movies on my phone nowadays though as well just because I want to be able to get a sense of length while watching too.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Oct 23rd 2023 at 7:39:36 AM

I'm surprised its been rated a 15 in the UK to be honest

It’s pretty long, even with the so-called 15-minute intermission (it’s actually more like roughly 25 minutes). Me and my Dad went to watch it today at 13:15 pm and came out at 17:35 pm.

Intermissions don't really seem necessary in films nowadays. Then again, there'll sometimes be a rare occasion that I DO have to go use the bathroom during the movie, so it's not really a bad idea actually. I would think most people would be ready to sit through the whole movie without leaving and anyone else who had to use the bathroom wouldn't care enough to force themselves to stay.

Scorsese scored a pretty good opening this weekend. We'll see how the holds in the upcoming weeks treat him though.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Oct 23rd 2023 at 7:44:42 AM

The partner and I are still trying to find time to see this long-ass film so I can't otherwise comment on it, but Devery Jacobs (a Mohawk actress who has been working consistently on genre TV and indigenous-centric projects) criticizes the film's portrayal of the Osage on on the website formerly known as Twitter (courtesy link to Variety's article on the thread for those who don't have accounts on the website formerly known as Twitter)

The film has certainly opened a lot of discussion even from within the Osage community. Lots of mixed feelings, albeit positive in getting this movie out and telling this story to a wider audience.

One of the Osage consultants described the film as being meant for a white audience, not an Osage one. I think that's kind of important. Scorsese clearly worked hard with the Osage nation to make this, a lot was done to keep this respectful while pulling no punches in condemning the perpetrators of this violence, but...yeah, I can understand the bad feelings with all the deaths. It's gutwrenching. That's kind of the point, but still.

It's a brilliant film, but it's inevitably (and by design) going to inspire lots of conflicting emotions.

Based on what I'm hearing, more of a Native American perspective was needed since they're the ones being victimized in it.

Here's an alternate perspective from Brett Chapman, another Indigenous activist (an attorney in this case), responding to Devery Jacobs.

Well that's helpful I'm sure.

This is one that grows on me the more I think about it. Ernest in particular is such an interesting question mark of a character. He's fully cognizant of what's going on, but seems to lack any will power of his own and is very easily led.

Leo's character? Well based on the trailer alone, it's heavily implied he's torn between worlds certainly.

The trailers are misleading as hell about Ernest as a character.

I think the best part of the film is, exactly, Leo's performance.

The kind of guys that would think he is doing good, while someone is pointing him to the wrong direction, and even in the end, is able to autodestruct.

Not sure how, but being Leo making different characters from the same director, this is, by far, his best performance, getting a lot of distance from, despite sharing several challenges to, with his Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street.

I think is a big challenge for an actor like Leo to make a character so miserable, so dumb, so easily to manipulate that I think not even Jack Nicholson or Robert De Niro would be able to pull when they were his age.

And while De Niro´s acting is admirable, I think I saw too much The Intern to be capable to pull out his Bitch in a Sheep dress role....

Based on the trailers, De Niro definitely looks like he's the Devil on the Shoulder-type character.

@Diana about Ernest

I have some doubts about that… His reaction and hesitation in that scene gave me the impression that he was just now realizing that maybe the thing in those syringes was not insulin…

Anyway, I managed to watch the entire movie without intermission in the theater (even though I thought there would one), and I kinda think that’s the way it should be watched for the horror to fully sink in.

Edited by Lyendith on Nov 1st 2023 at 10:28:20 AM

Ernest already knew what he was putting into Molly's insulin, he wasn't realizing anything in that scene. He was just covering for himself like a coward.

Obviously, I gotta see the movie before I can talk about what happens in it. The trailer does make it look like he could also just act apathetically or complacent—both also bad—as opposed to being totally complicit.

Got out of Killers of the Flower Moon. A hard to watch but very powerful film that hopefully many more people see. I didn't know who the Osage were until I heard this movie was coming out. The simple fact that the book this is based on is now in a media that is more popular to consume should hopefully mean the story of the Osage reaches more people however admittedly flawed the format might be. Ask for the film film stuff the acting from everyone was very strong and very on point. This is going to be another Martin Scorsese classic yet.

Gonna reserve judgment of course though and hope that I enjoy it too. I usually go into most movies with that mindset.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Nov 1st 2023 at 5:45:26 AM

Robert Warrior, an Osage and a professor of American culture and literature at the University of Kansas, wrote an article for New Lines Magazine on the role of US federal policies in the murders that he felt were left out of focus in the movie. He highlights the government's pressure on the Osage to divide up their land into individual plots (which ultimately left them vulnerable to hostile takeover plots), as well as requiring them to have a white guardian just to access their personal finances (something that the movie does show, but admittedly went over my head while I was watching it).

There's also another interview at the movie's premiere with Osage language consultant Christopher Cote over the movie's scope:

I think this must've been a conversation that they had a lot during pre-production. However heavy its subject matter, the movie is a work of entertainment first and foremost. A good history book or documentary walks the audience through a slew of conflicting viewpoints so they could gain an all-around perspective of complex historical events; a movie, however well-made, must answer to dramatic constraints and simply doesn't have the space to dive into every nook and cranny of the story.

I haven't read the book, but my understanding is that it mainly explores the killings from the perspective of the Bureau of Investigation – which means it could also dwell on some aspects left out of the movie, like J. Edgar Hoover trying to bury the investigation early on. While Scorsese was reaching out to the Osage Nation in the movie's development, he "realised that [he] was making a movie about all the white guys" and started to rewrite the script. As Cote said, though, it would've taken an Osage filmmaker to deliver the story from an Osage perspective. Scorsese couldn't have done that because it's not his story to tell.

That's why the movie is centred on Ernest and Mollie's relationship. Ernest gives Scorsese an angle to the story that he's at home with: the toxic masculinity and petty evils at the heart of American myths. Mollie keeps the proverbial door to the Osage side open and lets the audience steal glimpses of their viewpoint without truly walking past that threshold. This isn't a film made for people who grew up with the story and are still living with its consequences – because again, that movie isn't Scorsese's to make. But to everyone else watching it, it's a cutting exploration of how far ordinary people are willing to go with historic acts of evil – and as Cote said, that's an angle worth putting forward to the wider audience.

I do feel that the movie's handling of that relationship is probably its weakest point. Ernest and Mollie don't really give off a strong chemistry between them, and the way the movie dresses down Ernest on every turn makes you wonder why she stuck with him in the first place. It's probably a result of all the conflicting narrative strains pulling on that story thread: their granddaughter Maggie, who apparently convinced Scorsese to focus on their relationship, is adamant that the two genuinely loved each other. Yet as Cote said, it's probably not exactly correct to use the world "love" to describe a relationship where one party is conspiring to murder the other and her entire family.

'Course, the movie highlights the white guardian issue multiple times, though it stops short of suggesting that it was the main reason Mollie stuck with Ernest. There might've simply been no neat way to put the answer in the mouth of a real, historical person who never got to tell us hers.

Gotta make a plan to see it. Luckily it hasn't left theaters yet.

I think one of the things that makes the viewer to keep thinking is about why Mollie married Ernest despite the fact she knows that he was not the right guy she would want, I know there is a part of the movie that relates to Mollie having a husband prior to meet Ernest and probably for these people getting married to white people has a sensation of exotism, but still....

The film shows-not-tells with several scenes of Mollie and fam as "incompetents" that the Osage are incentivized to marry white people because they can access their money easier. (It also went over my head.) Leo's heartthrob days are also behind him but maybe we were supposed to watch with that in mind lol.

Making a plan to see it this week—as well as Wish. Keep you guys posted.

Wonder if Robert De Niro's gonna get nominated for Best Villain. Wouldn't be the first time he got nominated for playing one in a Scorsese movie—first ever year of the Movie Awards by the way, that's for sure (or the first time he's been nominated in general for that matter).