‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ Review: A Killer Film That Just Didn’t Resonate
A Totally Reel Review
Rate It Out of Eight:
5.5/8
I seem to be in the very small minority here that didn’t love Killers of the Flower Moon. It’s one of those movies where I appreciate the technical aspects such as production design, score, and cinematography; all of the performances from Robert DeNiro, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Lily Gladstone were top-notch. And of course, Martin Scorsese explores signature themes of greed and corruption, and I’m so glad that he is the director who brought this history to life. But this is not a movie that I emotionally connected with and it’s certainly not one that I’m excited to rewatch.
I will say that going to an 11 PM screening after a week in the office is probably not what Scorsese meant by the “perfect theatrical experience.” While a lot of these thoughts were jotted down at 3 AM, I did spend a good amount of time today reading other reviews, revisiting the book, and trying to dissect why this movie didn’t quite work for me as well as it did for everyone else.
Probably my biggest complaint is that the pacing of the movie was slow at times in the second hour. Scorsese adapted the screenplay to have a different focus than the book, which unfortunately took out a lot of suspense. This creative decision meant that the movie was a straightforward, linear sequence of events that didn’t capture my attention for 3.5 hours. I’m not saying we need Nolan-esque non-linear time jumps, or that I don’t like the more intimate portraits of Mollie, Ernest, and Hale, but there were parts of the book that could have bolstered the second act more.
NOTE: This review will go into detail about both the movie and the book that it’s adapted from. While it’s not really “spoilers” since these events happened a hundred years ago, skip to A Scorsese Take on History if you’re unfamiliar with the historical events/movie plot.
A Dragging Second Act
Call me a TikTok-addicted Gen Z-er for all I care, but I’m not a fan of long movies. I like tightly written screenplays, directors who make the most use out of every frame, and editors who aren’t afraid to be decisive in the editing room. Not every director should be given complete creative freedom to patch together every meandering whim they’ve ever had (sorry Ari Aster). That said, Scorsese is in my opinion, one of the few directors who can justify the long runtime; but again, that does not mean Killers of the Flower Moon has to be this long to be a good film. Half an hour to an hour could’ve been cut or if it had to be this long, I wish that Scorsese had focused more on the investigation.
The first hour is so energetic and magnetic, even when it’s just Lily Gladstone and Leo DiCaprio sitting at a dinner table. The thumping sounds of the score, the constantly moving camera, and the exposition all kept me engaged. I love the sequence when Ernest (DiCaprio) arrives off the train and he sees white men chauffeuring Osage women as the voice over explains how the Osage came into their wealth. The camera was constantly moving and I remember at one point it was bouncing up and down in time with the car as Ernest was driving Mollie home. Movies based on true events in history can be bogged down in exposition, but Killers kept me engaged.
However that only made the contrast more stark in the second hour. My pacing issues with the movie boils down to this: it’s so obvious from the trailers alone who did it that there is no suspense built up. The book is written as a whodunit of sorts with clues and constant misdirection since it’s from the perspective of Tom White. In the movie, there are so many hints in the first hour that DeNiro is behind the murders. We actually see those two conspire to murder everyone, go around to recruit henchmen, and then the actual execution. But as a result, there’s no lingering questions to be answered. We know who did it, how they did it, and why they did it.
Scorsese could’ve built up suspense by giving more screentime to Jesse Plemons, who plays Tom White, as he tries to bring justice to the victims. But his character felt like an afterthought and the investigation unfolded so quickly because of how obvious it was throughout the entire movie. Ernest is depicted as an actual idiot and reminded me of the Miles Morales “not that dumb” meme. I still crack up at DeNiro yelling at him “the front is the front and the back is the back!” I really enjoyed the comedy and I think Leo DiCaprio was so entertaining to watch while DeNiro was evil incarnate right next to him. The scene when Ernest says “can you spot the wolves” is such an on-the-nose jab at how obvious it is to viewers. I suppose this could be interpreted as a critique of how blatantly obvious that there was foul play but law enforcement simply did not care enough to look into it.
Another way to build up higher stakes would be to focus on the trial itself and whether Hale and Ernest would be convicted for their crimes. The movie only briefly mentions how it’s easier to get a conviction for kicking a dog than for killing an Indian. After watching these men murder innocent people for 3 hours, the audience wants to feel vindicated. That’s partly why the ending didn’t feel satisfying — we were just told that they were found guilty. I understand the intent was to focus on Ernest/Hale/Mollie and less on the investigation and legal battle, but the third act felt too rushed. After all, this is 1920s Oklahoma with an all-white jury. This same conflict added tension and real stakes to the second half of the book even after the mystery was solved: “It is a question in my mind whether this jury is considering a murder case or not. The question for them to decide is whether a white man killing an Osage is murder — or merely cruelty to animals.”
A Distinct but Faithful Adaptation
David Grann is a compelling storyteller in his recounting of the much-forgotten Osage murders. One of the highlights is his direct use of Osage interviews and primary sources. Take the following quote for example:
“Your money draws ’em and you’re absolutely helpless. They have all the law and all the machinery on their side. Tell everybody, when you write our story, that they’re scalping our souls out here” — Killers of the Flower Moon, David Grann
The book incorporates interviews and primary sources and even dedicates the last portion to talking about how the Osage are affected to this day. There have been some discussions about whether Martin Scorsese, a white man, is the right person to adapt this story. An Osage consultant on the movie, Christopher Cote wished that it was told from Mollie’s perspective and done by an Osage director. He brings up a valid point that Mollie does get sidelined through a good chunk of the movie, but realistically no Native American director can command the budget, star power, and media attention that Scorsese can. I think Scorsese did the best that he could to represent the culture (the scene when Lizzie, Mollie’s mother, is in the afterlife is a nice reprieve in the grim second hour). But it is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
I do want to acknowledge that I can appreciate why Scorsese shifted the focus from the FBI investigation to the human relationships. The investigation takes up at least half of the book and the agency does have a complicated history. Instead, Scorsese narrowed the scope to the relationship between Ernest and Mollie and Ernest and Hale. Ernest and Mollie are the heart of the movie — we watch as he methodically poisons her every single day and then lies to her about it even at the very end. DiCaprio portrays him so well to capture the ambiguity — did he really love her? If he did love her, how could he conspire to murder her entire family and slowly poison her? Or did he lie to himself to avoid confronting his guilt? From his portrayal, I do believe he cared for her and that he couldn’t bring himself to think about what he was doing to her. The first hour focuses a lot on these two before the murder of Anna Brown really kicks off the action — and that pays off for the rest of the movie.
It was heartbreaking seeing Ernest inject the poison in Mollie day in and out. In the book, it was hinted that Mollie was poisoned but not revealed that it was Ernest until much later. But visually seeing her puking, sweating, and overall gauntness on screen was heartbreaking.
Ernest and Hale do get fleshed out more as they’re adapted for the big screen. David Grann did not give too many details about those two before the big reveal, but by revealing it so early on in the movie, the audience can better comprehend the magnitude of their greed. It’s one thing to read about the murder victims and wonder who did it. It’s another to see these characters conspire together and then turn around and comfort the family members of said victims. Killers of the Flower Moon doesn’t flinch from the grueling violence, which creates much stronger hostility towards Ernest and Hale. I thought the montage with Mollie narrating the victim’s name, age, and then “no investigation” with an overhead shot of their dead body on the bed was a nice touch. The camera’s constant movement in the first hour made the still shots much more jarring and only reinforced the lifelessness of these bodies.
A Scorsese Take on History
“The world’s richest people per capita were becoming the world’s most murdered. The press later described the killings as being as ‘dark and sordid as any murder story of the century’ and the ‘bloodiest chapter in American crime history” — Killers of the Flower Moon, David Grann
Despite my complaints about this movie, I do think Martin Scorsese did the source material justice and paid respects to the sheer magnitude of this tragedy. While he is not a Native American director, I do think he portrayed the story as well as he could and ultimately made the right decision to change the scope of the screenplay to focus more on the central relationships among the three leads.
Robert DeNiro, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Lily Gladstone all had fantastic performances and I imagine Lily Gladstone will definitely get an Oscar nomination (though Carey Mulligan in Maestro is still my pick for Best Actress) and either DeNiro or DiCaprio will get a Best Actor nomination depending on how they split Best Actor/Supporting Actor. I do wish Lily Gladstone got more screen time, I understand that historic facts can’t be changed, but she was sidelined at one point. The only performance I really didn’t like was a certain cameo in the courtroom. It felt like a jump scare and took me out of the movie to see him.
While Killers of the Flower Moon has incredible craftsmanship, vision, and performances, it’s ultimately not a movie I’m passionate about. I seem to be in the small minority that don’t hail this as a modern masterpiece, so please go to the theaters, watch this for yourselves, and form your own opinions (and feel free to fight me about it). I will say that adaptations are a tricky balancing act but Scorsese adds enough depth to this story to make it his own — but it’s just not one that I enjoyed.
And as usual, throwing in some Letterboxd reviews. Focusing on short, one-liners because there are enough film bros on the app writing paragraphs and singing Scorsese’s praise.
