movie Killers of the Flower Moon | October 20, 2023 | 92% on RT, in cinemas now

[EdgeofTeeth]

The ending is what elevates this from a good to a great film, Scorsese is a genius for that.

 

Every performance is top-notch and the story is very empathetically told. The praise that Gladstone will get from this is well-deserved and I think this is the most impressed I've been with a DiCaprio role. That said, this is not a "leisure" movie. It requires you to pay full attention for all of its very lengthy runtime, and I'm not usually one to say this, but they probably could've cut at least half an hour without sacrificing any of its impact.

[fridayteenage]

https://deadline.com/2023/10/devery-jacobs-killers-of-the-flower-moon-film-strong-feelings-1235581251/

[Dark Phoenix]

This was amazing, it felt so well crafted and had that epic western vibe from the genre in the 90s, the only nitpick as the user above mentioned is that they could have cut 30min and it would have been better.

 

Also I would have preferred to have the story from the POV of the sisters, Anna was a great character and she was wasted, she should have been gone with a fight or something.

 

Mollie/Lilly was great but in the second half she disappeared from the film.

 

Also it could have been more smarter or clever, from the first moment you already know that King Hale is the mastermind being the killings and that Leo is with her for the money so you end up following the movie 3h knowing the final outcome.

[Digitalism]

Is this actually perfect like the internet is saying or is this just another case of white straight men upvoting films for white straight men?

[ctlp27]

This movie exceeded all my expectations for what I had hoped Oppenheimer would be. It's brilliantly crafted, dynamic, well-paced, and spans across multiple genres.

 

Lily's performance is utterly mesmerizing. She commands your attention in every scene, akin to a captivating piece of art.

 

Visually, the film is a feast for the eyes. The work of the director of photography, the intricate sets, and more are nothing short of incredible.

 

It's remarkable how energetically this film was shot, especially considering it's from the perspective of an 80-year-old Marty. What's truly impressive, though, is the editing. Despite its length, it never once feels tedious. I've seen two-hour movies that left me far more bored after the first half.

 

This movie feels like a collection of different films rolled into one, and while each segment is engaging, I particularly enjoyed the part with the sisters. If I had one wish, it would be for a bit more insight into the birth of the FBI, but hey, this would have been better suited for a miniseries!

[chiliam]

The film is well done, its lengthy and a bit drag out at some part but overall pacing is still ok and keep my interest.

But theres some icky feeling while watching this, im not sure if this story should be told through white men Leo & Robert character like that... the Indian people should get more backstory and screentime rather than focus too much on Leo character. And LiLy performance is amazing but her plotline/reaction at the end is so weird, like the guy have a hand in your family murder and she waituntil knowing about he druged her to piss off, like what sis.... She should be furious when knowing he involved with her sisters's murder

Edited October 30, 2023 by chiliam

[Ampersand13]

Okay, long time Scorsese fan and found myself moved and engrossed throughout this film. However, I had some takeaways that I’m not sure were intentional and would love to get some people’s responses. Had this film been received in a more controversial or divided way maybe I wouldn’t put so much stock into my perspective but just about every single major review I’ve read about this film is overtly positive without any mention of my qualms. All that to say, I think I must have misinterpreted certain elements, but if anyone has the time, I’m going to outline some thoughts in a hidden text below if anyone has some answers or observations. 

Spoiler

Okay, so I’ll preface this by saying the only thing I knew about this film heading into it was that it was long, acclaimed, and one viewing of the trailer. I didn’t know any of the backstory, how the film came to be, etc. I went in with as little information as possible intentionally. 

 

My qualms: Films about indigenous peoples are still incredibly rare. Which, to me, means that when one of their narratives has the chance to break into the mainstream and be told by major artistic players supported by major studios that the story’s primary focus should be on the people and their perspective. Now, I’m not saying Killers of the Flower Moon doesn’t include their experience or perspective, just that more often than not I felt like it was sidelined by the film’s primary focus being Earnest and his uncle’s orchestration of these murders.

 

My issue is not that this element of the story isn’t true or significant, just that every member of Mollie’s family felt quite underrepresented, flat, and forgotten compared to the white male characters. I kept hoping Mollie, Anna, Reta, and Izzie would get more screen time or become the focus of the story considering it is their family’s oil and they were the ones who were afflicted the greatest by Hale and Earnest’s crimes. In my mind, my question basically boils down to, with a story about the murder of Osage people and a family whose right and legacy was almost completely destroyed, why is the white man who helped orchestrate this heinous act the main character? Again, I’m not trying to criticize the film, I just felt like this was a strong narrative choice that no one seems to have a problem with and I’d like to understand why.

 

Secondly, reviews that I’ve read have written about Earnest genuinely falling in love with Mollie. Maybe I missed some subtleties, but I never got the impression that his love was ever fully authentic. I also didn’t feel like their relationship leading up to their marriage was well defined or explored. I kind of got whiplash when their marriage sequence came because I felt like we hadn’t seen enough of their connection yet (perhaps that’s how their relationship truly was, I just mention this because in the film itself I didn’t get the impression that Earnest loved Mollie but that he simply cared for her.) I mean the second scene they are together (after their marriage) he’s drunk and sending Anna away to her death and I cannot understand how we’re expected to believe that this man ever truly loved Mollie when he helped orchestrate the murder of her family  This point boils down to this question: did y’all get the impression from the film that their love (specifically from Earnest as I believe Mollie loved him) was ever truly authentic? Because if not, I think that makes Earnest’s arc a lot less compelling. 

 

Thirdly, I also don’t feel like it was clearly communicated that Earnest had any qualms with the crimes he was either committing himself or setting in motion. I didn’t really pick up much nuance from Leo’s performance (it was very good but not nearly as layered as other cast members’ in my opinion) in so far as demonstrating a character in internal conflict. He kind of just assumed the role of Hale’s bidding and sought to these horrific crimes. I read one review in particular that referred to this film as a sort of character study but I just don’t think the text supports that. There were multiple times (namely when Earnest is examining the remains of the house that exploded) where Earnest displays some kind of remorse but it felt a bit disingenuous considering his ultimate crisis of faith occurs when one of his children dies and he decides to testify against Hale. This particular beat didn’t land for me considering I never believed Earnest cared about his children in the slightest. We never see him be an attentive father and while he feels some sort of guilt for continuously poisoning his wife, I didn’t understand why his child’s demise was a turning point. If I believed he was a caring and loving father then of course that would be a convincing and earned crisis of faith turning point but as it stands in the movie I felt it was undeserved. 

 

My fourth point kind of goes back to my first one regarding the film’s focus. Obviously we are not meant to sympathize with Earnest, and I don’t think the film tries to make us. However, there were moments in which that line felt ambiguous in a bad way. Regardless of how bad Earnest may have felt at any given point throughout this story there is no justification for his actions. I didn’t get that definitive stance from the film. I’m not saying that the film attempts to excuse his actions or involvement but I just kept thinking, why are we watching this man feel bad or guilty about some of the most inhumane things including murder, theft, and abuse when we could be watching the perspective of those who had to endure the consequences of his actions? I think the latter would have made for a much more interesting story. In a three and a half hour story I just felt like it could have easily been a more balanced or ensemble effort. 

 

I have more thoughts but this is already so long. Again, these aren’t overt criticisms of the film, I just want to better understand people’s reactions because I feel like I watched a different movie and am interested in reexamining it keeping in mind others’ takeaways to these points. 

 

[X~MoviePoP]

Amazing film.

 

Wayyyy better than oppenheimer 

[Raptus]

Use the "spoiler" option if you gonna talk about the ending you f****** morons

[LittleStarmen]

This film clearly should have been a series

From the insane 3h30 runtime with so many jump cuts in time. Lily and Leo relationshipbeing so fast

 

We as the viewer are 100x ahead of the plot because of how its laid out.

 

The ending scene was great

On 10/22/2023 at 2:33 PM, jrd30121994 said:

This was a snooze NGL

 

On 10/23/2023 at 6:15 AM, zasderfght said:

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think this! 

 

I don't mind "talky" films, but, wow, I was bored. My boyfriend, however, is obsessed with American history, and he found this movie fascinating. 

This was a snooze 2/5 for me and its only nomitade for the oscar because its a big film

 

Dicaprio's worse performance

 

Lily should have been the protagonist but she feels like supporting which makes me think Emma might win

Edited March 4 by LittleStarmen

[harwee]

On 11/5/2023 at 9:26 PM, Ampersand13 said:

Okay, long time Scorsese fan and found myself moved and engrossed throughout this film. However, I had some takeaways that I’m not sure were intentional and would love to get some people’s responses. Had this film been received in a more controversial or divided way maybe I wouldn’t put so much stock into my perspective but just about every single major review I’ve read about this film is overtly positive without any mention of my qualms. All that to say, I think I must have misinterpreted certain elements, but if anyone has the time, I’m going to outline some thoughts in a hidden text below if anyone has some answers or observations. 

  Hide contents

Okay, so I’ll preface this by saying the only thing I knew about this film heading into it was that it was long, acclaimed, and one viewing of the trailer. I didn’t know any of the backstory, how the film came to be, etc. I went in with as little information as possible intentionally. 

 

My qualms: Films about indigenous peoples are still incredibly rare. Which, to me, means that when one of their narratives has the chance to break into the mainstream and be told by major artistic players supported by major studios that the story’s primary focus should be on the people and their perspective. Now, I’m not saying Killers of the Flower Moon doesn’t include their experience or perspective, just that more often than not I felt like it was sidelined by the film’s primary focus being Earnest and his uncle’s orchestration of these murders.

 

My issue is not that this element of the story isn’t true or significant, just that every member of Mollie’s family felt quite underrepresented, flat, and forgotten compared to the white male characters. I kept hoping Mollie, Anna, Reta, and Izzie would get more screen time or become the focus of the story considering it is their family’s oil and they were the ones who were afflicted the greatest by Hale and Earnest’s crimes. In my mind, my question basically boils down to, with a story about the murder of Osage people and a family whose right and legacy was almost completely destroyed, why is the white man who helped orchestrate this heinous act the main character? Again, I’m not trying to criticize the film, I just felt like this was a strong narrative choice that no one seems to have a problem with and I’d like to understand why.

 

Secondly, reviews that I’ve read have written about Earnest genuinely falling in love with Mollie. Maybe I missed some subtleties, but I never got the impression that his love was ever fully authentic. I also didn’t feel like their relationship leading up to their marriage was well defined or explored. I kind of got whiplash when their marriage sequence came because I felt like we hadn’t seen enough of their connection yet (perhaps that’s how their relationship truly was, I just mention this because in the film itself I didn’t get the impression that Earnest loved Mollie but that he simply cared for her.) I mean the second scene they are together (after their marriage) he’s drunk and sending Anna away to her death and I cannot understand how we’re expected to believe that this man ever truly loved Mollie when he helped orchestrate the murder of her family  This point boils down to this question: did y’all get the impression from the film that their love (specifically from Earnest as I believe Mollie loved him) was ever truly authentic? Because if not, I think that makes Earnest’s arc a lot less compelling. 

 

Thirdly, I also don’t feel like it was clearly communicated that Earnest had any qualms with the crimes he was either committing himself or setting in motion. I didn’t really pick up much nuance from Leo’s performance (it was very good but not nearly as layered as other cast members’ in my opinion) in so far as demonstrating a character in internal conflict. He kind of just assumed the role of Hale’s bidding and sought to these horrific crimes. I read one review in particular that referred to this film as a sort of character study but I just don’t think the text supports that. There were multiple times (namely when Earnest is examining the remains of the house that exploded) where Earnest displays some kind of remorse but it felt a bit disingenuous considering his ultimate crisis of faith occurs when one of his children dies and he decides to testify against Hale. This particular beat didn’t land for me considering I never believed Earnest cared about his children in the slightest. We never see him be an attentive father and while he feels some sort of guilt for continuously poisoning his wife, I didn’t understand why his child’s demise was a turning point. If I believed he was a caring and loving father then of course that would be a convincing and earned crisis of faith turning point but as it stands in the movie I felt it was undeserved. 

 

My fourth point kind of goes back to my first one regarding the film’s focus. Obviously we are not meant to sympathize with Earnest, and I don’t think the film tries to make us. However, there were moments in which that line felt ambiguous in a bad way. Regardless of how bad Earnest may have felt at any given point throughout this story there is no justification for his actions. I didn’t get that definitive stance from the film. I’m not saying that the film attempts to excuse his actions or involvement but I just kept thinking, why are we watching this man feel bad or guilty about some of the most inhumane things including murder, theft, and abuse when we could be watching the perspective of those who had to endure the consequences of his actions? I think the latter would have made for a much more interesting story. In a three and a half hour story I just felt like it could have easily been a more balanced or ensemble effort. 

 

I have more thoughts but this is already so long. Again, these aren’t overt criticisms of the film, I just want to better understand people’s reactions because I feel like I watched a different movie and am interested in reexamining it keeping in mind others’ takeaways to these points. 

 

 

Spoiler

Its been awhile since i've seen the film but this is how i see and remember it.

 

First i think the focus is on Ernest because the movie really is for the most part a conspiracy of crimes, and if molly was the focus the innner workings of the family crimes would feel like second-hand account and not authentic. I would say its a narrative effect more than anything. I think he's really in love with Molly but also loyal to William, so its complex, like a couple with intervening extended family members is how i see it.

 

I think its a good decision to not have everything be spelled out and slightly more open to interpretations because that really highlight the level of exploitation they endured. The Osage people are not naive, they were victims of sophisticated manipulation by william and ernest families, and that came through clearly because the motivations are more nuanced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ampersand13]

20 hours ago, harwee said:

 

  Hide contents

Its been awhile since i've seen the film but this is how i see and remember it.

 

First i think the focus is on Ernest because the movie really is for the most part a conspiracy of crimes, and if molly was the focus the innner workings of the family crimes would feel like second-hand account and not authentic. I would say its a narrative effect more than anything. I think he's really in love with Molly but also loyal to William, so its complex, like a couple with intervening extended family members is how i see it.

 

I think its a good decision to not have everything be spelled out and slightly more open to interpretations because that really highlight the level of exploitation they endured. The Osage people are not naive, they were victims of sophisticated manipulation by william and ernest families, and that came through clearly because the motivations are more nuanced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for responding! I really like your interpretation. It's been a minute since I've reflected on the film. I definitely feel less passionate about my initial take but maybe after some more time I'll give this a re-watch and see how that feels. Appreciate your perspective! 

[X~MoviePoP]

I stand my ground that this movie is 10x better than Oppenheimer