I have to disagree on a point you made, “….great movies that take you on a ride, have you leaving your world behind to inhabit a new one, such that when you’re placed back in reality you’re stunned…”Killers of the Flower Moon” is not that.”

Maybe that’s because you’re a man, and not a woman. Yet another story where women have been used, abused, lied to and discarded, but this was truly horrific.  It hurt me inside to watch . Deniro was so good so slimy – he even talked Osage with the Indians. Gee, what a genuine guy (not) I fully empathized with these women. I’m still thinking about about it two days later and have had to go back and watch a few times, because yes, it is too long and so here and there I started to get tired…  I’m dying to know if this is a true story , especially the Indian lands and oil… and I thought that Lily Gladstone was beautifully cast.

The music was awesome did you know that it was the eleventh and final collaboration between Scorsese and Robbie Robertson, who died two months prior to the film’s release. The film is dedicated to him.

Holly Knight

___________________________________

I waited months to watch this as the trailers looked great, and  I love DiCaprio, DeNiro and Marty….but what a bore.  Robbie Robertson’s score was great and may he RIP….but Gladstone was like a Zombie….sleepwalking through her part….there was zero emotion from anyone except DeNiro….I felt it was unbearable, totally dull and and a huge disappointment and the worst offense a movie can be and that is a total waste of time!

I think you’d get DiCaprio if you watch Catch Me If You Can, and Gangs Of New York ( Maybe His Best).  He’s really great in those.

But Killers is a dud. It murdered itself with pomposity and a dull heaviness, that puts most everyone asleep who watched it.

Glad you seem to be feeling better.

Leigh Goldstein.

___________________________________

I just finished watching it too. I am also glad I did. However, besides the thing most everyone will say– it didn’t need to be that long– I will add that two things bugged me while I watched.

First, the way Ernest and Hale and most of the other local whites spoke with one another. By this I mean how they just repeated themselves over and over in a short conversation. The sisters didn’t do that, and Bill Smith (go Jason!) didn’t either. But after a couple of hours, watching Ernest and King have a conversation was killing me.

Second, I simply could not believe that Mollie would have gone on being so nice to Ernest after it became much more apparent what Hale and his minions were up to with the killings. She knew from the get-go Ernest was (at least partially) marrying her for her money. I wanted her to spit on him, to call him out, to punch him in the face. I wonder if any of that happened in real life.

I also had a small beef about the editing– the story seemed disjointed– but I concede that maybe there are things about Scorsese’s style that I just don’t dig. But overall it’s a great piece of work.

Beth Hardy McLennan

___________________________________

Long time reader, first time writer, but I felt compelled to respond to your Killers of the Flower Moon post, since I felt like you got it pretty wrong (when most of the time you get it very right). First of all, you should definitely read the book, which I read before watching the movie. I would challenge you to read the book, and then try re-writing or updating your blog post with that newfound understanding. The book goes into how the author visits the grandchildren of Ernie and Mollie, and learns that he reconnected with his children after getting out of jail. But they always had to live with the fact that Ernie had tried to kill Mollie and his kids that night Mollie’s sister’s house blew up.

The movie is 95%+ true to the book (it was awhile for me between reading the book and watching the movie, so I can’t say for certain it’s all true), and the book is 100% true. As for the motives of the characters, the author of the book doesn’t go very deep into the motivations of each person, and the movie does a good job or conveying that ambiguity and letting the viewer decide what was going on in each person’s head. And Mollie is intended to be played in a way where you can’t easily read her thoughts.

As for the movie’s length — yes, it was long, drawn-out, and slow, but so was the systemic killing of the Osage people. Scorcese did a great job of portraying how it was a conscientious choice for Ernie to poison his wife day in and day out, while keeping up the pretenses of a loving marriage for years, even having multiple kids with his wife. It is meant to be uncomfortable and drawn out.

Jessica Wang Kane

___________________________________

Glad you wrote about this.  One thing you didn’t mention that I think supports your thesis is the roles of modern Americana royalty, Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson.  I’m a big fan of their music but found their screentime in this pic painful and wanting.  It seemed like it was all for the cameo cache and their delivery was flat and uninspired.  This was particularly true of the scene between Isbell and DiCaprio when they are waiting together in the living room alone.  DiCaprio’s expressions are every contortion his face can possibly make, while Isbell lets the words fall out of his mouth with the excitement of a $0.99 slice of cheese.

David Gill

___________________________________

Thank you Bob for writing this.

Finally, someone who shares my exact sentiments on this film, Scorsese, Leo–he will never have what someone/an actor like a Cillian Murphy has, and DeNiro being the star.

I told a friend recently that believing that all of Marty’s films are masterpieces is just a placebo effect, because we’ve been told they are repeatedly.

I did enjoy Lily Gladstone and the unexpected guest appearances by Jason Isbell, Sturgill Simpson, Pete Yorn, and Jack White–but even those didn’t make this an amazing work.

Thanks for always being honest with your reviews and observances.

Cheers,

Siria Contreras

___________________________________

Great movie. Did you notice Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson? Very pleasantly surprised at how competent they both were with a cast like that. I guess if you can craft a great story in a song, it might be easier to act in someone else’s great story?

I have Apple+ along with all the other apps, but I watched “KOTFM” in IMAX the first weekend it went wide ‘cos I value that sort of immersive communal experience — saw IMAX versions of “Stop Making Sense” and “Godzilla Minus One” for that reason — but I wish I would have waited to see it at home.

Coming off watching the third and final season of “Reservation Dogs” (FX on Hulu), I wanted “KOTFM” to foreground the horror story of Osage genocide by bureaucracy, of extermination by rubber stamp and cheap booze. Instead, I got a tonal mishmash of three different films that lacked any hybrid vigor and felt longer than it was.

The sound design and photography were beyond reproach, and the coda — both metatextual and moving — sits among the best things Scorsese has ever done. But I’ve never felt more disconnected from the critical acclaim and my first impression, so much so that I’m almost moved to give it another try, from the comfort of my couch. But I won’t.

Erick Haight

___________________________________

I’ve begun questioning people who praise Gladstone and DiCaprio’s performances. I would hardly call what they did good and the movie was far and away the most overrated of the year… and that’s saying something for a movie that came out the same year as Oppenheimer.

Michael Vorhees

___________________________________

Oppenheimer was 10 times better than Killers of the Flower Moon and it will win best picture.

Robert Pisaneschi

___________________________________

lol.  Wrong.  So so wrong.
“This is an epic movie, which will probably win the Oscar for Best Picture…”

Oppenheimer will win that award And BEST DIRECTOR, among many, like it did a day or so ago at The Critics Choice Awards.

Steve Sequeira
Middletown, Rhode Island

___________________________________

Did you watch Maestro? I couldn’t watch more than about thirty minutes. I thought it was a steaming pile of crap.

Harold Love

___________________________________

I really appreciate you reviewing and shining a light on “Killers of the Flower Moon”, Bob.  I did venture out to a brand new theater to view it. The cushy reclining seats were a bonus. I was ready for the long screening, but in all honesty, the three hours and 26 minutes felt like 90 minutes to me. I was glued and wired in. Although a New Englander, I had done my student teaching on the Navajo Indian Reservation in the mid 70’s. That direct experience sensitized me to Native American culture. I have been an active supporter of Indigenous Peoples’ causes ever since. I happen to love Scorcese’s brilliant film. And the only problem I have with your review, is your take on the female lead, Lily Gladstone. You have to realize, Bob, that most in most Native Tribes, it is common for folks to be soft spoken. My students were quiet to a fault, very respectful of their elders, even to a young teacher in my case. I believe Lily’s performance was spot on, understated, quiet, mysterious. And like all great actors, the magic was in her eyes and her facial expressions. Kudos to Marty, who as a film elder, delivered an important masterpiece.

Cob Carlson

___________________________________

I saw it in the theater and I’m glad I did as it looked amazing on the big screen (as all Scorsese films do…props to Thelma Schoonmaker!). And I really enjoyed the film overall like you did.  But to me, it wasn’t as good as my two favorites of the year (Poor Things and Oppenheimer) because it had elements of what I had seen before from Marty.

For instance, at one point I was expecting DeNiro to tell Lily Gladstone to go look at some new dresses he just got that were down a dark alley because it felt like him once again doing clean up duty like he did after the Lufthansa heist from Goodfellas.  It was a very good film, just not his best.  However, I could say that Christopher Nolan just released his best film to date as well as Yorgos Lanthimos.

That’s my two cents.

Jaime Feldman

___________________________________

Molly is such a strong character and no dummy. De Caprio’s character was vapid and a complete lazy-ass with no backbone of any kind. The romance to me was not convincing. What was the attraction? He wasn’t even charming in a dumb sorta way. And why did she let him keep injecting her as she was clearly getting worse and worse? — and it wasn’t like he was out there taking care of business while she was wasting away.  So their story did not hold up for me and that was a giant hole in the plot. De Niro is always De Niro no matter what character he is playing. They just change the costumes and the scenery. Don’t shoot me, De Niro fans.

Karma Martell

___________________________________

I hear you regarding Killers of the Flower Moon, amazing to look at, I did read the book and it gives a different look into the Osage Tribe, more nuanced, more details fleshed out.Marty had to pick one of the many characters in the book and make it his primary story arc.The  book also gives us more on the birth of the FBI.  I , too, watched at home in two separate sections  , worked well .  It is a great movie , see De Niro shine , it’s a story we need to know.

Gerry Lauderdale

___________________________________

I agree with your assessment Bob. I watched it in the theater and did squirm at about the 2.5- 3.0 hours mark.

I went to see it because I am an admirer of Robbie Robertson’s work. It would be his last soundtrack.

I think this work would have been close to his heart because of his indigenous roots.

Good to see the soundtrack has been nominated for an Oscar.

The soundtrack was more blues influenced than I thought it would be, given the historical context/location of the film.

I would have like to have heard the Charlie Crockett song in the movie, even over the end credits, but didn’t.

Good also to hear a mention in the film by Leonardo’s character re: insulin being from T.O.

That’s where Banting and Best discovered it- at the University of Toronto.

Even though there are many films shot in T.O, it’s unusual to hear Toronto mentioned in a film.

Perhaps that was to be completist re: factual details of the film and likely it’s just a coincidence that Robbie Robertson was also from Toronto.

Ultimately it is a sad movie because of the very sad tale that it tells.

Paul Sanderson

___________________________________

Just read your comments on “Killers Of The Flower Moon” — and you’re right — it should have been a mini-series.

While the film is terrific, especially the first hour which dazzles, it also left me thinking that it could have been more. That Scorsese had the original script completely rewritten after he got to know the Osage is well-known now. But you have to think that some elements weren’t quite massaged well enough.

The Osage struck oil. Then they’re rich. But you don’t see the effects of this enough. Beyond that, one of the biggest issues is that it’s unclear what motivates DiCaprio’s character. If it was greed, then you didn’t see that. Was it to impress? Because he could?

Lily Gladstone’s character IS memorable. But it also seemed as if all of the sisters spent the duration of the film being sick. You wish there was enough time spent building their personalities up so that viewers could feel for them more.

DeNiro is superb and is the anchor of the film. But the film didn’t build to a stunning conclusion — unless you want to include that fairly unique concluding scene. All of the cards were laid out on the table well beforehand.

So again, as visually stunning as it was and as good as some of the performances were, you just get the feeling that it could have been even better — a true classic even — if some storylines were given more play and allowed to breathe.

I wrote more about it here for those who are interested.

Thanks…Scott Murphy

___________________________________

I watched on Apple over three nights.  I liked it, but didn’t think it was amazing. I was particularly disappointed by the ending – the radio drama seemed like a cheap narrative device.  Like Martin ran out of gas or was suddenly in a hurry to finish.

James Welby

___________________________________

Rarely touches your heart?
You must be a cold SOB, sorry to say.

Joanne Schenendorf

___________________________________

I loved the book and it really informs the film which leaves a lot out related to the hows and whys surrounding guardianships  and the formation of the FBI. Grann is granular (pun intended) but he ultimately pays it off in the end.

Barry Blumberg

___________________________________

Because of the interior nature of the film, after I watched it I wish I watched at home. Excellent movie .

Peter

___________________________________

Saw Killers Of The Flower Moon the Friday it was released in the evening after a full day of work. I knew not to get a drink before the film or during, so after the credits rolled I hightailed it to the men’s room to pish. I really liked the movie and especially the end as the radio drama, but my favorite movie of 2023 was The Holdovers.

If you haven’t seen it yet, I hope you do and I’d like to read your thoughts on that one.

Russ Turk

___________________________________

Agree with everything you say about this movie, especially Gladstone’s performance.

Steven Powell

___________________________________

Agree on the film, the book is a great Joe Friday true crime book. Easier to read than The Wager for mine.

Phil Bonanno

___________________________________

You know how I know you saw this at home?  OK because you started with that, but also because you didn’t even mention an incredibly crucial aspect of the film and to seeing the film as it was intended to be seen in theaters: Robbie Robertson’s brilliant score.

You want arc? How about considering the arc of Robertson and Scorcese’s musical collaborations over the years?  Among the many brilliant stories told in ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ and in the making of the film, one of them is how this final project between these two ends up being some of Robertson’s most emotional, personal, and gripping film work, something seeing the film in theaters drives home.

I did a podcast about the film and about how brilliant DeNiro, DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone, Scorcese, Robertson and so many aspects of this film are.

It’s really Scorcese’s defining masterpiece:  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/full-cast-and-crew/id1438276325?i=1000632654537

To quote yourself to yourself: you won’t listen to this but you should.  And the good news is you can pee whenever you want when listening to it.

Jason Cilo

___________________________________

Saw it in the theatre a month or two ago. I agree with every single point you made. We want so badly to experience excellence with recent art. Yet, it just doesn’t seem to get there. Same with Leo. I really, really like him, but it feels like I’m watching a guy who in the aggregate is a bit this and a bit that. Yet, he falls short of being transcendent, like this film. My dad has a saying when I send him new music, that he just knows too much. And when what you know and where you come from is exceptional, difficult for the new kid in town to make a mark.

Marty Winsch

PS – The piss I took after the movie ended was better than sex.

PSS – What’s Eating Gilbert Grape…I dig that Leo.

___________________________________

Agree with many of your points, I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to anyone and my initial thoughts were to rename it “Killers of the lost time” as there’s plenty of other things I could’ve been doing. I continued watching partly out of respect for Scorcese but also with the faint hope that something interesting would happen. That’s not to diminish the importance of the story as it needed telling, it’s just a shame it couldn’t have been told with engrossing acting performances and a little more intrigue. I pretty much knew what was going to happen next all the way through as any tension was pre-framed sloppily. DiCaprio”s deviousness could have easily been confused stupidity as I wasn’t ever clear what was really going on in his brain and therefore the development of a main character leaves big questions. DeNiro was the highlight but only stood out with generally flat performances across the board.

Nikky French

___________________________________

This is a first, my first ever answer to a Lefsetz letter.

 

For a reason: I can absolutely relate to every single word you’ve written. That’s exactly how I felt in the theater. A powerful movie with an incredible story that needed to be told, no doubt. With possibly the best De Niro in ages. And yet something was missing that would have made the movie a masterpiece. It’s also down to Di Caprio’s role, which is just a little too one-dimensional and dull. It’s hard to believe that he doesn’t undergo any kind of transformation in the course of the movie, that he’s so incapable of really liberating things.

 

Thanks for that, all the best

Torsten Gross

___________________________________

Spot on film criticism of Killers Of The Flower Moon.  I watched it with my wife. It’s her type of movie. She loves historical fiction, and is particularly drawn to books and films that tell the stories of women and minorities in America’s past.

 

I tapped out after an hour.  She made it through two hours, but said she just couldn’t finish it.

 

I know it’s blasphemy, but I’ve said for years that Scorsese needs an editor. His ideas for movies are great, but generally the execution is too meandering.  Maybe your analysis that the films are “flat” is the right one.  I feel they’re generally disjointed. And this film was definitely both.  Looked great, interesting topic, but the story wasn’t cohesive or that compelling.  The last thing I loved of his was The Departed, but even the films before that like Gangs of New York did not live up to their potential give the subject matter and casts.

 

I do disagree that this is the best of the Best Picture nominees.  I thought both Oppenheimer and Barbie were better films. Barbie won’t win, but I’d vote for Oppenheimer over Flower Moon.

 

Side note, Oldman is fantastic in Slow Horses. Without him, that’s a mediocre series, but his performance kept me coming back for every episode.

 

Seth Keller

___________________________________

I watched it in the theater. I, like you, was worried about the dash to the facilities. And I also made it all the way through without any trouble. I enjoyed it, thought it was great. I saw it in Helsinki and my date was shocked that it was based on a true story.

When I got home and remembered it was coming on Apple I was kinda sorry.

Oh well. At least I’m waking on Napoleon.

Tracy Lipp

___________________________________

I felt the same way about Oppenheimer: An amazing story rendered flat and forgettable.  I’m wondering if you’ve seen the absolutely wonderful but hard to find Sam Watterson version of Oppenheimer, created by PBS in the 1980.  Comparatively it’s low budget but far more informative and engaging than Christopher Nolan’s overwrought epic.  While watching the recent monstrosity, almost scene by scene, and character by character, I kept thinking back on the 1980 version, where I learned far more of what actually happened from pre Manhattan Project to the conflicts over the development of the “super” bomb and Robert’s ultimate disgrace. And as good as Matt Damon is, his General Grove lacked any real depth.  To this day, everytime I see Sam Watterson on any of a million cop shows, I still see him as the real Oppenheimer.

If you haven’t seen it, this is highly recommended if you can find it.  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078037/

wolfereeno

___________________________________

I have not seen Killers Of The Flower Moon yet, but now that it’s on Apple TV and because I am a huge Scorsese fan it is a must see. I’m always interested to read your commentary on how the younger generation(s) experience music and movies. I’ll be 50 in March and have a son who will turn 12 in February. So, when I read your comments I naturally compare it to what I am experiencing at home, raising my son. You’re not far off on a lot of things. Music doesn’t matter as much to my son and his friends as it did us. His favorite band is AC/DC and that’s because they play their songs at NFL games which he then hears on the Madden video games for his X-Box. Thanks to his mother and me, he’s been exposed to a wide variety of music, so I take comfort in that.

Movies, however, are different. Years ago I introduced my son to IMDB. My son loves lists and loves ranking things. So, the fact that IMDB has user ratings for every movie ever made and has a Top 250 list has instilled in my son a desire to watch the classics and understand why they are so highly regarded. Over the summer my son and I watched the entire Breaking Bad series (judge me for exposing him to violence at such a young age), which then led to us watching Better Call Saul. If you’ve seen these shows you then know Better Call Saul is much more character driven, which to a younger person may be boring. There was an episode where Jimmy McGill was sharing a dinner with his brother Chuck and his wife (a flashback scene). On the table Chuck and his wife were enjoying glasses of wine while Jimmy was drinking a bottle of beer. I asked my son if he understood what they were trying to accomplish with that and in his own way perfectly described that they were somehow trying to illustrate that Chuck existed in a higher class than Jimmy. He understood exactly the idea of character exposition and development. There have been many moments like this and his undying desire to see classics like The Godfather, Casablanca and others along with modern day movies gives me hope that there are others out there like him, which hopefully will give way to a wider variety and, yes, something deeper than superhero franchises in the near future.

Neil Johnson

___________________________________

I agree with you on this film. Good, but not greatness.

The feeling you describe of staring at a black screen when it’s over and done with, I experienced that this past weekend when I finished the series 1883.

It was phenomenal with amazing writing in my opinion. I just sat there afterwards, thinking. Reflecting. And then praising it to all of my group chats, saying it’s one of the best shows I’ve seen in recent memory.

I highly recommend you check out 1883 if you haven’t already. It’s a single season show on Paramount+ – 10 episodes. I’d be very interested in your take on that show – whether it impacts you the way it impacted me.

Omar Zulfi

___________________________________

We saw it on the big screen and were immensely relieved when it was finally over. “The English” was better. Scorcese’s film, like others we have seen in the past year, is too long. Why? They have lengthy sections that just coast on a theme that has already made its point. There is no development, narrative, character or otherwise for a significant chunk of the film. Just unnecessary repetition of a plot point. We just saw Poor Things…same thing. Asteroid City…same (alright, it was quirky, but still…). I binged season one of “Vigil” on the BBC iPlayer on my Macbook Pro and it was way better than “…Flower Moon”. It was produced by the same company that did the “Line of Duty” series.

Robert Bond

___________________________________

I saw Killers of the Flower Moon twice in theaters.  After I saw it the first time, I knew I wanted to see it again.  Like a lot of the best films, it is a much richer experience on a second viewing; knowing the story the second time around allowed me to focus more on the artistic flourishes and thematic elements that are so important to Scorsese.  I love how it subverts the standard narrative of the Western and really becomes an interrogation of American history.  It may not have the kind of dramatic peaks that you write about, but the flatness that you note in Scorsese’s work is what makes his films so potent for me.  He’s not really going for the typical narrative that we’re used to; he’s trying to get us to think.  I know that might not be the reason why a lot of people go to the movies, but at this stage in Scorsese’s career I forgive him that indulgence.  He’s an old man, and he’s trying to apply the wisdom of a long life to his art.

 

I love the performances in this film.  Leo DiCaprio is terrific in an incredibly understated way.  How many actors would willingly play a role that requires them to diminish themselves in front of the camera?  That’s what Leo does here in taking all the shine off of his persona and playing a dunce.  It’s the kind of work that most Hollywood stars don’t do because they’re more concerned about their image.  He’s really shown himself as the proper heir to Jack Nicholson or Gene Hackman, both of whom played such roles to perfection (see The Conversation for Hackman, and The Last Detail and Ironweed for Nicholson).

 

I think time will show this film to be one of the great American films of its era, and that it will become more appreciated as the years pass.  If you are able to watch it again, I’d encourage you to.  I know it’s a big ask in terms of time investment, but this movie rewards it.

 

Take care,

Wes R. Benash

___________________________________

One of your best writings/insights IMHO.

“  in a world where technology has delivered so much physical perfection we’re looking for something a bit flawed, a bit human, that makes us feel alive… We seem to have lost the art of chiaroscuro analysis. Something is either good or bad, period. Shades of gray are not allowed. But it’s in the shadows that things are unclear, where life and the mind truly live…”

Great stuff, Thanks!

Shepherd Stevenson

Los Angeles

___________________________________

“in a world where technology has delivered so much physical perfection we’re looking for something a bit flawed, a bit human, that makes us feel alive”

I think the last time a new movie did this for me was “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri.” Or maybe “Jackass Forever.”

C’est la vie.

Brian Howell

___________________________________

“Something is either good or bad, period. Shades of gray are not allowed.”

Especially in politics and the news media, where nuance is non-existent.

It’s almost like society itself transitioned from analog technology to digital technology, where everything is either 1 or 0.

Craig Anderton