FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/killers-of-the-flower-moon-review-a-work-of-art/ "Killers of the Flower Moon is a remarkable cinematic feat by the master Martin Scorsese, with exceptional contributions from Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, as well as a striking, breakthrough performance by Lily Gladstone. It unveils a harrowing narrative that prompts deep, poignant reflection on the past and present. Technically, all departments shine, but Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing is simply flawless. The commitment to authenticity and the use of the Osage language are commendable additional traits. The final sequence is one of the most powerful conclusions in recent years, a memorable, thought-provoking commentary on the desensitization of modern entertainment. A must-watch!" Rating: A-

First things first. There is absolutely no need for this to be 3½ hours long. It follows the story of the ambitious "Ernest" (Leonardo DiCaprio) who arrives at the Osage home of his venal uncle "King" (Robert De Niro) who encourages him to ingratiate himself with the wealthy, indigenous, population. He ends up meeting and driving the independent, no-nonsense, "Mollie" (Lily Gladstone) and after a while she starts to fall for his charismatic charms, they fall in love and marry. Though he does love his wife, "Ernest" proves to be a rather fickle and violent man who loves money more - and at the behest of his outwardly benign relative starts to implement schemes that will ensure the rights to the oil well heads move swiftly - and frequently brutally - to more "suitable" owners. This sudden spate of "accidents" and killings and the prudent action of the fearful local council alert the authorities in Washington who despatch a team of FBI agents led by the tenacious "White" (Jesse Plemons) to get to the bottom of things. Perhaps the "King" house of cards might now be becoming just a but precarious? DiCaprio is very effective here. He plays well a man who juggles internal demons and conflicts as he is cleverly manipulated by an on-form, slightly menacing, De Niro. It's Gladstone who steals the show for me, though. She plays the role of the decent and loving - but shrewd and savvy - "Mollie" strongly. As she starts to become a victim of her husband's avarice she exudes a sense of desperation that is both pleading and dignified and her struggle is potently illustrative of just how far the "white" man was prepared to go to get to - and keep - the money. The film is beautifully shot with a plausible look that helps generate for the audience a true sense of just how this outwardly genteel and civilised society was really anything but and the writing clearly interweaves the clandestine aspects of the the plot with the more noble ones. Perhaps sacrilegious to say, though, but at times it does really drag. I felt it could easily have lost an hour, condensed the story and immersed us more quickly in the characterisations and not really suffered. It's a good film, but it's not a great film and unlike Scorsese's far better "Irishman" (2019), I'm not at all sure I will rush to watch it again.

The importance of addressing (and attempting to correct) gross injustices can’t be overemphasized, and that’s the key objective behind writer-director Martin Scorsese’s latest release. This fact-based saga chronicles attempts by unscrupulous, two-faced White swindlers clandestinely (and sometimes quite brazenly) seeking to steal the considerable assets of wealthy Osage Indians in Oklahoma in the 1920s after oil is discovered on their land. This tragic tale explores the depths that these immoral criminals would go to (including murder) in the name of unabashed greed, efforts ironically spearheaded by the local, smiling, allegedly well-meaning sheriff (Robert DeNiro) with the help of his dimwitted nephew (Leonardo DiCaprio), especially in their scheme to shamelessly pilfer the wealth of the accomplice’s own wife (Lily Gladstone). The sweeping scope of this offering is indeed impressive, effectively brought to life by the fine performances of the three principals and an excellent ensemble of supporting players. And the stellar cast is backed by proficiently executed work in an array of technical areas, including production design, writing, cinematography and the original background score, making for a gorgeous picture to look at, all of which have earned “Flower Moon” a boatload of awards season nominations, with more undoubtedly to follow. However, the runtime of 3:26:00 – with no intermission – is a challenge to manage, even for the most patient and tolerant moviegoer. I streamed it, watching it in two parts, almost as if it were more of a TV miniseries than a standalone film, the only way I could effectively see myself getting through it. This handling of the story, in my opinion, represents something of a significant miscalculation by the filmmaker and the film editing staff – either cut the picture (which could have been done without losing much) or add a much-needed break partway through (which could have been accomplished without inhibiting the story’s continuity). In my view, I believe that the second half was far better and more compelling than the first and that some of the narrative’s more incidental detail could have easily been dispensed with without affecting the overall quality of the release. Still, that aside, it’s obvious that this project was a labor of love for the director, one with a clear vision of what it wanted to say in relating an important and little-known story of injustice in a nation that professes to be a staunch champion of truth and virtue, and, for that, we should be thankful for the enlightenment provided here. This unconventional take on the Western may not feature the traditional cinematic interpretation of cowboys and Indians, but it nevertheless sets the record straight about who the real villains are, at least in this story, a lesson from which we can all learn.