There isn’t a better example of bravura filmmaking than director Martin Scorsese’s new Killers of the Flower Moon. It is almost unrivaled in every facet of the art and surely one of the best of the year.
But is it really his best, as some have suggested? “Almost unrivaled” because the nearly 81-year-old Maestro does have a rival and some serious competition:
From Martin Scorsese.
First, a quick review:
It’s the true story of the methodical plundering and killing of Osage natives who, shockingly, struck oil—lots of oil, on their barren-looking land. They became among the richest millionaires in the country and spent their money from the big oil companies in what became a boom town where white people sold them everything from new cars to premium furniture.
But it doesn’t take long before a rush of white prospectors and the settlers of the Oklahoma town get the idea to steal the Native’s property through tricks, slow poisoning and straight up guns and bombs. It is a shameful part of American history that relatively few people today are familiar with. After this, you won’t forget it.
Leonardo DiCaprio is at the top of his game as Ernest Burkhart, a World War I vet who decides to settle with his rich and powerful uncle, William Hale (Robert DeNiro, effortlessly magnificent). Hale claims to love the Osage Natives and he seems sincere—but there is something vaguely menacing in his eyes and leave it to “Bob” to play that subtlety in a way that makes the final act twisty-ish.
Leo is informed that a white man who marries a native is entitled to 100% of the cash and property upon the death of his wife. That fact alone sets up a big part of the narrative. As such, I will not spoil anything by detailing more plot points.
The art direction by the legendary Jack Fisk puts us in that specific early 1920s era with such naturalism that we get lost in time. The cast are already having their names engraved on nominations envelopes that won’t be sent out for months. Along with Christopher Nolan’s sterling Oppenheimer, Killers seems equally likely to get broad recognition during awards season, including all the technical disciplines.
Speaking of: get to know the name Lily Gladstone. She smolders at times and breaks your heart at others. It’s quite a showing from a heretofore unknown actress.
At 3 ½ hours long, this film isn’t for frequent phone checkers. No, this is a movie for movie lovers. Viewers wanting to be in another universe for a time. It unfolds at a deliberate pace; lots of quiet conversations and lowered voices that make the bursts of violence even more effective.
Smarter people than I have called this film a “Masterpiece.” Maybe it is. But I’ve felt a sense of hyperbolic praise for a movie that, as amazing as it is, doesn’t even make Scorsese’s Top 5. It is depressing, apparently accurate, and flows, despite needing to be tightened up just a hair.
But does it go as deep into the psyches of characters like Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull? Will it be a movie that you’ll watch dozens and dozens of times like, say, Goodfellas? No. Once will be enough for most, though I want to see it again.
I’d put it (just one idiot’s opinion) in the middle of the pack. Better than several by a mile, but not destined for legendary status like the five pictured below. I’d love to hear your thoughts. What are Marty’s very best?
Killers of the Flower Moon is in theaters and will be on Apple+ TV. It’s rated R. 3 ½ hours.