Martin Scorsese‘s latest epic, Killers of the Flower Moon, has been one of the year’s most anticipated films. Adapted from David Grann’s nonfiction book, the film delves into the Osage murders in the 1920s, when a Native American tribe fell victim to a grand conspiracy after oil was discovered on their land.

Scorsese’s legendary status in the film industry is undeniable. With a career spanning over five decades, he has given us some of the most iconic films in cinema history, including Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and The Departed. His unique storytelling style and ability to create complex, compelling characters have earned him a place among the greatest directors of all time, in fact, the fourth best of all time.

Killers of the Flower Moon is his latest offering, and given Scorsese’s track record, it’s a film that demands attention. The film is scheduled to be released in select theatres on October 6, followed by a wide release in the United States on October 20 by Paramount Pictures. An unspecified streaming release on Apple TV+ is also planned, making the film accessible to a wider audience.

However, on the 20th of May, the film premiered at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival, and the results are in. Per usual, critics have devoured the film, some loving it and some dismissing it. Let’s look at the first few reviews for the film to see what’s good about it, what’s bad, and whether we should give it a watch later in the year.

The Good

Killers of the Flower Moon has been lauded for its extraordinary storytelling. The film’s narrative approach, focusing on the complex marriage between Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Osage tribe member Mollie Burkhart (Lily Gladstone), has been appreciated for its depth and complexity. This movie provides a unique perspective on a lesser-known chapter of American history, making the film a compelling watch.

The performances in the film have also been a highlight. DiCaprio and Gladstone’s performances have been described as the “emotional powerhouses” of the film by The Atlantic’s David Sims. DiCaprio’s portrayal of Ernest Burkhart, a man torn between love and greed, has been praised for its complexity and depth. Gladstone’s portrayal of Mollie, an Osage woman caught in a web of conspiracy, has been particularly praised, with Clarisse Loughrey of The Independent describing her performance as one of the most extraordinary by a woman in any of Scorsese’s movies.

The chemistry between the lead actors adds another layer to the film. Their portrayal of the complex relationship between Ernest and Mollie, filled with love, deceit, and conflict, serves as the film’s emotional core, driving the story forward and keeping the audience engaged.

In terms of visuals, the film has been lauded for its stunning cinematography. The Atlantic’s Sims describes the film as “gorgeously photographed”, capturing the rolling Oklahoma hills and the bustling streets of the boomtown of Fairfax. The film’s visuals not only add to the storytelling but also enhance the overall viewing experience, making it a visual treat for the audience.

The Bad

Despite the positive aspects, the film has faced criticism for its length and pace. The Times suggests that the film could have been tightened up, indicating that the film’s extensive runtime may be a point of contention for some viewers. 

The Irish Times’ Donald Clarke also notes a sluggishness in parts of the film, with a succession of crimes that are too similar and fail to build upon each other. This criticism suggests that the film’s narrative structure could have been more varied and engaging.

Another point of criticism is the film’s focus. Clarke points out that the film, which is about the oppression of the Osage tribe, focuses almost entirely on the oppressors. This perspective may be seen as a missed opportunity to delve deeper into the experiences and perspectives of the oppressed, potentially limiting the film’s depth and impact.

The Bad

Despite the positive aspects, the film has faced criticism for its length and pace. The Times suggests that the film could have been tightened up, indicating that the film’s extensive runtime may be a point of contention for some viewers. 

The Irish Times’ Donald Clarke also notes a sluggishness in parts of the film, with a succession of crimes that are too similar and fail to build upon each other. This criticism suggests that the film’s narrative structure could have been more varied and engaging.

Another point of criticism is the film’s focus. Clarke points out that the film, which is about the oppression of the Osage tribe, focuses almost entirely on the oppressors. This perspective may be seen as a missed opportunity to delve deeper into the experiences and perspectives of the oppressed, potentially limiting the film’s depth and impact.

Does It Look Promising?

Despite the criticisms, Killers of the Flower Moon appears to be a promising addition to Scorsese’s filmography. The film’s storytelling, performances, and visuals have been highly praised, meaning it has much in common with Scorsese’s oeuvre. The Atlantic’s Sims describes the film as one of the most rewarding projects of Scorsese’s long career, which says a lot considering Scorsese’s best films.

However, the film’s reception may vary among viewers, particularly due to its length and pace. While the film received a nine-minute standing ovation at Cannes, as The Independent reported, indicating a positive reception from the prestigious audience, the criticisms suggest that it may not be to everyone’s taste. The film’s extensive runtime and slower pace may be seen as drawbacks by some viewers. However, for those who appreciate Scorsese’s unique storytelling style and are willing to invest time in the narrative, the film promises to be a rewarding experience.

It’s somewhat important to take any first reviews with a pinch of salt as they tend to slip into hyperbolic territory. However, it’s hard not to be excited about the film. Scorsese is an all-time great, and Killers of the Flower Moon looks like it might be a fantastic addition to Scorsese’s filmography; however, much like his previous film, The Irishman, which received some poor reviews for its length, audiences might need to be patient towards it. That being said, the signs are promising, and it looks like Marty’s latest effort will be worth the price of admission. P.S. I’m pretty sure Marty wants us to see it in the cinema.