Killers of the Flower Moon. Based on a true story of how the Osage Indians were getting ripped off for the oil found on their reserve in 1920's Oklahoma.
They say money brings out the worst in people and some of the characters in this movie are definitely the worst people.
Robert De Niro plays the local godfather and Leonardo DiCaprio is his rather dim-witted nephew. Almost all of the Indians are good, well-meaning but unsophisticated people and the white guys are absolute bastards whose whole purpose in life seems to be to figure out more ways to rip off these folks who have suddenly found themselves with money that they never had before and, in the words of De Niro's character, "getting the money flowing toward us."
One thing you can say for this movie is that it's really... long. Like most of the Scorsese movies, there's twenty minutes of slow-moving build-up followed by three seconds of absolutely critical action and then back to the build-up for the next event later on. Is it a good movie? The story is interesting (and apparently true) and it sure looks good and (again like a lot of other Scorsese stuff) it's really trying hard to be an epic. It's one of those movies that would be twice as good if it was half as long. More action and less epic would tell the same story and appeal to a larger audience, I think.
Ultimately, it's a good movie but boy, it sure takes the long way around the bush.
They say money brings out the worst in people and some of the characters in this movie are definitely the worst people.
Robert De Niro plays the local godfather and Leonardo DiCaprio is his rather dim-witted nephew. Almost all of the Indians are good, well-meaning but unsophisticated people and the white guys are absolute bastards whose whole purpose in life seems to be to figure out more ways to rip off these folks who have suddenly found themselves with money that they never had before and, in the words of De Niro's character, "getting the money flowing toward us."
One thing you can say for this movie is that it's really... long. Like most of the Scorsese movies, there's twenty minutes of slow-moving build-up followed by three seconds of absolutely critical action and then back to the build-up for the next event later on. Is it a good movie? The story is interesting (and apparently true) and it sure looks good and (again like a lot of other Scorsese stuff) it's really trying hard to be an epic. It's one of those movies that would be twice as good if it was half as long. More action and less epic would tell the same story and appeal to a larger audience, I think.
Ultimately, it's a good movie but boy, it sure takes the long way around the bush.
Comment