No matter what words I have for this film, it already has won a barrage of trophies, and is a Best Picture nominee this year, among its many other nominations. Of course, it is directed by Martin Scorsese, who earned his 10th Best Director nomination, becoming the most lauded living director.It’s part of the reason streaming services like Apple and Netflix give him massive budgets for films that likely will never make that back. The profile his films hit, and the status he gives to them during awards season is almost this intangible quality you can’t put a price on. Apple gets to boast a host of nominations this year, but really most of those are from Killers, as their other films didn’t pan out as expected. Yes, Napoleon has some technical nominations, but they still lack a strong in house animation studio, and indies like Fingernails and Flora and Son went nowhere.

It’s interesting that with all the praise, Killers missed in two categories. Best Actor and best Adapted Screenplay. There’s a reason for that. beyond DiCaprio not having a narrative as strong as his competition, he’s also an awful protagonist. For a story about how the Osage population found wealth in oil in the early 20th century, somehow DiCaprio’s white guy is the lead. It’s quite baffling.

This year, Killers also managed a SAG ensemble nomination, and one thing was missing. Native Americans who aren’t Lily Gladstone. Scorsese’s tale shoves them into such non-descript roles that they couldn’t really find anyone worth including, kind of once again wiping out and silencing this population.

We talk a lot about the white savior complex in films, and this is almost the complete reverse, where the movie is set up as white people destroying lives. Instead of using a modified “final girl” focus on Gladstone, for some reason DiCaprio is always front and center, which often leaves Gladstone’s character feeling quite stunted, which is why there was even a debate about whether she should be in the lead actress race.

DeNiro has compared his role, essentially the mastermind of this, as Trump-adjacent, but as he is quite outspoken against Trump, I think he’s just trying to have that comparison drawn. It’s actually a terrific performance from him, as he has such a recognizable voice that is seriously 97% gone. There were maybe a few words that sounded like Robert DeNiro, but his accent is terrific. It’s not a super loud role, or incredibly boisterous, and is definitely supporting. but he does a lot with it, and that is a well earned Oscar nomination.

other white actors with far more screen time than indigenous talent include Brendan Fraser, John Lithgow, and Jesse Plemons. The latter in that list is almost giving no performance at all. I feel like the direction for Plemons from Scorsese was to just be himself. Lithgow not surprisingly makes a good judge, and Fraser pops up for a few minutes to remind us that his dramatic turn in The Whale wasn’t a fluke.

I enjoyed the score, and Scorsese’s choices as a director, especially at the very beginning and very end are exceptional. However, for the other three plus hours, I can’t help but think this film would have landed so much better if the script had taken time to develop the Osage characters before killing them all off, and had made Gladstone the protagonist whom we see the film through her eyes. As it is, it’s not my favorite performance of the year, mainly because Scorsese seems to want to hold her back in favor of white male leads.

The fact that she’s gotten any attention at all for this is a testament unto itself. This does have audio description on Apple Plus from the ever present Laura Post, and the audio description is great. There are several scenes where the violence is a bit extreme and we get to see all of that. However, lines in the film made me question certain aspects. For example, one character is described as pretty banged up when their body is discovered. Later, a funeral director remarks that the body has no face, when he can’t believe the funeral is open casket. either the line is an exaggeration, or the narration dodged extreme gore. or, third option, Scorsese didn’t really show the face. Either way, that’s just one example of a little inconsistency and how it occurs. I see this in other films too, when I wonder if the character’s dialogue is to be taken seriously, or not, and how that relates to what we’ve been told.

It may sound like I didn’t like this film. I did. Yes, it is long. I always mention it just so people block the time, but there’s a false idea about film length, like it matters. It’s all about pacing, and understanding your subject matter. Does the screenplay warrant the runtime, or are you just beleaguering the development of the plot. Are we left with a lot of repetitive filler, scenes that go on for too long, dialogue that serves no purpose, etc. The truth is, pacing can be bad even in a short film. hell, even TV episodes suffer from pacing in some cases. Pacing is pacing, and a well-structured script can maintain any runtime.

Killers Of The Flower Moon’s screenplay by Eric Roth and Martin Scorsese might be flawed in its decision to elevate DiCaprio to protagonist for the film, but it fills the time and avoids lulls. Scorsese has plenty of interesting ways of keeping the momentum moving, and the film interesting. Even though I disagree with him as the lead, Leonardo DiCaprio is giving a great performance here, as are Gladstone and DeNiro. From what I can tell in the audio description, this has substantial costume design, some makeup work, and production design worth talking about. I’m less aware of whether or not this is the best Cinematography or Editing, and while I enjoyed the score by Robbie Robertson, there were more engaging scores. I don’t even remember that Original Song nominee. It must have been what was in the credits.

This is based on true events, and because of that, I think it’s very much worth watching. It won’t be in my top 10, but you might see it on some other lists for the year.

Final Grade: B+