What should’ve been done differently?

The production design was excellent. It wasn't made out to be like you were watching a period piece, it was presented as this is just how their world is.

DeNiro was playing the same role he did in The Untouchables but with an Oklahoma dialect. He eas fine. DiCaprio looked like he was trying to be an Oklahoman rather than just being. He sounded like he had mashed taters in his mouth when he spoke.

Lily Gladstone was good. She seemed natural. I wanted more of her point of view and more from the pov of the Osage. But Bob and Leo were clearly the center of this story. Which has been Scorsese's bread and butter since the beginning of his career. He's always told his stories from the criminals' pov instead of from the pov of the people it affects.

Leo's character was supposed to be in his twenties. Leo is nearly 50 but looks older than 50 soooo.... Bob's character is supposed to be about Leo's age so he's about three decades too old. It might not bother anyone else but I found myself thinking about this throughout the film.

Leo was supposed to play the bureau of investigation character when the story was more focused on the law enforcement angle. Which makes more sense. Hearing Jesse Plemmons call Leo 'son' as if he was considerably older than Leo seemed off. But once the story was reworked to focus more on Ernest and King, Leo changed roles.

Like I said, it dragged a little toward the middle. It focused too much on Ernest and King being bad guys doing bad things. If it had widened the scope to all the killings going on and included more of the Osage then maybe that 3.5 hours would be worthwhile.

Once Jesse Plemmons' character showed up, it began to pick back up again.

Also, there's some mention of the Tulsa race riots but it felt like the film couldn't decide if it had enough time to focus on that or not. Had they fleshed that out more and tied it in with some correlations, it might’ve been effective.

Overall, it's a good movie but not masterpiece level.

The production design was excellent. It wasn't made out to be like you were watching a period piece, it was presented as this is just how their world is.

DeNiro was playing the same role he did in The Untouchables but with an Oklahoma dialect. He eas fine. DiCaprio looked like he was trying to be an Oklahoman rather than just being. He sounded like he had mashed taters in his mouth when he spoke.

Lily Gladstone was good. She seemed natural. I wanted more of her point of view and more from the pov of the Osage. But Bob and Leo were clearly the center of this story. Which has been Scorsese's bread and butter since the beginning of his career. He's always told his stories from the criminals' pov instead of from the pov of the people it affects.

Leo's character was supposed to be in his twenties. Leo is nearly 50 but looks older than 50 soooo.... Bob's character is supposed to be about Leo's age so he's about three decades too old. It might not bother anyone else but I found myself thinking about this throughout the film.

Leo was supposed to play the bureau of investigation character when the story was more focused on the law enforcement angle. Which makes more sense. Hearing Jesse Plemmons call Leo 'son' as if he was considerably older than Leo seemed off. But once the story was reworked to focus more on Ernest and King, Leo changed roles.

Like I said, it dragged a little toward the middle. It focused too much on Ernest and King being bad guys doing bad things. If it had widened the scope to all the killings going on and included more of the Osage then maybe that 3.5 hours would be worthwhile.

Once Jesse Plemmons' character showed up, it began to pick back up again.

Also, there's some mention of the Tulsa race riots but it felt like the film couldn't decide if it had enough time to focus on that or not. Had they fleshed that out more and tied it in with some correlations, it might’ve been effective.

Overall, it's a good movie but not masterpiece level.

Appreciate your thoughts on it and can certainly see how one might have felt that way. I, too, would have appreciated more about how the bad guys' actions really decimated the Osage. But, like you said, that's not how Scorsese tends to make films.

^^^^^^^^^^^
You also have to keep in mind that it was an adaptation. If you read David Grann’s book there were really 3-4 different movies that could have been made on just the source material there, including a biopic on Thomas White (Jesse Plemons’ character), going back to his days as a Texas Ranger. He was by far the most interesting character in the book, as a matter of fact.

I think at the end of the day what mostly attracted Scorsese originally was that it was an opportunity to set an organized crime drama in a new locale and completely independent of La Cosa Nostra, NYC, Vegas, etc. For him it was new ground, and that probably motivated and inspired him. He also showed tremendous respect for the Osage in the telling of the story. But at the end of the day racketeering is his wheelhouse.

I think where this film best serves the Osage and other First Americans is by putting a white hot international spotlight on this heretofore mostly untold story, in a way that only a director of his status and stature can. And that it opens the door for other filmmakers and creators - hopefully and almost certainly to include Native filmmakers - to fully break open this nut that he cracked for them; to delve into this story more deeply and from their perspective. And to tell OTHER such stories, including topics ranging from tragic to triumphant.

I really do hope (and believe) that this film will help create a mainstream demand for Indigenous stories and filmmaking.

^^^^^^^^^^^
You also have to keep in mind that it was an adaptation. If you read David Grann’s book there were really 3-4 different movies that could have been made on just the source material there, including a biopic on Thomas White (Jesse Plemons’ character), going back to his days as a Texas Ranger. He was by far the most interesting character in the book, as a matter of fact.

I think at the end of the day what mostly attracted Scorsese originally was that it was an opportunity to set an organized crime drama in a new locale and completely independent of La Cosa Nostra, NYC, Vegas, etc. For him it was new ground, and that probably motivated and inspired him. He also showed tremendous respect for the Osage in the telling of the story. But at the end of the day racketeering is his wheelhouse.

I think where this film best serves the Osage and other First Americans is by putting a white hot international spotlight on this heretofore mostly untold story, in a way that only a director of his status and stature can. And that it opens the door for other filmmakers and creators - hopefully and almost certainly to include Native filmmakers - to fully break open this nut that he cracked for them; to delve into this story more deeply and from their perspective. And to tell OTHER such stories, including topics ranging from tragic to triumphant.

I really do hope (and believe) that this film will help create a mainstream demand for Indigenous stories and filmmaking.

Well put. I'm looking forward to rewatching it.

I really do hope (and believe) that this film will help create a mainstream demand for Indigenous stories and filmmaking.

It's been nice to see at least some producers turning a corner in partnering with Indigenous nations both with Killers of the Flower Moon and the Osage Nation, and Echo and Choctaw Nation. Of course, it's great to have Indigenous producers like Sterlin Harjo creating shows like Reservation Dogs. I hope we get a lot more. I enjoyed all three of these productions that took place in Oklahoma.

^^^^^^^^^^^
You also have to keep in mind that it was an adaptation. If you read David Grann’s book there were really 3-4 different movies that could have been made on just the source material there, including a biopic on Thomas White (Jesse Plemons’ character), going back to his days as a Texas Ranger. He was by far the most interesting character in the book, as a matter of fact.

I think at the end of the day what mostly attracted Scorsese originally was that it was an opportunity to set an organized crime drama in a new locale and completely independent of La Cosa Nostra, NYC, Vegas, etc. For him it was new ground, and that probably motivated and inspired him. He also showed tremendous respect for the Osage in the telling of the story. But at the end of the day racketeering is his wheelhouse.

I think where this film best serves the Osage and other First Americans is by putting a white hot international spotlight on this heretofore mostly untold story, in a way that only a director of his status and stature can. And that it opens the door for other filmmakers and creators - hopefully and almost certainly to include Native filmmakers - to fully break open this nut that he cracked for them; to delve into this story more deeply and from their perspective. And to tell OTHER such stories, including topics ranging from tragic to triumphant.

I really do hope (and believe) that this film will help create a mainstream demand for Indigenous stories and filmmaking.

Well put. And that's probably also some of the problem I had with it too; it did nothing new. It was the same old Scorsese film just in a different location.

It's been nice to see at least some producers turning a corner in partnering with Indigenous nations both with Killers of the Flower Moon and the Osage Nation, and Echo and Choctaw Nation. Of course, it's great to have Indigenous producers like Sterlin Harjo creating shows like Reservation Dogs. I hope we get a lot more. I enjoyed all three of these productions that took place in Oklahoma.

Obviously he's not Native American but I think Taylor Sheridan is another producer that's done a good job of bringing Native Americans, their history and some of their current issues into the mainstream in a fairly respectful way and has done so with Native American actors.