Greed Arrives in a Wealthy Community, and Starts a Deadly Spread

Leonardo DiCaprio and Lily Gladstone in 
"Killers of the Flower Moon"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

One of the most significant aspects about director Martin Scorsese’s filmmaking is how he’s been able to show compelling views of America through many time periods, and this is especially true in his films that are based on real subjects.  He’s covered the boxing career of Jake LaMotta in “Raging Bull,” the life of gangster Henry Hill in “Goodfellas,” the Catholic-Protestant feud in the Five Points slums in “Gangs of New York,” the filmmaking career of Howard Hughes in “The Aviator,” the Wall Street years of Jordan Belfort in “The Wolf of Wall Street,”  and the tension between Frank Sheeran and Jimmy Hoffa in “The Irishman.”  With these stories covering many decades of nineteenth- and twentieth-century America, Scorsese has analyzed the country in such a way that has never lost its impact.

His latest film tackles a true story during an especially dark chapter in America’s history with “Killers of the Flower Moon.”  In a filmmaking career that’s stacked up with so many movies that can be considered his best, this is a film that continues this trend and can be considered another high point from one of cinema’s most prolific visionaries.

In the 1920s Osage Nation of Oklahoma, Native Americans gain vast riches after striking oil on their reservations.  During this time, Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns from the war to live with and work for his rancher uncle, William Hale (Robert De Niro).  Soon, at the behest of his uncle, Ernest falls in love with a local Osage, Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone), whose family owns oil headrights.  When his uncle begins having Osages killed in order to have their riches passed on to him and other white settlers, Mollie tries to keep her family safe, while Ernest is torn between the love for his wife and loyalty to his uncle.

This is DiCaprio’s sixth collaboration with Scorsese, and it further shows how well the two work together, with Scorsese eliciting another mammoth performance from his lead.  DiCaprio presents Ernest as someone who may be somewhat dim, yet noble; but also someone who can be easily corrupted.  He has a simple-mindedness that his uncle uses as a tool.  DiCaprio shows Ernest as someone who tries to be tougher than he really is and wanting to prove himself.  Even when he able’s to command someone into doing something, DiCaprio exhibits a shakiness in Ernest’s newfound assertive nature, and it’s that hesitancy that shows how much of a pawn Ernest is for his uncle, the one who’s really in charge.  Aside from that aspect of Ernest’s character, we see the other factor that makes this one of the most complicated performances of DiCaprio’s career, and that’s the deep love that Ernest has for Mollie.  It’s a love that flourishes, but is then poisoned by the greed that slips into it.  The inner turmoil that DiCaprio gives to his character is seen throughout, and he commands his role as he displays Ernest trying to grapple with this conflict.

Gladstone gives one of the most powerful performances of the year as Mollie.  She presents her character as someone who has a very guarded demeanor as she meets Ernest.  Even when Mollie warms up to him, Gladstone still upholds the protectiveness that her character has for herself.  There’s so much strength to her performance as she exhibits someone who’ll do whatever she can to safeguard whoever she can from being taken from her, showing resilience in the face of constant tragedy.  There’s as much going on in her quiet moments as there are in the moments when she speaks, and this presents Gladstone’s acting abilities beyond what we’ve seen before.  It’s impossible not to be pulled into her performance whenever she’s on screen.  She’s appeared in a handful of independent films up to this point, most notably with a terrific role in Kelly Reichardt’s 2016 drama, “Certain Women,” where she really got to shine.  But, what we see here is a door being burst open as to what else Gladstone is capable of doing.

A major accomplishments of the film is the stunning chemistry that DiCaprio and Gladstone have, especially near the beginning when their characters get to know each other.  There’s a dinner scene that they share, which is one of the best sequences in the movie; and, that’s saying something, given how this film is loaded with memorable scenes.  The way in which they slowly open up to each other, careful in what they say and how they say it, really sets the stage for what’s to come in their relationship throughout the rest of the film.  The connection that DiCaprio and Gladstone share in these few minutes shows you that you’re about to see one of the greatest screen pairings that Scorsese has ever assembled.

De Niro, working on his tenth film with Scorsese, gives an unforgettable and chilling performance as the snake-like William Hale who knows how to work people to his advantage and take whatever he wishes.  In a role that’s understatedly terrifying, De Niro shows Hale’s insatiable need for riches.  He takes what he wants and doesn’t care how many people he has to kill to get it.  De Niro exhibits Hale as an unstoppable force who presents himself as a benevolent community member, only to then unleash his venom on those whom he needs out of the way.  While this destructive determination is seen throughout the film, a highlight of this is a closeup shot of him as he walks through a crowd at a wedding as he marches towards his latest victim, exhibiting the quietly evil intent on his face as he remains fixed on taking out the Osage one by one.  Just like with DiCaprio and Scorsese, this performance is one that reminds you of why De Niro and Scorsese have worked so long together, and that’s because they know how to bring out the best in each other.

Among the rest of the cast, the standouts include Jesse Plemons as Tom White, the methodical BOI (Bureau of Investigation) agent with a looks-inside-your-mind investigative glare; John Lithgow as the committed prosecutor, Peter Leaward; Cara Jade Myers as Mollie’s rebellious sister, Anna; Louis Cancelmi as Kelsie Morrison, a sneaky accomplice of Burkhart and Hale’s; Yancey Red Corn as Chief Bonnicastle, the dedicated leader of the Osage who’ll do whatever he can to protect his people; and Sturgill Simpson as the murderous and cunning bootlegger Henry Grammer.  Similar to Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer,” we have a cast where, even if someone has just a couple of scenes, they show the fullest dedication to the material. 

The screenplay by Scorsese and Eric Roth, which is based on David Grann’s 2017 book of the same name, captures the sprawling, horrifying nature of the source material.  With a length of nearly three and half hours, this is Scorsese’s second longest film (just a few minutes shorter than “The Irishman”), but there isn’t anything that feels unnecessary.  Between the individuals of the Osage community and the white settlers who try to take their wealth, we see both sides of this conflict in tremendous detail.  The vast insights of Grann’s book are all there, bringing forth a story in its grim good-vs.-evil narrative.  The screenplay takes its time with putting all of its characters and tragic events in place as it builds and builds into pure darkness, showing the scale of this tragedy and everyone that was loss.  Then, once the BOI agents venture to Oklahoma to figure out who’s responsible for the murders, the narrative offers an intriguing and thorough view in how they went about rounding up the culprits.  We spend enough time with this aspect of the story as we get to know this new batch of characters who come in, leading to justice being served to those who chose injustice as their livelihood.

This movie continues to show Scorsese as a master of crafting some of cinema’s finest American epics, exhibiting a level of power from someone who still manages to top himself, even after more than five decades of filmmaking.  Working with Scorsese are those who’ve developed collaborative histories with him.  There’s his long-time editor Thelma Schoonmaker, who’s edited most of Scorsese’s movies and has the film go along smoothly.  You feel the length of the story, but not in a way that has you checking your watch, but in a way that has you feel the scope of the narrative.  The late Robbie Robertson, who passed away in August and has worked with Scorsese as both a composer and music supervisor, provides a first-rate score.  Rodrigo Prieto, who lensed Scorsese’s last two films, captures the scale of the Osage town and oil fields in imagery that transports you to what once thrived on black gold, but is soon overcome by death and moral decay.  However, Prieto’s biggest achievement here is the film’s final shot.  It’s an image that’s at once celebratory of the culture, yet haunting in what it’s endured, and is one of the finest endings of any Scorsese film.

“Killers of the Flower Moon” isn’t only in the running for one of the best films of the year, but possibly one of the best of decade.  The ambition that Scorsese shows isn’t surprising, but you still can’t help but be amazed at how he still finds new ways to astound moviegoers with how he brings a story to life.  We’re fortunate to have a director like him who cares so much about giving film lovers a movie that’ll cement itself in their minds both for its technical accomplishments and harrowing view into an American tragedy.  Once you see this movie, it’s one that you can’t, and shouldn’t, forget.

Grade: A

Decades Later, an Underwhelming Sequel to One of Horror’s Best

Leslie Odom Jr. and Ellen Burstyn in
"The Exorcist: Believer"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

Fifty years ago, the late director William Friedkin (who passed away in August) took William Peter Blatty’s chilling novel, “The Exorcist,” and gave audiences one of the most famous movies of the horror genre.  With its unforgettable performances and some of the scariest images ever put to the film, this was a masterpiece of terror, and we haven’t seen anything like it in the five decades since it unleashed its wrath on cinema-goers.

Now, director David Gordon Green, who took a stab at the “Halloween” franchise with his legacy trilogy (2018-2022), takes possession of the “Exorcist” series with “The Exorcist: Believer.”  Just like with his “Halloween” trilogy, this film ignores the two sequels and is instead a direct sequel to the 1973 film and the start of a new trilogy.  Unfortunately, this movie fails to capture even an ounce of the brilliance that came from Friedkin’s film, giving us a tension- and scare-free installment.

In suburban Georgia, Victor Fielding (Leslie Odom Jr.) is a single dad raising his teenage daughter, Angela (Lidya Jewett).  When she and her friend, Katherine (Olivia O’Neill), go missing for three days and are then found, their families are relieved.  However, the two girls begin exhibiting disturbing behavior, and their parents soon learn that they’re dealing with demonic possession.

When it comes to the cast, this is one of those cases where everyone has to do whatever they can with what little they have with which to work.  Odom Jr., Jewett, and Ann Dowd, who plays a nurse, have a little more than others.  However, despite their performances being decent, it’s not  enough to sustain any interest in their characters because of how flatly they’re written.

Ellen Burstyn reprises her role of Chris MacNeil from the original film.  While her acting is obviously good, one of the worst things about this movie is how perfunctory her appearance feels.  With only about 10 minutes of screen time, it all unfolds like your typical legacy sequel going through the greatest hits of what came before, trying to give moviegoers a reason to see this movie.  Given this film’s handling of her character, you don’t feel anything with Chris’ return, which is shame because of how this is the first time in 50 years since we’ve see this iconic character on screen.  

The screenplay by Green and David Sattler suffers the most from its bland characters.  While the original film had a quartet of deep, engaging characters played by Burstyn, Linda Blair, Jason Miller, and Max von Sydow, “Believer” doesn’t have any.  The biggest flaw comes from the lack of depth between the parents and children at the center of the story.  The child-parent relationships depicted lack the poignancy of what was seen between Burstyn and Blair, the latter of whom played Burstyn’s daughter in the original.  Aside from what we learn about Victor and Angela in the first 10-15 minutes, that’s all we get.  Angela and her father are interesting in the beginning, but they become boring, not having a chance to deepen their loving father-daughter bond.  When it comes to Katherine and her family, they’re dull right from the start and don’t become any better.  As for everyone else, we just get a few one-dimensional details.  Unlike Friedkin’s film, this movie sadly doesn’t bother with fleshing out its characters and their relationships before going into the possessions.  This one just feels like it wants to give impatient audiences the demonic confrontations as soon as possible.  Other than the lack of depth with the characters, we’re given sloppy writing all around and a couple of heavy-handed inspirational speeches.  And, even though the writers make a pretty bold storytelling choice in the end, everything else is so lackluster before that, so this moment doesn’t hit you as hard as it should.

While Green’s “Halloween” trilogy had its ups and downs, he nevertheless showed his capability as a horror filmmaker during those high points.  For his latest film, there isn’t anything to make you quiver.  Whatever tension this film has can be found in dribs and drabs with some of the camerawork.  Cinematographer Michael Simmonds, who first collaborated with Green on “Halloween” and lensed the whole trilogy, showed in particular with the first of Green’s “Halloween” films that he has a talent for shooting interiors in an unsettling way, and he does so in “Believer.”  Other than that, this film looks and feels like every demonic-possession movie from the last 20 years and will just make you want to rewatch the 1973 “Exorcist” to get this one out of your mind.

No one was expecting this latest entry in the series to be on the same level as the original, but it should’ve at least been good so that it could honor the lasting impact that the original has had in horror cinema.  Instead, it misses the mark entirely.  The next installment of the trilogy, “The Exorcist: Deceiver,” is already slated for April 2025.  However, given the emptiness of “Believer,” you wouldn’t be blamed for losing your faith in Green’s trilogy at this early stage.

Grade: D+

A Failing Company and a Game-Changing Event

Paul Dano in "Dumb Money"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

Given how many factors go into the stock market, it’s a marvel how any movie can juggle everything that such a concept involves.  With movies such as “Wall Street,” “Margin Call,” “The Wolf of Wall Street,” and “The Big Short,” each of them has provided a story that takes a look at this financial entity and the people within.  It’s one of those concepts where, if you don’t know much about it, there’s some fascinating viewing to be had as your eyes become open to the complex inner-workings of stocks.

Director Craig Gillespie decides to visit the stock market for his latest film, “Dumb Money,” a humorous and thrilling account of an underdog story from the labyrinth of finance.

In early 2021, financial analyst and YouTuber Keith Gill (Paul Dano) lives in Brockton, Massachusetts, and posts videos that help everyday Americans know which are the best stocks to buy.  When he and his viewers buy shares in the downtrodden GameStop video-game company and turn it into one of the most popular companies in the world, the higher-ups on Wall Street do what they can to turn the market back in the favor.

Dano offers an inspirational performance as a man who’s trying to help the little guy find his way in the tumultuous world of stocks.  He brings out Gill’s enthusiasm for his knowledge of the financial trading system, showing an individual who has the know-how to succeed and finds joy in seeing other struggling Americans achieve the same.  There’s an abundance of energy to Dano as we see his character going through the thought process of trying to decipher what’s going on with GameStop, figuring out his next move as he attempts to get his best advice out to the public.  While all of this takes place, Dano also brings out an understated emotional side to Keith as he continues to grapple with a recent personal loss, all while trying to maintain the bond with his family and care for them anyway that he can.  This presents a compassionate side to him that shows Keith is more than an online personality, and Dano brings both of those aspects to his character with typically superb effect.

Backing up Dano is a terrific array of supporting performances, particularly Pete Davidson as Keith’s brother, Kevin; America Ferrera as Jennifer Campbell, a nurse and frequent viewer of Keith’s YouTube channel; Anthony Ramos as Marcos, a GameStop store clerk; Shailene Woodley as Keith’s wife, Caroline; and Seth Rogen as Gabe Plotkin, founder and chief investment officer of Melvin Capital Management.  These performances offer a fine view into how this major financial event impacted different groups of people, and each of these cast members has a chance to make an impression in this finance-world tapestry.

The screenplay by Lauren Schuker Blum and Rebecca Angelo, which is based off of Ben Mezrich’s 2021 book, “The Antisocial Network,” may at times feel like it’s trying to be “The Big Short,” but it nevertheless offers a fascinating view into what happened during the GameStop short squeeze.  Even with its lean 105-minute runtime, the movie shows plenty of factors to this event.  Between showing this story through multiple angles, from Wall Street head-honchos to middle-class working Americans to college students, we see this story reach through several classes of people.  It’s a narrative with several intriguing layers that look into how average people bested those at the top, and how those at the top tried to stay there.

Gillespie, who directed the fantastic, irreverence-laced true story chronicle, “I, Tonya,” follows a similar laugh-out-loud approach to this film.  He does wonderful work with balancing the humor in the middle of the eye-opening details that come to light as the as the GameStop stock becomes hotter and hotter.  He maintains the tenseness and energy of the story with snappy editing by Kirk Baxter and a dynamic score from Will Bates, all of which help to keep you hooked as the film brings you through this surprising chapter of American finance.

While based-on-a-true-story films are always enticing, there’s a little more intrigue when the events of the film happened recently.  And, if you’re looking for a movie such as that, “Dumb Money” is a terrific story of everyday people beating the professionals at their own game.

Grade: A-

Once Again, John Carney Successfully Plays Your Heartstrings

Eve Hewson and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in 
"Flora and Son"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

Ever since writer-director John Carney made the luminous musical-drama, “Once,” he’s built up a strong reputation when it comes to giving you a film that provides beautiful songs, memorable characters, and an uplifting experience.  He’s consistent in making sure that you leave the theater in a state of elation.

Carney finds this kind of success for the fourth consecutive time with his latest film, “Flora and Son,” bringing you on a journey of the characters’ self-discovery as he meshes his signature love for music and film.

In Dublin, Flora (Eve Hewson), is a single mother who’s trying to keep her son, Max (Orén Kinlan), out of trouble.  With the intent on finding him a hobby, Flora salvages an old guitar and brings it home for him.  As Max intends to pursue music in his own way, Flora takes an opportunity to learn the guitar.  When she begins taking online lessons from a Los Angeles-based guitar instructor, Jeff (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Flora will find a passion for music that she never knew she had.

Hewson gives a superb performance as a mother who exhibits the tough work that goes into raising a child.  We see the hard exterior that her character has developed as she does what she can to get by and try to keep her son on a respectable path.  Aside from the emotional aspects of her character, Hewson also displays a lot of humor with Flora, exhibiting terrific comedic delivery with some of the film’s funniest lines, no matter the character with whom she interacts.  It’s an inspirational performance that shows how newfound talent can come out of hard work, with Hewson expressing the dedication and appreciation for this art form.  Over the course of four movies, Carney hasn’t reused any of his leads, showing that he can get a fine performance out of anyone with whom he collaborates, and his work with Hewson adds another engaging performance to his repertoire.

Gordon-Levitt couldn’t be better as Flora’s instructor.  The way in which he interacts with her shows so much of who he is.  While a lot of his screen time involves him being on Flora’s laptop, everything he says and feels comes through, as if he’s right there in the room with Flora.  In these scenes, Gordon-Levitt has several impactful moments where he explains the techniques of music and guitar-playing to Flora, and even though he shows a teacher-ly patience, we still feel that intense connection that he has to music and how much it means to him.  However, there are some moments when he’s there with Flora, mostly when they sing together as she imagines him there with her, and the way in which they’re able to connect through music shows their strong chemistry.

Although the songs from Carney and Gary Clark (who collaborated with Carney on the songs for “Sing Street”) aren’t quite as memorable as those found in Carney’s other films, Carney’s screenplay offers a narrative that’s presented in typically uplifting fashion.  Just as he’s done in his previous movies, Carney finds a new angle from which to present the familial and romantic bonds that can be found within a common love for music.  He has a talent for writing endearing interactions between his characters that really get you invested in what they’re trying to accomplish.  He gives equal amount of dramatic heft to both the family story and the love story, all while including some insightful views about music, which offer some of the most memorable dialogue that can be found in any Carney film.  As Carney has done in his other movies, he makes sure to offer enough time in between the songs for his characters to talk with each other and let us learn about who they are and who they want to be.

While Carney has shown an immense talent for staging energetic musical numbers, this film just has a couple, with the songs “I’ll Be the One” and “High Life” being the big song performances.  However, given the tone and story of the movie, the rest of the singing is appropriately more low-key and intimate throughout the rest of it.  With these kinds of moments, which are usually between Flora and Jeff, Carney uses this approach to absorb us in the growing connection between them as they practice their musical craft.  For the other parts of the film, Carney has a substantial handle on the humor and hardship that goes into Flora’s journey as she tries to find a balance between developing her creative side and maintaining her commitment to Max’s well-being.

Given how it’s been a little over seven years since we’ve had a film from Carney, it’s wonderful to have him back.  And, with “Flora and Son,” you’ll see that his penchant for heartfelt storytelling is still very much in tune.

Grade: A-