Los asesinos de la luna

I'm not a die-hard Martin Scorsese fan. I have a deep appreciation for some of his movies, while others don't quite resonate with me. This particular film fell somewhere in the middle for me.

Considering its extensive three-hour runtime, the pacing held up well. I never found myself bored, though I can't say I was thoroughly thrilled either. There were moments when it seemed like some of the conversations lacked significant impact on the narrative. The movie truly hits its stride in the final third, where the tension escalates significantly.

The acting across the board was outstanding, especially from the lead cast. DiCaprio and De Niro, as always, delivered great performances, and I've become a fan of Lily Gladstone. The visual and set design were also top-notch.

I believe it's an important story, and it's skillfully told. While I don't have a strong urge to watch it again, I'm glad I had the chance to see it.

07/10.

Like every Scorsese film featuring Leo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, it's a unique experience. It's a production whose length can be overwhelming; it's slow and full of dialogue, so it's not for anyone who doesn't appreciate that. In my opinion, it's not my favorite by the director or the actors. Personally, I think it's a story about an ethnic group, but one where the focus is never on them. It's sustained by the performances of DiCaprio and De Niro, supported by a great Lilly Gladstone. Then, of course, it has top-notch design, costumes, direction, script, and acting. Recommendable, yes, but perhaps going to the theater won't allow you to fully enjoy it, given the above.

The film is ultimately hampered by its miscasting and excessive length.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro are both undeniably talented actors, but they are simply too old to play their respective roles. DiCaprio is 47 years old, but he is supposed to be playing a man in his early 30s. De Niro is 79 years old, and he is supposed to be playing a man in his early 60s. The age difference is distracting and makes it difficult to believe in their characters.

The film's runtime of 206 minutes is also excessive. The story could have easily been told in 2.5 hours or less. The film's slow pace and meandering plot make it feel much longer than it actually is.

This is a very good movie, but it could have been told in an hour less. The material is grim, but I guess that's part of the story telling.

I can't understand why this couldn't have been done in 2 hours. The plot didn't warrant it, and the acting almost held it up. But we could all see where this was going.

The court sequence was way too long and muddled the nature of the story. Is it an historical account of what happened to these poor people? Is it a story about duplicity in a relationship? Is it about greed and human nature? Is it about psychopaths? Or a court room drama?

For me, it would have been an 8/10 if it didn't drag on unnecessarily. Great acting. Great story. Just drawn out.

Before a premiere, I try to steer clear of trailers, reviews and other opinions. I just got a glimpse of a few loving reviews. Nevertheless, my expections were high because of Scorsese, De Niro and DiCaprio.

I hoped for a masterpiece, but this isn't one. It's a very well told story, that's historically relevant. The greed motives are very well implemented in this movie. As expected, the acting and casting was pretty good. De Niro was great, Leo did well (although at some points it felt a little over the top), but Lily Gladstone stole the show for me as Mollie. There's only one big BUT that doesn't make me give this a higher rating.

I looked a LOT at my watch too see how long was left. I don't mind slow pacing, but this is just too much. There's not really a point for this to be 3.5 hours long. In The Irishman I wasn't bothered by it. Now I was. Every other aspect was good - but not great.

The costumes, camerawork and scenery were lovely.