What Is the Metacritic Rating for Killers of the Flower Moon

Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon” achieved a Metacritic score of 89/100 based on 63 critic reviews, placing it in the “universal acclaim” category.

This 2023 film, starring Robert De Niro and Leonardo DiCaprio, secured one of the highest critical accolades for a major studio release that year, signaling widespread agreement among professional critics that the film is both technically accomplished and narratively compelling.

The score reflects a rare consensus in film criticism, where substantial disagreement between reviewers is common. Understanding a Metacritic score requires context. A rating of 89/100 means that critics overwhelmingly responded positively to the film, with the majority praising its direction, performances, and storytelling.

However, this score doesn’t represent an average of numerical grades—instead, Metacritic converts various review formats into a 0-100 scale and calculates the weighted average, emphasizing reviews from established and respected outlets.

The “universal acclaim” designation kicks in at 81 or higher, so Killers of the Flower Moon comfortably exceeded this threshold while stopping short of the rarest tier of critical perfection. The film’s critical reception extended beyond Metacritic.

On Rotten Tomatoes, “Killers of the Flower Moon” earned a 95% critics score, meaning 95% of reviewed critics gave it a positive rating. This alignment across multiple aggregation platforms indicates genuine critical consensus rather than a score that might be inflated by a particular website’s weighting methodology.

When both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes show strong numbers, audiences and film enthusiasts can reasonably trust that the film delivered on multiple fronts—whether in terms of screenplay quality, directorial vision, or performance caliber.

Table of Contents

• How Does the Metacritic Score of 89 Compare to Other Scorsese Films?
• Why Does the Metacritic Score Matter More Than You Might Think?
• What Did Critics Actually Praise in Killers of the Flower Moon?
• How Should You Use Metacritic Scores When Deciding What to Watch?
• What Are the Limitations of Relying on Metacritic for Film Recommendations?
• Beyond the Score—Understanding the Film’s Critical Context
• What the Future Might Hold for Killers of the Flower Moon’s Critical Legacy
• Conclusion

How Does the Metacritic Score of 89 Compare to Other Scorsese Films?

Martin Scorsese has built a career spanning more than five decades, and “Killers of the Flower Moon” represents a significant moment in his later filmmaking period. When compared to his recent work, the 89 score places it among his better-reviewed projects in the 21st century.

For context, “The Wolf of Wall Street” (2013) received an 80 on metacritic, while “Silence” (2016) scored 80 as well, and “The Irishman” (2019) achieved 94 on Metacritic despite mixed audience reception.

This positioning shows that Scorsese’s latest effort struck a balance—more universally praised than “Wolf of Wall Street” but slightly lower than “The Irishman,” which benefited from being an event film on a prestigious streaming platform.

The comparison to other acclaimed crime dramas and historical epics also provides useful perspective. “The Godfather” (1972) holds a 92 on Metacritic, “There Will Be Blood” (2007) has an 88, and “Once Upon a Time in America” (1984) scored 75 upon its original release but has been re-evaluated upward by critics over time.

The fact that “Killers of the Flower Moon” sits in the upper tier of this company suggests critics recognized it as a significant work, though not necessarily as universally transcendent as the very highest-rated films in cinema history.

This nuance matters because an 89 is genuinely exceptional without claiming to be a masterpiece every single person agrees on.

Why Does the Metacritic Score Matter More Than You Might Think?

The Metacritic rating carries particular weight in the film industry because studios, exhibitors, and streaming platforms use these aggregated scores to make decisions about marketing spend, theatrical run length, and awards campaign investment.

A film that scores in the 80s on Metacritic signals to industry decision-makers that critical legitimacy exists, which often translates to stronger awards-season visibility. “Killers of the Flower Moon” benefited from this dynamic—the score helped justify a major awards push that resulted in multiple nominations, including Golden Globe and Academy Award recognition.

Without that critical validation, even a film from a renowned director might struggle to attract the attention of award voters and prestige audiences.

However, there’s an important caveat: Metacritic scores can reflect the preferences of professional critics rather than the tastes of general moviegoing audiences. A film might score high on Metacritic because critics value ambitious narrative structure and directorial technique, while audiences seeking straightforward entertainment might find it slow or ponderous.

“Killers of the Flower Moon” runs nearly 3.5 hours, and while critics generally respected this length as necessary for the story, some viewers reported feeling the pacing as a drawback.

Additionally, Metacritic’s weighting system prioritizes reviews from major publications, which means independent critics or niche outlets might not influence the score as much as outlets like The New York Times or The Guardian.

This structural reality means a high Metacritic score reflects approval from the critical establishment but doesn’t necessarily predict whether any individual moviegoer will enjoy the film.

What Did Critics Actually Praise in Killers of the Flower Moon?

The 89 Metacritic score aggregates more than 60 individual reviews, and examining common threads reveals what convinced critics of the film’s merit. Most reviews highlighted the performances, particularly Robert De Niro’s portrayal of a white rancher involved in a scheme to defraud Osage Nation members of their oil wealth.

Critics also consistently praised Scorsese’s direction, cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto, and the film’s unflinching examination of historical injustice. The screenplay, adapted from David Grann’s nonfiction book, received credit for handling a complex and morally troubling story with appropriate gravity.

The film’s willingness to center Native American perspectives and suffering, rather than treating them as peripheral to a crime narrative, stood out in many critical assessments. Some reviewers specifically noted that Scorsese had evolved his approach to such material, moving beyond earlier films that might have centered white criminal protagonists exclusively.

This thematic dimension enhanced the critical score because reviewers valued the film as both technically accomplished and substantively engaged with difficult historical content.

That said, some critics felt the film didn’t go far enough in its critique of the white characters’ actions, or that it spent too much screen time on De Niro’s character at the expense of deeper exploration of Osage lives and perspectives.

These dissenting voices kept the score from being higher, illustrating how critical consensus can be broad while still containing real disagreement about the film’s ultimate success.

How Should You Use Metacritic Scores When Deciding What to Watch?

A Metacritic score of 89 indicates professional critics found “Killers of the Flower Moon” substantially worthwhile, but this information is most useful when combined with other factors specific to your own viewing preferences.

If you typically enjoy Scorsese’s work, a historical drama about crime and injustice, or lengthy character-driven narratives, the high score serves as valuable validation. If you prefer fast-paced entertainment, lighter subject matter, or films under two hours, you might want to read actual reviews to understand whether critics praise elements that matter to you personally.

The comparison between Metacritic and audience scores (tracked separately on the site) can also prove instructive. In this case, user ratings tend to run slightly lower than the critic score, which is common for ambitious films that prioritize narrative complexity over entertainment spectacle.

Reading a handful of individual reviews from critics whose tastes align with yours often provides more actionable information than the numerical score alone.

A strategy that works for many viewers is to use the 89 as evidence that the film is technically competent and intellectually serious, then check whether specific reviews mention themes or styles that resonate with you before committing nearly three and a half hours to watching.

What Are the Limitations of Relying on Metacritic for Film Recommendations?

One significant limitation of the Metacritic system is that it collapses a complex range of critical opinion into a single number, potentially obscuring important disagreements. A film that receives scores ranging from 65 to 95 might average to an 80, but that average masks the fact that critics genuinely disagreed about its quality.

While “Killers of the Flower Moon” achieved relatively consistent positive reviews (hence the narrow range reflected in the 89 score), other films display much greater variance. Additionally, Metacritic’s inclusion criteria—which outlets are counted, how much weight each receives—can subtly influence outcomes in ways the site doesn’t fully disclose.

A critic from a larger publication carries more weight than an equally insightful review from a smaller outlet.

Another limitation is temporal: Metacritic captures critical opinion at a specific moment, typically around a film’s release. Some films age poorly as critical consensus shifts with time or as historical context changes. Conversely, some films initially underrated by critics gain appreciation upon re-evaluation.

“Killers of the Flower Moon” has only been available for a short time, so the critical consensus captured in its 89 score represents contemporary professional judgment rather than the verdict of time.

It’s entirely possible that in five or ten years, critics will reassess the film’s handling of its historical subject matter or its narrative choices differently. Treating a score as provisional wisdom rather than definitive truth provides a healthier framework for engaging with critical aggregation.

Beyond the Score—Understanding the Film’s Critical Context

“Killers of the Flower Moon” arrived at a specific moment in American cinema and politics, and critics’ positive reception was influenced by these contexts.

The film’s unflinching portrayal of historical atrocities against Native Americans, and by extension its examination of systemic exploitation, resonated with critics during a period of increased cultural attention to Indigenous issues and historical justice.

Critics appreciated that Scorsese, at age 81, was willing to undertake a morally ambitious project rather than rest on his formidable legacy. Some reviews explicitly praised the film as culturally significant, not merely well-crafted—a distinction that elevates critical opinion beyond technical assessment.

This contextual appreciation is legitimate but also worth recognizing as part of how the score was formed. If a film tackles important subject matter with sophistication, critics rightly reward that choice.

At the same time, it’s worth acknowledging that critical enthusiasm can be influenced by factors beyond the film itself, including director reputation, timeliness of themes, and perceived ambition. The 89 score reflects not just whether the film is technically good, but whether critics believed it was a significant work.

This is actually valuable information, but it’s different from a score that purely reflected entertainment value or narrative effectiveness.

What the Future Might Hold for Killers of the Flower Moon’s Critical Legacy

Critical scores are not static, and while Metacritic doesn’t update scores retroactively, the cultural conversation around “Killers of the Flower Moon” may continue evolving. Awards recognition—or lack thereof—can influence how critics and historians assess a film’s importance. If the film goes on to win major awards and gain broader cultural resonance, its legacy strengthens.

Conversely, if it fades from cultural memory without sustained impact, critics might eventually view it as a well-executed film that failed to achieve lasting significance.

The 89 score represents contemporary professional judgment, but cinema history is written by decades of viewers and critics engaging with films over time. For now, the Metacritic score of 89 stands as evidence that “Killers of the Flower Moon” succeeded in meeting the high expectations surrounding a major Scorsese project.

It’s a score that validates the film’s ambitions while acknowledging that even universally acclaimed works contain room for disagreement and re-interpretation.

Whether future audiences embrace this critical consensus or revise it upward or downward remains an open question, but the score captures an important moment: a moment when major critics agreed that Martin Scorsese had created something worth taking seriously.

Conclusion

Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon” earned a Metacritic score of 89/100 based on 63 professional reviews, placing it in the rare category of films achieving universal critical acclaim.

This score reflects consensus among major critics that the film succeeds as both a technical achievement and a substantive work grappling with historical injustice, though it’s important to remember that a score of 89 still permits meaningful disagreement and represents one moment in critical evaluation rather than final judgment.

If you’re considering watching the film, use the Metacritic score as one data point among several. The score indicates that critics found it worthwhile and technically accomplished, but your personal enjoyment will depend on whether its themes, length, and style align with your preferences.

Reading a few individual reviews that share your critical sensibilities will ultimately prove more useful than any numerical score, while the 89 itself serves as a reliable signal that you’re approaching something serious and well-regarded by the critical establishment.

---

You Might Also Like

• What Is the Metacritic Rating for The Shape of Water
• What Is the Metacritic Rating for The Revenant
• What Is the Metacritic Rating for The Power of the Dog

Browse more: Box Office | Entertainment | Film | Movie News | Movies

For more on Metacritic Rating Killers, see the full breakdown above – the metacritic rating killers details cover what most viewers want to know.

Whether you searched for metacritic rating killers reviews, metacritic rating killers streaming, or metacritic rating killers cast, this guide consolidates the relevant metacritic rating killers facts in one place.