Bad, bad Jack, feasting on food and scenery.
UPDATE: Revisiting "The Departed."
Everybody's saying "The Departed" is Martin Scorsese's best picture since "Casino" -- or even "GoodFellas." And some of the (over-)praise has struck me as pretty condescending to Scorsese: "Good boy. You stick to your mobsters now, won't you?" I'll go out on a limb and say I think it's his best picture since "The Aviator."
Adding almost an hour to the running time of "Infernal Affairs," the film on which it's based, "The Departed" does indeed fill in some of what one critic called the "ellipses" in the plot of the original film (and opens up at least as many other holes in the process). And yet, as others have also observed, Scorsese's movies have never been driven by plot but character -- and, in "The Departed," the characters, performances, moral ambiguities, and even the filmmaking prowess itself (all the things we treasure in A Martin Scorsese Picture) are not as rich or developed as those of its 2000 Hong Kong predecessor, much less Scorsese's own best and most personal work. (And let me add that this is not a knee-jerk response; I'm no big fan of Hong Kong action films. What I liked about "Infernal Affairs" was that there was more going on than in most of the HK crime movies or policiers I've seen, which I thought were bursting with empty action and little else.)
I'm going to write more about "The Departed" next week (to continue what I began in my MSN Movies essay, "GoodFellas and BadFellas", but in the meantime, I've patched together some of the critical observations from others that made me go "Yes! That's it!" -- either because I felt the same way, or because they expressed something I hadn't been able to formulate for myself in my initial thinking about the movie.
Meanwhile, after taking a look at these critical observations, please weigh in with comments of your own. (Just remember, it may take a while for comments to actually show up on the site.)
Martin Scorsese’s return to the contemporary gangster genre — via a remake of Andrew Lau and Alan Mak’s glossy, stylized Hong Kong film of 2002, “Infernal Affairs� – has a bored, dutiful feeling, as if Woody Allen had been forced to remake one of his “early, funny ones.� The plotting is completely artificial, and makes sense only within a context of self-conscious formal play: a junior member of Boston’s Irish mob (Matt Damon) is assigned by his eccentric godfather (Jack Nicholson) to infiltrate the ranks of the Massachusetts State Police, at the same time a dutiful police cadet (Leonardo DiCaprio) is assigned by his boss (Martin Sheen) to ingratiate himself with Nicholson’s gang. For the first hour or so, Scorsese and his editor, Thema Schoonmaker, treat the material as a premise for a virtuoso exercise in parallel montage; the film achieves a fugue-like structure at times, as Scorsese and Schoonmaker move through three or four levels of simultaneous action at once, finding creative and sometimes quite beautiful transitions based on matching rhythms, textures, movements, and shapes.
David Edelstein, New York Magazine:
The movie works smashingly, especially if you haven’t seen its Hong Kong counterpart and haven’t a clue what’s coming. But for all its snap, crackle, and pop, it’s nowhere near as galvanic emotionally. The star of "Infernal Affairs," Tony Leung, had the stillness of a volcano; in the film "Hero," he made practicing calligraphy seem fiery. DiCaprio, as good as he is, is on the lumpish side. He has a wide face and lots of brow to furrow, but Scorsese doesn’t linger on him long enough to help us connect with his feverish alienation. It’s easier to read Damon, with his darting little eyes and slippery-squirt smile, but we don’t give a fig about him. [Screenwriter William] Monahan has made the character more of an out-and-out villain—a conscienceless opportunist—than he was in the original. Sullivan hungers for a career in politics. He has no loyalty to anyone, not even his surrogate-father crime boss, and so he has no dramatic stature. Plus, he’s lousy in bed.
...[In] moral terms it may be the least involving story that Scorsese -- an artist much preoccupied with morality -- has ever taken on. Costigan [DiCaprio] spends years working for Costello [Jack Nicholson], unencumbered by the legal restrictions of being a sworn policeman, but he's never forced to do anything that truly repulses him; his only on-screen transgressions are a few beat downs of scumbags who have it coming anyway. Sullivan [Damon] takes advantage of his badge to romance a lively police psychiatrist (Vera Farmiga), but the relationship never prompts him to examine what he's doing with his life. The mentors are comparably one-dimensional...
Rick Groen, Toronto Globe and Mail:
Predictably, the dirty cop is having no trouble pretending to be clean, but this very ease is problematic. Sullivan remains a cipher, leaving Damon with precious little character to develop. He relies on his screen charm, which can be considerable, and his "Good Will Hunting" accent, which is formidable, yet it's just so much dressing on an opaque window.
JE: I want to mention here that I think all the performances (except Nicholson's) are terrific, especially Mark Wahlberg and Alec Baldwin, who are very funny. It's just that, as these critics have noted, the actors aren't all given full characters to play. The roles played here by Damon, DiCaprio, Nicholson and (especially) Martin Sheen were much more fully developed (and morally conflicted) in "Infernal Affairs."
"The Departed" isn't the masterpiece I have the feeling some may hail it as. It feels like the kind of movie critics might overpraise, if only because it's nice to see Scorsese back in the saddle and a treat to find a cops-and-robbers thriller with some energy and wit. [...]
In "Infernal Affairs," every plot twist clicked satisfyingly into place as the fate of the two leads converged inexorably toward a central vanishing point. The good guy pretending to be bad and the bad guy pretending to be good: What better setup for a classic existential and moral riddle? But here, for every "aha!" moment, there's an equal and opposite "ouch." It's hard to get into details without spoiling something in a movie this rife with double agents and triple fakeouts, but much of the two informants' surveillance—conducted by means of text messaging on barely concealed cell phones—is implausible to the point of absurdity, and the ending leaves several red herrings flopping on the deck. [...]
Rick Groen, Toronto Globe and Mail:
Yes, what with bullets fired between eyes and bottles smashed to faces and severed hands encased in zip-locked bags, there's gore aplenty here — another Scorsese trademark from his vintage years. But, back then, the violence arose naturally (and thus frighteningly) out of the characterizations — out of a raging bull's jealousy, or a goodfella's temper, or a taxi driver's pent-up ennui. This violence, however, jumps haphazardly out of the twitchy plot (courtesy of William Monahan's erratic script), and so it often seems gratuitous, inorganic, just splatter for splatter's sake.
Speaking of gratuitous, check out Nicholson, who, apparently channelling The Joker, mugs and rolls his eyes and delivers a performance as slovenly self-indulgent as his greasy comb-over. Astonishingly, Scorsese not only does nothing to rein him in, but occasionally adds an out-of-left-field sequence (the mobster in a literally operatic tryst with a couple of coke whores) that only encourages the guy's theatrics. The result? Rarely has a star's look-at-me turn so completely torpedoed a project. Whenever the picture threatens to gain some momentum, up pops Jack to stop it dead in its tracks.
J. Hoberman, The Village Voice (at least I hope he's still at the Voice, which has cut loose some very good critics in recent weeks):
Towering over both youngsters, Jack Nicholson has the meaty—and here vastly inflated—role of the patriarchal crime boss. Eric Tsang stole "Infernal Affairs" with his high-spirited moonfaced malevolence; Nicholson is handed the keys to the kingdom in his first scene. [...]
Neither a debacle nor a bore, "The Departed" works but only up to a point, and never emotionally—even if the director does contrive to supply his version of a happy ending. "I don't want to be a product of my environment," Nicholson boasts at the onset. "I want my environment to be a product of me." Yeah, yeah, and that's the problem. Overwrought as "The Departed" may be, it's nothing that wouldn't have been cured by losing Jack (and maybe half an hour). Too bad the bottom line meant Scorsese had to sell that hambone Mephistopheles his soul.
Manohla Dargis, New York Times:
Mr. Damon enters the story about the same time that Mr. Nicholson exits the shadows. Too bad he doesn’t stay there until the final credits. This Janus-like actor has long presented two faces for the camera, the jester called Jack and the actor named Nicholson. He has worn both faces for some of his famous roles, but over time he has grown fond of the outsize persona called Jack, with his shades and master-of-ceremonies sneer, and it’s hard not to think that the man has become his mask. Mr. Nicholson has some choice moments in “The Departed�: he owns the thrilling opening minutes and is persuasively unnerving in his early scenes with Billy, whom he only knows as a neighborhood loser ripe for the plucking.
But as the story twists and twists some more, Mr. Nicholson begins to mix too much Jack into his characterization. In Alexander Payne’s “About Schmidt,� he plays a man whose tamped-down disappointment meant that he had to pull the performance from deep inside; he committed to the part without the help of his sidekick persona. In “The Departed� he’s playing bigger and badder than life with engines roaring. It’s a loud, showy performance. Frank even comes equipped with a trove of gaudy accouterments: a goatee like an arrow, a leopard-print robe, a bevy of babes, a severed hand and a ridiculous fake phallus. Another actor might wear these accessories; Mr. Nicholson upstages them.
Nicholson is often hilarious here, but I would have liked to see him mute the wackiness a little in the interest of the movie's overall tone. The cutesy last shot, which I'll leave as a surprise for the viewer, seems complicit with the jokiness of Nicholson's performance, and it does a disservice to the seriousness (not to mention gruesome violence) of much of what's gone before. Though "The Departed" has flourishes of black comedy throughout, it's not "Prizzi's Honor"; it's a truly dark movie in which many people die horribly, and ending on a goofy visual pun makes fools of the audience for caring.
what's the pun at the end? I didn't notice it.
This disappoints. I thought "Infernal Affairs" was brilliant, emotionally fixating, you couldn't take your eyes away from it, for a second. Tony Leung, Andy Lua, Anthony Wong - the cast was extraordinary - reserved and realistic which gave it that much more power. I was very much looking forward to seeing "The Departed" (and I'm still going to), but now my hopes have been shattered.
Jim, there are other Hong Kong action films that are on the average far better than the trifles produced in Hollywood. Anything Johnny To touches has a level of class and sophistication that few filmmakers here can even mimic. "Running Out of Time", "The Mission" or Andy Lau's more recent "A World Without Thieves". There are many that are as interesting as "Infernal Affairs" - of course then there are also those that suck even more than Hollywood celophane.
While there were some great moments in The Departed, and while it's one of the better mainstream movies out there right now, I agree with your sentiments. Best since Goodfellas my ass -- I liked Kundun and Gangs of New York, both underrated, far more. Up to and including the final shot (and I hope you never include it in any of your future projects), this was one of the more ham-fisted Scorsese movies I've seen.
What The Departed excelled in:
1) The casting and acting;
2) The plot during the second half; and
3) As always, Thelma Schoonmaker's editing.
Still, Infernal Affairs is a better movie.
I'm glad to see that there are others, and especially you Jim, that agree with me on this one.
I enjoyed "The Departed," but Jack was a real distraction.
Also, and this seems to be only me, but didn't Schoonmaker's editing feel off? Many of the early scenes went on much too long for their own good (Leo's interview scene with Sheen & Wahlberg must have lasted a combined 5 minutes).
I don't know... I felt like the editing was missing the usual pizazz, the usual thrust that always made me excited to see what scene, shot, sequence, or visual idea would come next.
And speaking of visual ideas, why has nobody talked about the fact that "The Departed" basically had none. People compare it to "Goodfellas," but "Goodfellas" had visual ideas like the elaborate shot that follows Ray Liotta to the night club's back entrance, into the club, through the club's kitchen, and finally reaching the dining tables.
Even Scorsese's supposed "minor works" like "The Aviator" and "Gangs of New York" pulsated with visual strokes. I am reminded of Howard Hughes' crash in Beverly Hills, or the brief sequence in the sky while they film "Hell's Angels." I am reminded of Bill the Butcher walking forward while fireworks exploded behind his slim, foreboding body; and the shot when Bill throws his knife into the air, with the camera placed right above the knife's upward rotation.
"The Departed," while entertaining and humorous, lacked this presence. It is the first Scorsese picture in a long time that could have been directed by anyone else.
I have to disagree with the folks above. I loved the film. Definitely thought it was superior to The Aviator and Gangs of New York. It moved effortlessly between comedy, suspense, romance, drama, and Leo's performance was terrific. If there's one gift Scorses has, it's capturing the real personality of a working-class culture - here he shows that that culture doesn't have to be italian-american.
One thing I noticed, that's unrelated to your post Jim, but I thought you might have comments on is this: In the screening I was in, during some of the more ... shocking ... plot twists at the end (you know the ones I mean) the audience was laughing.
I'm wondering why you think this is? Is it today's ironic detatchment? Is it more laughter of disbelief? Is it just a natural human reflex? Or was the film meant to be that way? I'd be interested in your opinion. Somehow I don't think an arthouse crowd would have been laughing during these scenes, but this mainstream crowd sure was.
I think the movie suffers only from the fact that it has been hyped by several bad critics as the best Scorsese movie since 1990. It is not, but it's still a better movie than Infernal Affairs, and one of the best crime movies in a while.
I've seen already a couple of critics praising IA and then bashing The Departed's way of using cell phones as a plot device. Don't they remember the original? It's exactly the same!
I agree with the fact that it doesn't have the visual innovations of Scorsese's past, though, and I was a little let down by the movie, being a great fan of GoNY.
Maybe it was to be expected from a remake. Scorsese has such a great original mind that he shouldn't get lazy and use other people's materials.
Nick, I had the same experience. I saw the movie at an upscale downdown Seattle mall-tiplex, with a radio-station-invited promo audience. (Nearly twice as many people showed up with free passes as the theater could hold, so they turned away a big crowd.) During the movie, I noticed laughter during the exchange of the microchips (later I learned it may have been because the actors who were speaking Mandarin -- or was it Cantonese? -- were doing it so badly that those who knew the language laughed). Also, the rapidity and matter-of-factness of the killings at the end struck some as humorous/ridiculous -- underlined by the final shot of the rat, that ends the movie with a silly visual pun. I also think Nicholson's performance throws you out of the movie every time he appears and mocks what would otherwise be (and was, in "Infernal Affairs") a serious descent into hell on earth for the two main characters, both of whom lose their identities along with their moral compasses. I thought Dana Stevens at Slate.com put it best, as a problem of tone that the movie fails to contrtol (see "The Host" for an example of a movie that, as Manohla Dargis put it, can "change tone on a dime" and make it work for the benefit of the overall experience of the movie):
"Nicholson is often hilarious here, but I would have liked to see him mute the wackiness a little in the interest of the movie's overall tone. The cutesy last shot, which I'll leave as a surprise for the viewer, seems complicit with the jokiness of Nicholson's performance, and it does a disservice to the seriousness (not to mention gruesome violence) of much of what's gone before. Though "The Departed" has flourishes of black comedy throughout, it's not "Prizzi's Honor"; it's a truly dark movie in which many people die horribly, and ending on a goofy visual pun makes fools of the audience for caring."
Phillip: Thanks for the HK recommendations. After seeing "Infernal Affairs" (in preparation for that Scorsese piece, "GoodFellas and BadFellas," I'm in the mood for some HK thrillers that are about more than action sequences.
I think it's a mistake to make any comparisons between this film and any other Scorsese gangster films. The Departed is a crime-THRILLER, not a crime drama. As a devoted Scorsese fan, it does pain me a little to say that.
The film doesn't provide the huge insight into gangster life as Goodfellas or Casino did, nor was Scorsese trying to. I think he was trying to do his own version of The Third Man- just create an excellent thriller. In my opinion, he succeeded.
I wrote a brief review for a site yesterday, after seeing the film. In it, I mentioned that this was Martin's attempt at a post-Tarantino crime film, the irony being that Tarantino was a post-Scorsese filmmaker. I also felt that this was his first real 21st century film, since Gangs and Aviator were more like throwbacks to old-fashioned Hollywood filmmaking.
I have yet to see Infernal Affairs, so I can't make comparisons. All I can say is I loved The Departed for what it is.
I have to say that this is one of the better films that has tried to balance on the fine line between camp and colorfully expressive. Jack eating the fly... camp. The last shot... colorful expression. I liked the pun and thought it worked along the same lines as the execution of the bull in Apocalypse Now--visually likening the fiery onscreen characters (and their surrounding events) with an animal. It gives, in retrospect, some leeway to the often scampering and bull-headed (and vivid) logic of the rest of the film.
I take issue with Ms. Schoonmaker's editing, which exposed continuity problems aplenty. The broadstrokes were, as always, impressive. Individual scenes mounted with panache and energy. But I've never noticed on a first viewing so many unattractive disruptions in time and space--a little more and I would've written it off as intentional.
I was one of the astonished at the "surprise", much to the point that I was wondering what the hell Scorsese was doing. After a couple of days of mental digestion, I think that climactic punch works to heighten the moral sensitivity towards random (and often abstract) violence expressed through the film's guilt-ridden temperament.
And Wahlberg and Baldwin were hilarious.
In short, I liked it quite a bit. ***1/2
Jim,
Well not so you aren't totally surpised - they do have their fair share of action sequences, but as far as cleverness of story and interesting characters and situations, there's something far more exhillirating about them. I'll admit that the production values aren't as high, but it hardly distracts from the energy of the films. Two others: "Bio-Zombie" that for all of it's wackiness is a treat and a film starring Anthony Wong that I can't seem to find anywhere called "Violent Cop" - I remember it being slow, but it's all character and has quite the climactic ending - it's what made Wong a star in HK. There certainly are some gems.
I thought the movie was ok... but definitely agree with you, Jim, about the performances of most of the cast, particularly Wahlberg and Baldwin. I've only read a couple of reviews, and haven't done much else reading (so, thanks for your handy "Ultimate Review", Jim!), but there's something that I haven't seen commented on yet.
My take on Nicholson's performance, and his character, is that Costello is really gay. There was a scene between him and his girlfriend late in the movie that got me thinking about it (I can't remember the details, but the girlfriend made a remark about "straightening him out again" or something)... and I think it helps explain his performance.
Costello is such an over-the-top character (as is Nicholson's performance), that it's specifically a creation to try and hide his true nature; his sexuality is just another compartment in his heavily compartmentalized life (FBI informant? What?!?!).
He also had that great line about not wanting to be a product of his environment... which of course also raises questions about his childhood. Was he perhaps molested by a priest? (This is Boston, after all, home of the largest Catholic priest scandal in the US.) Is Costello really gay, or just the product of sexual abuse?
I was also thinking about Mark Foley, and about how having power while being in the closet can completely corrupt a person. I don't really think any of this stuff is overt in the movie, but I think it's a way to approach understanding the character, and the performance.
I just saw "The Departed" today, and visited this site on the off-chance that you might be discussing the film. Lo and behold, I discovered that you felt exactly the same way I did toward the film...namely, disappointed that Mr. Scorsese seems to be reduced to doing a "greatest hits" version of his own work.
It's one thing to note that every scene (and plot development) that works well in "The Departed" is just an American re-enactment of its equivalent scene in "Infernal Affairs". That I was expecting. What's so disappointing is that Scorsese doesn't bring any of his strengths to the adaptation.
All throughout "The Departed", I kept being reminded of something that Steven Spielberg said during an interview on Inside the Actors Studio. When one of the gushing students asked him how he dealt with "being Steven Spielberg", Spielberg replied that he never thought of himself as a legend, and if he found he did, he believed it would be the death of him creatively.
Whether you believe in Spielberg's modesty or not, he raises a fascinating point about a director achieving such legendary status that he begins to emulate himself, thereby killing any new artistic impulses he has. I am beginning to fear that this is exactly what has happened to Scorsese.
"Goodfellas", which I believe to be Scorsese's masterpiece, may actually have been the worst thing that ever happened to Scorsese. It seems as if ever since he has been either trying, unsuccessfully, to break away from being stereotyped as a director of mafia films...or, as in "The Departed" (and, I feel, "Casino" as well), he has tried to duplicate the "Goodfellas" formula. The problem is that Scorsese seems to have misunderstood what made "Goodfellas" so great...the compassion toward flawed characters, the willingness to walk in their shoes and understand their choices...not just the profanity-laced exchanges and sudden violence (although those factors also contributed greatly to the film's brilliance). The one success in Scorsese's post-"Goodfellas" career is, in my opinion, "Bringing Out the Dead", which, although a "Taxi Driver" retread, at least expands on Scorsese's career theme of how to find compassion and inner peace amidst an enviroment of chaos and violence. ("Bringing Out the Dead" is also Scorsese's most stylistically assured film since "Goodfellas"...that was another facet of "The Departed" that disappointed me, it's lack of a coherent rhythm, which is usually a Scorsese hallmark).
Scorsese is still one of my favourite filmmakers, and "The Departed" was still a reasonably entertaining film featuring strong performances. But it is nowhere near the level of this once-masterful director's best work. This is the man who brought us one of the great exercises in compassion in "Taxi Driver"...it's hard to believe that he's been reduced to imitating films that were already inspired by his own work.
I think I found the film a bit more substantive than you guys. Based in part on the Goodfellas and Badfellas piece, I tried viewing the movie as an extension of the ideas Jim wrote about, and consequently found The Departed very morally/spiritually bleak. Whereas in Goodfellas and Casino the characters revel in their ill-gotten lifestyles, here there is little or no joy, just work like any other job, with the exception of Jack, who could be seen as the Luciferian character, offering what ends up being an empty life. Unlike Henry Hill who didn't want to be another schnook, we see little of Costello's goons being anything but schnooks- they are mostly older, scuzzier and more depressing than typical Scorsese hoods. I thought the whole rat thing worked as much for "rat race" as "informant." I mean, as the twists emerge, it becomes clear there is little point to any of the choices Costigan and Sullivan make- at levels higher than each of them, decisions are being made that render their own work moot. I found it somewhat nihilistic, somewhat like Camus' philosophy of the absurd, where nothing means anything. And I also thought of Yeats' "things fall apart, the center cannot hold" and Vonnegut's "you are what you pretend to be." Maybe not the deepest characterizations of Scorsese's career, but I have high hopes for repeated viewings.
I agree with Mason (above). The Departed is a different "voice" than Goodfellas or Casino. To directly compare them is to miss the point. I loved this film. I watched Taxi Driver again last night, and was reminded of THAT Scorsese. I love the man. I love ALL (yes ALL) of the work that he has done. Watching Taxi Driver again, made me appreciate The Departed more. Because it helped me to realize that Marty was doing something DIFFERENT. And I think that if you watch the Departed in the right mental context...it works. And it works well. I felt like Marty and his actors were "riffing". I can forgive Jack chewing up half of South Boston in that context. To hell with it! I had fun watching this film. Here's a film you can have a blast watching and not feel dumbed down by it.
I think that all the talk about 'The Departed' lacking emotional weight misses the point. This movie was about Scorcese and his audience having fun again at the movies. A remake of a beloved Hong Kong thriller that ends with a well-placed homage to Reed's 'The Third Man' -- this is popcorn Scorcese.
That said, you can't get much better than popcorn Scorcese. Critics and film aficionados will argue lament the lack of popular acclaim for minor Scorcese or early Scorcese: 'The Age of Innocence', 'Mean Streets', etc. (one of my favorites will always be 'The King of Comedy' -- I like funny Scorcese). It's a form of film lover street cred, the more obscure the better. Remember the Sopranos: "I liked 'Kundun'".
The reason why people keep saying that 'The Departed' is Scorcese's best since 'Casino' is because this is his first popcorn film since 'Casino' that really popped. And like 'Casino' and 'Goodfellas', maybe this will be a film that inspires young viewers to dig into the Scorcese ouevre, to see 'Raging Bull', 'Taxi Driver', and eventually start seeing the films that inspired those films. Hopefully, 'The Departed' will inspire someone to see 'The Third Man'
I saw “The Departed� last night and afterwards my girlfriend turned to me and said, “That’s the best movie I’ve seen. What did you think about it?� I told her that I wasn’t sure and had to think about it.
At the time I wasn’t able to articulate what I felt and I still might not be able to, but I think I have realized what parts of the movie I had issues with. I haven’t seen “Infernal Affairs�, love Scorsese and really like the actors in the movie, so I was really looking forward to it.
I liked “The Departed.� There were times when I was thinking stuff like “I bet Nicholson added that line himself. Ooo that camera move was neat. I know Nicholson added that line. There’s a lot of music in this movie. This is a great movie. I bet that song is going to fade out, and then some dialogue, then the song will fade back in. I wonder why Scorsese didn’t say something about that part of the movie when he read the script. There are some really funny moments.�
Too many small things kept taking me out of the movie. When you’re watching a great movie you don’t think, “oh this is a great movie�, because you’re too wrapped up in it. Only after the fact do you think “wow that was a great movie�. After “The Departed� I just kept thinking about all of the little things in the movie. Overall I thought it was good, but not great.
I really enjoyed "The Departed", and while I see some of your points about Nicholson's performance, it didn't really detract from the film, at least for me. Still, I feel you're right-on about the condescending remarks many reviewers have been making. Many of these same critics were lauding "The Aviator" and "Gangs of New York" when they came out. What frightens me about the "Departed" reviews is that it's probably the least personal movie Scorcese has made. It lacks that same identifiable stamp on it (aside from the songs) that mark Scorcese's other films as his own. It seems to me that while many critics value personal touches and nuances from actors, they often dislike any unique elements a director tries to bring to the table. "The Black Dahlia" wasn't a great movie, but several critics complained about how it felt "too much like a Brian De Palma" movie, saying things to the effect of "I wish he'd get rid of his stylish flourishes and fancy camera shots and just get out of the way. Just tell the story, Brian!" In my estimation, De Palma turned cheap B-movie material into a flawed, but highly engaging movie. I value directors who have obsessions and passions that often serve as a common theme in their work. Directors and writers like Paul Schrader, Werner Herzog, David Cronenberg, David Mamet, Brian De Palma, Scorcese, etc... why are so many of these directors being asked, "Why can't you just do things like everyone else?" Any thoughts?
Back at ya later
One reason I think many critics are praising "The Departed" as a return to form for Scorsese is because of its mob-life subject matter. I know that sounds so over simplified. It's like this: Scorsese doing a gangster epic is like John Ford returning to the western. Both directors made movies in other genres but they were known for perfecting one. As much as Scorsese might want to branch out -- and, of course, he has done some amazing work outside of the gangster picture -- he will be known for his mob pictures: "Goodfellas," "Casino," "Mean Streets" and maybe even "The Departed."
As for "The Departed": I loved it. I was transfixed by it, I was entertained, I enjoyed all the performances -- even Jack's! (How in the world can anyone, even a legend like Scorsese, control Jack. Scorsese had to have known this going in and accepted the situation.) I will say, though, that the editing and camera work didn't have the energy that I've seen in other Scorsese pictures. I can't imagine Scorsese dedicating a year or more of his life to a picture not to throw himself into it totally so that lack of stylistic flair must be on purpose ... or maybe I'm just imagining things.
I took the movie for for what it is. I admit, I've never seen "Internal Affairs." And that's one thing that's bothered me, reading reviews of the film. Critics compairing it and contrasting it to "Affairs". I know it's only natural but it seems a bit unfair. "Internal Affairs" is "Internal Affairs." "The Departed" is "The Departed. This goes into a bigger picture kind of question: Shouldn't a movie be judged for what it is? I was watching "Ebert and Roeper" and Roeper and his guest critic (whose name I cannot remember. My appologies.) did an early review of "Flags of our Fathers." The movie did get two thumbs up although the guest critic's thumb wasn't as enthusiastic as Roeper's. She said the movie didn't reach the expectations set by "Saving Private Ryan!" What?!?! Yes, seeing the trailer does bring to mind "Ryan," which I consider the greastest war movie ever, but to compare another movie to it seems out of bonds.
I enjoy the blog, Jim. Hope the week off served you well.
I think people expect Scorsese movies to be measured on a different scale than "normal" movies-- but that's what this is: a normal , fun (yes, I said that) movie. My audience (a specifically entertainment industry audience) thought the movie was hilarious and so did I. Does that make the serious violence into a joke? I don't know. It makes the movie a bit of a mishmash, but I thought it was just a popcorn, enjoyable movie. Another competent director could have just as easily made this movie (though probably couldn't have drawn the super-A-list cast), and then we wouldn't all be talking so seriously about it.
CrapFellas!! That is a more appropiate title for this movie!! What is with many filmmakers that thend to get nostalgic and go back to their roots again and again! Stylish and with a cast of thousands! Who caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares!! How many times Scorsese is going to make movies about mobsters! Where is the so called "visionary" Scorsese. He claims that he never saw Infernal Affairs ...Really! That is like Tarantino saying that he never saw "The Dirty Dozen" when he comes around that World War II movie that he keeps working on! CrapFellas!!
P.S. Hey Jemerson! - Too bad that YOU DON'T GET Hong Kong action films!
MyloJosh Plochmann
JE: MyloJosh: Phillip gave me some HK recommendations. Got any you'd like to pass along? I'd like to see some good ones.
Jemerson!!,
"Confront the Beast and you will receive a Challenge!" Yeah! You can go through some of these: City on Fire!, Hitman!, The Tigers!, Meltdown!, Running Out of Time!, Fulltime Killer!... Of course the work of Tsui Hark is important to go and watch! I have to include Tony Jaa here despite he being from Thailand but because I am thinking in terms of an "Asian Action Film Genre" along with the "Asian Extreme" of horror filmmamking!...Also!! I recommend you to watch Robin Shou's docummentary Red Trousers - The Life of the Hong Kong Stuntmen! Your friend David Bordwell have a good book (Planet Hong Kong: Popular Cinema and the Art of Entertainment ) on the subject!!! Also read "Sex and Zen & A Bullet in the Head: The Essential Guide to Hong Kong's Mind-bending Films" by Stefan Hammond!
Those are good guides FOR YOU! Maybe some of the films are too wacky and genre bending for you but that is better than see Scorsese do another remake or sequel again!
MyloJosh Plochmann
JE: 谢谢
(Note: the following does contain some spoilers, though I don't go into too many specifics.)
I’ll go on record right now: I loved it.
I agree wholeheartedly that the “pun� at the end was a bad move; it made me a little embarrassed, even, and did take me out of the movie. But Jack’s over-the-top performance didn’t take me out; to me it made sense for such a force-of-nature character to be as much a force-of-nature as Jack Nicholson made him. I like the suggestion that Costello may have been gay; his constant womanization, along with his girlfriend’s “I’ll straighten you out,� does tend to suggest a hint of protesting too much. And the notion that he may have been molested by a priest as a child fits in very well with his scene confronting these priests; in order to play the powerful, compartmentalized personality it makes sense for him to act out. He’s not going for subtle.
I liked DiCaprio better than Damon, but thought both were very good. Damon’s character was much less likable and sympathetic, but I think his inability in bed points to his problem. He knows exactly what he should want, goes for it, buys the apartment that’s too big for one person in anticipation of finding himself a girl, but when he has it he can’t enjoy it. As far as his lack of loyalty to Costello, I got the impression that he had total loyalty to him until he discovered that he was an actual FBI agent who could very well sell him out; I think that that realization jolted him into enough of a moral recognition to be willing to give the DiCaprio character his identity back (before he was caught with the CITIZENS folder).
If you’ll indulge me a bit (and I apologize if this isn’t particularly coherent: I’m writing this somewhat on the fly), I think that the parallels between DiCaprio and Damon, and their fates, worked wonderfully. I liked the chess game between the two. I liked that both characters are torn between the law and the mob, represented most particularly by Costello and the psychiatrist. (Those two are themselves a nice point of contrast: he takes what he wants, when he wants, and takes out anyone inconvenient to him; whereas she acknowledges moral ambiguity, realizes that compromises must be made, and pretty much never does what she really wants to do.) The fact that they both pursued the psychiatrist suggests that they are looking for the same thing: sanity? Forgiveness? Peace of mind or a piece of ---? Damon projects confidence with her because he knows that Costello owns him, and DiCaprio projects vulnerability with her because he needs confidence in holding his own against Costello. And in the end the cops and the criminals are two sides of the same coin, just as these two characters are. (If you have a loaded gun, what’s the difference—right?) Take away Costello, the power- and status-seeker, who is the central figure in everyone’s lives and the reason most become either a cop or a criminal, and everything (and everyone) comes tumbling down like a house of cards: the cops in this movie exist BECAUSE criminals exist, and this film nails this perplexingly symbiotic relationship.
Maybe the film didn’t work as well as it could have, morally and in terms of the characters, and maybe the original was better. (I haven’t seen it, though now that I’ve seen this I’m very tempted to take a look.) But as a thriller, it was first rate, and it had a lot of fun twists and turns. I really, really enjoyed it—but of course, I’d agree with the “Best film since The Aviator� statement, because I really enjoyed that too. (It's possible that I'm too easily impressed.) I thought it was a marvellous thriller with a lot of meat on its bones—not anywhere near Scorcese’s best, but still very good.
Oh, and as an aside: as to whether some of the last twists were meant to be funny? I'd argue that some of them were definitely meant to be. In particular, one character actually says, "Okay" at a particular moment when he realizes his fate, and that sense of acceptance and resignation about what's about to happen is both sad and, yes, uproariously funny.
I honestly thought The Departed was a great film, and easily one of the best I've seen this year. I wouldn't say it's necessarily Scorsese's best film, not by a longshot, but Scorsese at 75% is better than most filmakers at 100%, and the film is very entertaining and engaging as it plays.
Is Jack a distraction? Yes, but an entertaining one, and I think that most audiences are likely to forgive him where critics are not. The real surprise is how Wahlberg and Baldwin give the best performances in the film, and makes a good case for Alec Baldwin getting some part in all Scorsese films from now on.
Anyone who hails this movie as some sort of return to form for Scorsese is clearly giving some sort of backhanded compliment. It's especially sad because last year's The Aviator was a damn good film, and some people seem determined to take away that accomplishment by way of praising this film.
My friend and I had a conversation a few weeks ago about how much more forgiving audiences are of ludicrous plots and dialogue when they're watching a subtitled film. Personally, I don't think anything in The Departed was more or less silly than anything in Infernal Affairs. If anything, I think it was thematically more cogent by ditching the "personal hell" spiritual weightiness in favor of a more "Wellesian" identity game. I kept thinking of Confidential Report for some reason...
As for the criticism someone made that the Departed lacks visual style... maybe there's nothing as blatant as the extravagant long take in Goodfellas, but I thought the entire beginning sequence in which Jack Nicholson is portrayed as either a silhouette or with his face obfuscated by shadow was a perfect set-up, not only for his character, but for the ensuing slew of shape-shifting characters. Also, there was point later in the film in which DiCaprio is tailing Damon through the streets, and as he glances into a set of hanging glass chimes, his own face is reflected back 20 tiny times over and is then overtaken by the larger reflection of Damon. Not really subtle, but it was magical.
I also found the editing very stylized, agressive, and energetic.
Is it possible to have a great time at movie...and be really disappointed?
That's exactly what I felt during The Departed. Living in Boston my whole life, I thought the banter and dialogue were dead on, (though the accents tended to stray in and out, and sometimes disappear completely.)
I don't know if it was Nicholson's big performance, or the aforementioned weak character development, but somehow it just all started to feel too sleek.
Having just recently watched Casino, I was yearning for that type of cinematic brilliance. In the first ten minutes of The Departed, (with the Rolling Stones playing and the footage of the Bussing Riots,) I was elated. Then it all started falling apart.
People from Boston will know what I mean when I say:
Please, please, Mr Scorcese, please return to this ground. I am sure that you are the only one who can make the real film about Whitey Bulger and his Gang. I know you must have read Black Mass when preparing for The Departed. Please come back and make that movie.
I think some people are overselling "Infernal Affairs" a little bit. It's a very good movie, but owes a great debt to "Hard Boiled." Tony Leung played almost the exact same character in that movie. Even the scene between Leung and Anthony Wong, also in "Hard Boiled", where Leung mentions that he forgot his own birthday was taken from a very similar scene in the older movie.
As far as Nicholson's performance is concerned I think it could have been toned town a little bit, or it would have been nice to at least learn why Costello is going crazy. But it didn't affect my enjoyment of the movie. And Frank Costello is certainly more of a presence in this movie than the same character in the original.
I guess all things considered I put "The Departed" a notch or two above "Infernal Affairs", but both are worthy of a spot on my DVD shelf.
I have to agree with critics who say it's Scorsese's best film in a while, though I would say it's the best since "Bringing out the Dead" perhaps the only recent Scorsese film that qualifies as underrated.
Having said that, "The Departed" still is pretty mediocre fare. I simply cannot imagine how anyone can take the movie seriously; I don't think Scorsese did. Then again, I thought the same thing of the outrageous (outrageously awful) "Gangs of New York" and it wound up getting nominated, so whatever.
As camp, as pure schtick, "The Departed" works pretty well, and the parade of one-note performances is what makes it run. Personally, I would have enjoyed the movie more if it just devolved into a series of increasingly ridiculous and offensive scenes in which Mark Wahleberg's character verbally harrasses random people: set him off in the children's cancer ward and have him tell the kids "You're all fucking pricks, and I'm gonna laugh when you fucking die!" Now that's a movie.
I see Scorsese's last three movies as either failures or parodies. I want to believe the latter, but I've seen or heard no evidence to support that Scorsese has intentionally gone that route.
Of course, I have to admit I also thought "GoodFellas" was atrocious, so perhaps I'm just not in tune with latter-day Marty.
Hey Jim. I just wanted to chime in on a few things. I find it kind of infuriating that since The Departed has come out, Infernal Affairs has been devalued by most critics. Infernal Affairs is now a B-grade crime picture from Hong Kong whose only purpose for existence was to be remade by Martin Scorsese. It's kind of sad because IA is a really great film. There seems to be a stigma applied to Hong Kong films that they are all cheap and inferior, but the truth is there are some truly great films that have come out of H.K. that are on par with any place else in the world. I've been a fan of thrillers and crime films my whole life and I think H.K. does them better than anybody else, so I thought I would give you some reccomendations that don't skew to some fanboy leanings, but actually represent some of the better pics in recent years. These are by no means the "be all, end all" best movies of all time but they are all great entries into the genre and a good starting point for someone new to this side of H.K. cinema. Descriptions are a little vague because most of these are better seen without being spoiled.
1. Full Alert - Directed by Ringo Lam. This film often gets compared with Mann's "Heat" but only in it's plot. The film itself is a realistic crime film with some great acting from Lau Ching Wan and Francis Ng. Its unique in the way that it depicts the power of guilt that afflicts a person when they take another humans life.
2. The Longest Nite - Directed by Patrick Yau. One of the best examples of the crime thriller Hong Kong has ever done. Stars Tony Leung and Lau Ching Wan in two roles completely opposite of what they normal play. Leung is the most corrupt cop this side of Keitel in Bad Lt. who is trying to keep a mob war from setting off in Macau. Lau Ching Wan then shows up and all hell breaks loose. The film gets so intense you might find yourself holding your breath as your watching.
3. The Mission - Directed by Johnnie To. Minimalistic is the word here. A story about a triad boss who needs protection, so he hires five professionals to guard him throughout his days. Features pretty much every one of the best character actors in Hong Kong. To keeps everything small and creates thrills with almost no effort.
4. One Night in Mongkok - Directed by Derek Yee. Story about a hitman, a hooker, the mob, and a set of gung ho cops who all crash into each other during a night in the overcrowded city. It sounds cliche, but is anything but. Great acting and superior direction.
5. Infernal Affairs 2 - Directed by Alan Mak and Andrew Lau. My favorite Hk film from the last few years. A prequel filling in the ten years from the first film and charting the rise of the main characters to their positions in the first film. Directed with grtty realism this time, the film takes on an air of The Godfather but by no means treads on or imitates those films. Features a blistering performance from Francis Ng and fantastic work from Eric Tsang and Anthony Wong. Some people hate this one, but it deserves to be seen.
I believe these five films should give a good starting point to the serious crime films of Hong Kong. As for The Departed and the original IA, I'm just glad that most people here are evaulating both of them on even grounds. Keep up the good work.
Jim, just as a warning. The movies of Tony Jaa, while action packed have as much character development as Rumble in the Bronx, only they are less fun to watch. Jaa is amazing though. Some of Tsui Hark's stuff is great. "The Green Dragon Inn" was quite good (Maggie Cheung is in it), but some of his stuff is fantastical and over the top, allowing the absurd situations to over shadow character and story development - they can still be lots of fun though. Stephen Chow, whom I'm sure you know of, did a film called "A Chinese Odyssey" which is bizarre but wonderful, as you watch you get dragged into the absurdity of it all and come out the other side laughing harder than you might have thought and really taking a liking to the characters - Chow is a genius in my book (the sequel "Pandora's Box" doesn't quite live up). If I think of any more... but this should give you a good start.
I disagree for the most part. I loved Infernal Affairs, but The Departed had me transfixed in a way even the Scorsese films I've liked (which is most of them) haven't in a long time. As good as GoodFellas? Not even close. If I had to pick a benchmark, I'd say it's his best since The Age of Innocence, because Casino really felt like warmed-over leftovers to me.
One other quick comment. People are naming "Gangs" and "Aviator" as underrated Scorcese. The film that comes to mind to me of Scorcese's that beats both of these films is "Bringing Out the Dead". I loved this film, and it has been nearly forgotten about by everyone, even Scorcese fanatics. Dod anyone besides me even see it?
I think what people are overlooking or maybe seeing through the wrongs lens is that this film is not the original it is a different entity entirely and frankly and should be viewed as such instead of comparing to the orginal I mean it has a different title. It's similar to books that become movies. In my opinion everyone is going about this film the wrong way. This film is a comedy in every respect, maybe a black one but it is a comedy and great one. Spoilers here: Also I am begining to feel more and more as I think about the movie that Matt Damon's character is actually a mob informant for the police. Like Jack's character has many people in the department why wouldn't the police have many people in the mob? The final scene seems the proff to me.
Jim, if you're looking for more Hong Kong action/crime films, here's what I recommend (if you haven't already seen them):
The Killer: One of the films that got me obsessed with movies, and eventually made me wanna be a filmmaker (Scorsese's Taxi Driver was the film that finalized my career choice). It's still on my list of top 5 favorite films. Directed by John Woo, and stars Chow Yun-Fat. Exciting, violent, and very cathartic. Interesting enough, this film was dedicated to Marty!
Hard-Boiled (already mentioned): another Woo/Chow collaboration. Not as emotional as The Killer, and some of the action scenes are almost too wild to believe, it's a lot of fun. This has a police, cat-and-mouse kind of plot like The Departed.
City on Fire- Quentin Tarantino borrowed a lot from this film to make his debut Reservoir Dogs (at some points, it feels like a direct remake). This isn't as action heavy as Woo's films- this is directed by Ringo Lam- so there's more tension as opposed to thrills here.
Aside from being a big fan of John Woo, I'm not huge on Hong Kong cinema. But it has a cult following in the States, and has had a big impact on modern filmmakers like Tarantino and the Wachowskis. Rarely do foreign films get much appreciation here- it's those damn subtitles!!!- so it's rare that a movement gets picked up like this.
What a dreary age of film criticism we're living in, huh? Of course, just as winter follows autumn, a wave of praise is certain to be followed by a wave of negative criticism.
Have you noticed that the span of time between praise and backlash is getting shorter and shorter? We're so damned impatient. There used to be a respectful grace period behind "it's a masterpiece" and "it's overrated crap." Now that grace period lasts about two seconds.
Can't we just ENJOY something for a while before dissecting it like a dead frog in biology class?
"The Departed" is an engaging, well-acted, exciting crime thriller. Isn't that enough? Do we have to IMMEDIATELY decide where it stands in the Scorsese canon or, for that matter, in the history of cinema?
I think the problem here lies not with the film itself but with film critics and a culture which has turned us all into amateur Eberts. We can't just appreciate something for what it is. We want to categorize it, rank it, deconstruct it. And we want to do that immediately upon leaving the cineplex.
I've always believed that the initial reviews a movie receives -- principally in newspapers, but now on the Internet -- are, at best, like a doctor's initial diagnosis. "Here's what we think the situation is..." But now they're more like a coroner's report.
The only thing original reviews can say with any certainty is: should people go see the movie or not. I'd say people definitely SHOULD go see "The Departed." And let's meet back here in, say, four or five years -- better yet, make it ten -- and say where it belongs in the Official Cinematic Hierarchy of Crime Films.
I somehow agree with you, Joe Blevins. I can't believe sometimes how we have over-intellectualized the process of seeing a movie, even when it's for the first time. There's no way, for me, to see and analyze a movie for the first time and still enjoy it completely as a "story". Trying to figure out why a movie works or why it doesn't while you're enjoying it can take some of the enjoyment out of it, paradoxically.
But it's still highly tempting to compare it to Scorsese's other mob movies, isn't it? ;)
*SPOILER WARNING*
A very entertaining film. It's also an interesting case study on the importance of a story's internal justice. In any narrative, I think, the audience intensely desires justice for the main character, which, in the case of "the Departed," is Billy Costigan, played by DiCaprio. When Costigan was killed off in the film, the audience with which I saw the film literally gasped in horror, and then wailed in mourning. Scorsese (or Monahan) betrayed the internal justice of the film-- and this alienates the audience. The question is: what was the trade-off? What did the movie gain by killing off Costigan? Did it communicate a broader point about justice? Did it achieve a greater emotional impact? Maybe, but I don't think it was worth it. I don't believe that the hero should always live to see the end of his film, but I damn well WANT him to (especially when he's as intriguing a character as Costigan), and if he doesn't, I'd like a good reason for it. The movie, in the end, does give us some justice. Marky Mark does shoot Matt Damon's character (Colin Sullivan). In the head. But this also seems off. What about the psychiatrist? Didn't she have the evidence to prosecute Sullivan? Haven't we seen enough shots to the head? What I was really hoping for was a trial by jury. Again, I don't think that stories should always be just. I do think, however, that when a story denies its audience the pleasure of justice, the audience should get something in return. In that sense, I think "The Departed" was off-base. Also, what was the point of that love triangle?
I can't think of any time in the history of film (or film criticism) that anyone waited 5-10 years before discussing the merits of a film.
I don't see what's going on here as one group praising and then another group backlashing. What I'm seeing here is that everyone who saw The Departed reacted strongly to it, whether in favor or not. It's actually kind of refreshing, and the first subject on Jim's blog to evoke this much passion. I'm glad for it.
To Jon Langager:
The internal justice you speak of is in the symmetry of the lives of Sullivan and Costigan. (This is personified in one of many ways by their equal fascination with the shrink.) Both lives are tightly coiled around each other, and both exist in a world where they fight like hell to preserve a life that is completely empty and vacant. The sad truth of their existence is that all they have to cling to is an elaborately constructed falsehood, and the slow realization that while they are two true believers, almost no one else is. The only other true believers end up kicked out or dead.
The reaction you describe -- shock and mourning -- is a strong one. These are completely sane responses, and tell me Scorsese did a hell of a job building up the proper tension. How many other films this year have evoked such a strong response in you, without resorting to cheap tactics?
It may not be pleasant, but I don't think anyone enters The Departed with the preconception that they're going to be placated with storybook equilibrium.
(Actually, let me backtrack -- I think The Departed is absolutely obsessed with equilibrium. It's just a very nasty kind of equilibrium.)
To me, The Departed is modern noir. It's not a biography, it's not a setting study, it's not Goodfellas or Raging Bull or Bringing Out the Dead or even Kundun. It's noir. And in that regard, it performs brilliantly.
Re: Joe Blevins' comments about film criticism. Absolutely -- enjoy! I enjoyed "The Departed," even as I had problems with parts of it. But I disagree with you on several counts:
1) As I've said many, many times over the years, a film critic's "yes" or "no" verdict is the least interesting thing (I hope) about what they have to say. I don't care if somebody likes or doesn't like what they saw -- I just want to know what they saw in a particular film, and why they think it works or doesn't work or does whatever they think it does.
2) I would never, EVER come out and say: "Don't see this film." It's very rarely that I will even say: "Go see it" -- and, even then, it's after I've described it so people can make up their minds whether it sounds like something they'd want to see. I am not interested in film criticism as consumer reporting, and I find it insulting when a critic says "see it" or "don't see it" because that critic doesn't know me -- or you. The reader is smart enough to make up his/her own mind, if only the critic does a good enough job of describing what he/she sees in a film.
3) I'm interested in film criticism as a way to talk about movies, not in making any "recommendation." And one of the things I love so much about the Internet is that it opens up that conversation so that it's not one-way anymore. I assume my readers are going to see the movies, or not see the movies, and that if they do, they'll have something of their own to say.
I like that a lot.
Looking back upon the Departed, it isn't perhaps as great a movie as Goodfellas. However, while I was physically in the theater watching the movie, I was hugely entertained. I can see myself watching the movie again and again on television via dvd or rental. The characters in this film were as lively as those in Scarface, and as memorable. This is quite a film regardless of where it's finally relegated in movie history.
I have to strongly disagree with the "anti-analytical" posters here. Thinking about a movie, talking about a movie, breaking down a movie, whatever you want to call it - it all adds a great deal to my enjoyment of a film. I have never understood why people take so much pleasure in saying that you "need to turn your brain off" to really appreciate a movie. Nonsense.
There is no "pure" state of film-watching where you just react in some unmediated way to the sheer "experience" of it all. We never really turn off our brains. Who would want to do that?
Joe Blevins is right on one point, though: initial reviews really are just a diagnosis. I know I often feel very awkward when I have to write about my reaction to a movie a mere day or two after seeing it. I'd much rather wait, sometimes months. Right now, I still don't know how I'd review "Syndromes and a Century", for example, and I saw it last month! I've long entertained the idea of writing two-part reviews, one immediate "diagnosis" like Joe describes it, and then "A Year Later" reflection piece.
Sadly, the realities of the business (whether in print or on DVD review sites) and the attention spans of readers (who's going to care a year later?) makes that pretty darned impractical. But I think it sure would be interesting.
Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, even Bringing Out The Dead, they all make me very uncomfortable. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be feeling during each scene. Scorsese at his best puts the viewer to a moral challenge. Do you admire this protagonist? Would you kill someone for money or even just because you disapprove of their lifestyle or because they told you to fuck yourself?
The Departed is a perfect genre movie. A tense thriller with plenty of action and a funny script and great performances. It's all wrapped up in the main ingredients of the Scorsese style: Sudden violence and an unconventional score. But, whatever the critics in the back of the class who weren't paying attention are saying, it's too easy, morally. Evaluating the morality of Taxi Driver by the tenth viewing is like figuring out who the killer is before the end of the mystery novel. It's like a game.
Here, Scorsese isn't walking on any ground we're not comfortable with. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. Jack Nicholson plays The Devil, Damon is Damian and Mr. French is seen strangling his wife to death for some reason. On the flip side, Costigan, Queenan and Dignam never really do a single thing a normal person would disapprove of. It's for amateurs, people who've never been able to figure out the morality of a Scorsese flick.
The movie's a lot of fun, but it's made up of the Scorsese tricks that any competent professional could ape. My guage is that, if it takes me more than a day to come to terms with my own reaction to the movie, it's one of Scorsese's best, if not, all it is is one of the best movies ever made, whoop de doo, throw it on the pile with The Aviator and Cape Fear.
Hey Jim,
I wrote a review to the Departed on my personal blog; I've always been interested in reading what you have to say but never thought of adding my own two cents until this time around.
I thought it was, at heart, a very good movie; I said it was Scorcese's most entertaining since GoodFellas (at the time, I'd forgotten about Casino), and I should note I haven't seen the Aviator (I consider Gangs of New York the most disappointing film I've ever seen, however). But it's not as good as Infernal Affairs. I couldn't separate the two; anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen scenes from the Departed were lifted from its Hong Kong counterpart, and it annoyed me that the Departed ultimately didn't follow through on its incredible hook the way Infernal Affairs did, and that's what ultimately made me think it was an inferior movie.
I was impressed by the dialogue, and I liked the performances (especially Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg - I thought Jack Nicholson was too over-the-top in places and his Boston accent kept fading in and out, but it wasn't too much of a distraction). I also enjoyed William Monahan combining the two female leads in Infernal Affairs into a single character. I thought Vera Farmiga was very good in the role and gave the movie a more convincing, well-rounded female lead.
However, I thought it was a bad move that Monahan divided Anthony Wong's character in the Hong Kong version, the undercover cop's supervisor, into three. In Infernal Affairs, only Wong and Eric Tsang's mob boss character, Sam, know who their respective moles are. In the Departed, Wong's corrolary, Martin Sheen, knows who his mole is, but so does Wahlberg, and a couple of Wong's key scenes in the Hong Kong version are handed over to Baldwin. While I loved Baldwin and Wahlberg's performances, they have a tendency to take over their scenes, and the overall effect makes Sheen a weaker character. If he had been given more lines in the first half rather than the second, he might have left a stronger impression.
And there is no equivalent of Mark Wahlberg's character, Dignam, in the original movie. That means there's one more character who knows DiCaprio is a cop and not a criminal when the screenplay doesn't want a character to exist who knows DiCaprio's a cop and not a criminal, and leaves a huge, gaping plot hole. I hated it that Dignam disappeared from the last forty-five minutes of the movie, the screenplay (and DiCaprio) appearing to have forgotten about him, until he finally showed up at the end. Infernal Affairs had a great ending. In the Departed, Dignam's appearance made it come off as cheap.
Also, I was annoyed that unlike DiCaprio's character, Billy Costigan, Damon's character, Sullivan, is not conflicted. Andy Lau's character in the original film wasn't always sure he was a mole working for the police, just as DiCaprio (and Leung in the original) isn't always sure he's a mole working for the local Mafia. In the Departed, I always got the sense that Damon enjoyed working as a police officer, but also that he was equally tickled that he had strong ties to the underworld. Unlike the original, his major shift came about because of financial, rather than ethical, considerations.
I know it sounds like I'm bashing the film, but I was impressed by the dialogue, performances, and overall sense of assured filmmaking. I thought it was very well shot and lit (the rat at the end notwithstanding). I thought it maintained a very good filmic rhythm. I didn't notice the two-and-a-half-hour running time. I think I just fall into, and agree with, the camp that thinks it's very good, but not great. Infernal Affairs was great. GoodFellas and Casino were great. The Departed... not so much.
And I do agree with you that the majority of critical reaction is hypocritical.
I'm sure this will be annoying to some Scorsese fans, but my experience with "The Departed" was less than enthusiastic. I actually nodded off at least 2 times, and was more than disappointed. Terrible movie? -- No...
Best Scorsese movie? -- certainly not!
Having viewed "Infernal Affairs" quite by accident, and being thoroughly pleased with that movie, I find that "The Departed" does not measure up.
I'll just mention one anooying thing in the movie that just couldn't work in reality... at least not as perfectly as it is portrayed -- the constant "signaling" to the leader by means of cell phones. I mean, c'mon... at least ONCE one of the characters would have forgotten to "silence" the cell, and maybe that could have provided some tense/intense moments of reality. And, of course, let's not forget the movie law that makes sure all cell phone work perfectly, no matter where/when the cell user is located. (Where do thet get those long-lasting batteries, by the way?)
"The Departed" is a good movie, just not a great one.
Great cast, great idea, so-so script, and in need of editing.
I'm the film critic for my local newspaper and I defintely agree that it's Scorsese's best since "The Aviator." DiCaprio seems to be getting even better with each performance and his on-screen presence has grown tremendously. I think the decision to pair him with Nicholson and Damon was a brilliant move, because they seem to feed off of one another to make each scene that much more believable. What I liked best about "The Departed" was that it felt like the Scorsese of old. Everything from the graphic violence to the Rolling Stones made it wildly entertaining and demonstrated Scorsese's superb ability to mesmerize the audience. Although I felt the ending was a bit tame, it was still a solid film from one of our greatest filmmakers. I also agree with Jim that critcism is way to talk about movies without having the conversation be completely one-sided. By utilizing the internet, people who are passionate about film are able to give their opinion, while also hearing other people's perspectives.
"Goodfellas"? "Casino"? The closest "The Departed" comes to Scorsese's catalog is "Cape Fear": a remake of a classic thriller built (in part) around showcasing a great actor in a only-in-Hollywood villainous role.
Also "Infernal Affairs" wasn't nearly as perfect as so many make it sound. It's ending was as satisfying as a bunt and it had its own ridiculous moments (such as the "OMG he's selling him audio equipment and they don't realize that he's really a cop and he's really a triad!" scene or idly tapping Morse code on a window pane which isn't any less plausible than blindy texting in your pocket).
It's just as good as any of his other recent output including "The Aviator", "Bringing out the Dead" and the documentaries he's done recently. No hitter hits a home run every at bat and not every Scorsese's "Raging Bull".
*spoilers*
It seemed to me that the oft-mentioned visual pun that concludes the film was the last link in a chain that begins with Costello saying: "I'm not a product of my environment, my environment is a product of me." Later, he is seen sketching a nightmarish image of rats swarming over city hall. And finally, after all is said and done, Scorsese shows us that Costello's perception of Boston's seat of power is as real as anything else in the film when a rat literally skitters over the golden dome, mirroring Costello's vision.
Costello is God, worshiped by some, feared or loathed by others. Inscrutable, all-powerful (see above). Our last sight of him is with bloody hands outstretched in the cruciform, betrayed by a disciple, shot in the rib-cage where Christ was stabbed...
Thoughts?
Clearly the film works much better for those who have not seen the original HK version (me). I thought Di Caprio was outstanding, and while Jack was over the top at times, I can live with that.
I am not anti-analysis, far from it! I love film analysis as much as everyone here, and I do it as often as possible, but in my opinion, it often if not always requires multiple viewings. I'm just sad that most of the discourse about The Departed here is centered on how the movie compares to what else Scorsese has done, and not on the movie itself and its interesting characterizations. Sure it might not be up to par for Scorsese, but falling into the comparisons game is falling into the same trap that those critics saying it's the best since Goodfellas fell into.
This said, someone mentioned the problems with the editing in this movie, and I also noticed the same continuity problems. Took me right out of the movie at times. Is it lazy editing? I usually don't notice it that much, but it was flagrant in some scenes (the one in the restaurant with Nicholson and DiCaprio where Jack goes to talk with the priests comes to mind...)
Damn film snobs, it was his most FUN picture EVER. Do we not go to movies to be entertained? That was the most enjoyable movie experience I have had in a long, long time.
I really don't see the comparison to 'Goodfellas' except for a few minor Scorsese signature shots Instead I see an excellent film that combines elements of two other excellent films of our recent times- "Resovoir Dogs" and "Carlito's Way." Both films stand alone yet "The Departed" (although a remake) brings out the moral dilemma of one of the lead characters into a downward spiral of doom-Carlito's Way/ the confusion, corruption, and the fierce showdown of "Dogs."
I believe this film is one of Scorsese's finest! Is it in the top 5 or 6? no... but it's one of the top 10 or 12 easy!
This film is taut, engaging, enjoyable, hard to watch at times and easy as pie at others, and has a loop-de-loop plot that rivals any of previous Scorsese pictures!
The deaths of main characters in this film (6 out of 10!) are both unpredictable and by and large never in a timely or expected fashion (in chronology or execution, so to speak)...
This is a brilliant film! What are you people talking about?!?
Such grandstanding critical quotes truly are condescending. When critics rave of his past they tend to cite only his films that concentrate of the inner workings of violent men. Cape Fear it seems gets more nostalgic kudos then such earlier masterpieces like King of Comedy, After Hours, and even Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. Whenever he steps out of his most popular genre, filmgoers tend to view his work as "an interesting effort" rather than a film he most certainly made with as much care as all of his others.
The main thing that critics don't seem to understand is that, unlike most of the earlier genre work, the Departed is meant to be relentlessly entertaining. The film is an adrenaline rush from opening to close with no intention of applying the brakes. The past classics may have been imbedded with more originality, technical brilliance, and nostalgia but Scorsese has never even tried to make a film so breathlessly nerve-wracking as he has done here. His characters never have the time to slow down and humanize. Each scene sprints into another with escalating intensity. The actors, action and dialogue all match this wattage the whole way. It is his absolute audition into commercial entertainment but still retains his trademark shades of gray area. This film is exhilarating in a way none of his previous films have ever been. But then again same was true of The Aviator, Gangs of New York, and even the Age of Innocence. For some reason people can't seem to engage his recent films for their own isolated and substantial merits. They expect and compare while they try to identify some of his patterns that made him famous. And when they do this, they miss another great film. It isn't Scorsese's talent that has waned, but a growing intolerance festering in critics who don't know how to handle a director who clearly adores different challenges for different films.
To Ken Lowery:
I meant "internal justice" as something closer to what we think of as "justice" in everyday life. The good guys should be rewarded, the bad guys should be punished. In this more conventional sense, I think the film's "internal justice" is, at the very least, jarring.
And really, the fact that I found Costigan's death so disturbing really speaks to the power of DiCaprio's acting, Scorsese's directing, and Monahan's writing. I can't help but feel, however, that Costigan was sacrificied at the altar of a shocking plot twist. And that cheapens the emotional bond that he builds with the audience. It says: I know you care about this character, but don't you really care more about this totally unexpected bullet to the head? Isn't that more entertaining?
There was a similar problem with the death of Owen Wilson's character in "Life Aquatic." He was killed off merely to provide the rather artificial emotional impact of his funeral. The difference between these two examples is that, in the case of "Life Aquatic," it was impossible to identify with a character so shallowly written as Wilson's.
"The Departed" seems quite different from other Scorsese films in that it emphasizes plot over character. The structure of the film is certainly more geared toward the tension-and-plot-twist model, rather than Scorsese's usual tendency to simply chart a character's growth and/or downfall ("Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," and "The Aviator" being the most obvious examples). The problem with "The Departed" is that the plot, however clever, gets in the way of the truly engaging part of the movie: its characters.
The "Departed" is Scorsese's best since "Goodfellas" not because it's a mob movie and that he can only make mob movies. Its a great film because its the first film since "Goodfellas" (to some degree "Casino") where you can see when your watching the film that Scorsese is havnig fun making the film. With films Like Gangs and the Aviator the films come across uninspired. They are skillfully made but they are missing that extra little bit, the fun. The films are saying I know how to make movies better than you. With his earlier work and with the "Departed" he has put the heart in it, the fun and it shows. Movies don't get better than when you can see, feel that the one's that made have put their heart into it. Take the Lord of the Rings for example.
It seems an invariable response to compare a Director's movie to his others, especially with such an exalted Director as Scorsese. But sometimes you just have to look at a movie for what it is, not what it isn't. It isn't "Interal Affairs" or "Goodfellas" or "The Aviator." With those ground-rules in mind, I thought it was a brilliant film. I was talking about "The Departed" the rest of the night after we watched it, the next morning, and the afternoon. I don't do that with movies. There aren't many movies out there that have an almost novel feel to them, that are so deliberate yet intriguing. It was as if Scorses just said "this is what happened" and we, the viewing audience, were left to interpret what exactly "this" was. Its twists in the story left you feeling breathless but not manipulated. I don't know whether the editing was choppy or not because I was so entranced by the actors themselves. And just because Jack Nicholson wasn't at his best doesn't mean he didn't do a good job. I'm not well viewed like you so there might be many better movies out there this year. But for my money "The Departed" has been the best movie I have seen all year.
Scorsese's good years are gone. In The Departed nobody (at least I did not) cares about the characters that are so undeveloped that look extracted from a formulaic cop and robbers TV show. Nicholson preposterously overacts as himself and cannot compose a Costello as a Costello should be in Scorsese Universe. The overall result is a film that looks like made by Tony Scott, a glossy picture for the entertainment of yuppie generations that know very little of Mean Streets or Taxi Driver (Pitt co-produced). My advise for the great Scorsese is another Age of Innocence. Try it.
I did not appreciate the condescending tone of many of the (though positive) reviews that said, "Thank God he's back to making HIS kind of movies!" There's an uneasy undertone of, I won't call it racism, but some kind of -ism to those remarks- good boy, back in your place. Especially since, hello, this is a movie about the Irish, not the Italian badfellas.
That being said, what I love about this movie- why I DO think it's his best movie since Casino or Kundun) is how alive and clear of purpose it is. Though the plot is a puzzle and the characters are often thrown this way and that, your connection with them is immediate- you care about them, you care about the actors playing them (because they get to take risks, by god!) and the director knows exactly where the land the thing. The Aviator and Gangs of New York weren't flawed because Scorcese dared to step out of his box, I think they were flawed because Scorcese had so much history and detail to go through that he felt remiss if he left something out. Big, long, drawn out epics, and at the end, you don't know what to make of the characters- and not in a, sphnix Lawerence of Arabia way, as in, literally, is this a tragedy or a hero story? For all the praise from the newspapermen who go see the movies and all the sniffing from the bloggermen who go see the movies, what I have heard most is the commonmen on the street (and especially in Boston) saying "Did you see that? Did you?" "F-k yeah I saw it! It was F-king awesome!"
This movie is connecting with audiences, whether it's movie lovers who want to see a giant be great again or an action audience who's discovering that depth need not be feared, that acting won't get in the way of the bang bang.
Also, in terms of a artistic director going more mainstream, this movie is much more inspiring than Spike Lee's competent but soulless "Inside Man"
Fun all the way around except for the quirky editing. You can tell this picture was much longer, like most Scorsese epics. Continuity was distracting because of the editing. I can't imagine this would be the final cut sent to theatres with so many hangnail scenes. Seems last minute to me. Casting and Jack Nicholson made up for it though.
...thus far, I'll say that I really like it, but not as much as many of the critics. I'd say it's about dead even in terms of quality with Gangs of New York, and I'd actually place The Aviator above it. For all its twists and turns, thrills and chills, it feels more spare and off-the-cuff than the average Scorsese film... and I'm not sure if it's a good thing. I mean Nicholson's performance and the final plot twist/scene are TOTALLY played for laughs, and there isn't a great deal of content behind the laughter. This is certainly one of Marty's less weighty films. So, I dunno... it's a fun time, but it might also be something of a step down for its director... a down-and-dirty piece of pulp before his next big, prestige project. I'd be surprised if this wins many Oscars or even that many noms... I'm not saying it won't happen, but it'd be against the norm. Anyway, I need to see it again, I'm still not entirely sure, but for now I'll say it's overrated.
In a lot of ways this reminded me of Gangs of New York, which I enjoyed tremendously. For comparison, both to me showed a very similar brutality, almost violence out of necessity of the world the characters live in. There is no joy in the violence, its all just very sudden and has a natural flow to it, like watching a worker make their morning cup of coffee.
I didn't find Jack to be too much Jack for the movie. He was at times darkly funny, and even as he starts to be overcome by his paranoia near the end, it isn't over the top Joker-esque Jack in my opinion. I'm actually a bit surprised he wasn't more himself, which shows a good deal of restraint on his part. The only character I wasn't entirely sold on was Madolyn. I didn't understand the attraction to Costigan, but I tend to tune out love interests since few can ever write them properly. This just seemed more than anything like some bad boy fixation rather than any genuine feelings for him, and the dialogue between Costigan and her was generally the weakest (and thankfully didn't go on too long). Leonardo is definately a stand out in this movie though, he really does get better and better in everything I've seen him in. *spoiler* My wife and I found it rather upsetting when he was gunned down so suddenly as he was a perpetually beat down character through most of the movie, and it wasn't just shocking, it was just unfair that was his fate.
I think a lot of people who see this movie want to draw comparisons of actors in previous roles, or just comparing The Departed to other Scorsese movies, and they are unfair comparisons because these are all distinctive characters and a unique story. Of course I haven't seen Infernal Affairs so I can't really compare the two movies against each other either.
In any event, in a sea of pure awful this year, I was very impressed and entertained by this movie and look forward to adding it to my DVD collection.
We treasure Scorcese, in part, because of his ability to visually depict visceral realities. His recent films lacked visceral power. THE DEPARTED revels in his particular strength. The genre is unimportant. Gangster films (like westerns, which I'd love to see Scorcese tackle) happen to lend themselves to Scorcese's strengths. Whenever Scorcese strives to be "important," he fails. When he "merely tells a story," he is monumental.
How about the love story aspect to The Departed. Do you think it works? I'm split. In any case, I remember Scorsese once remarking that his films had very few love scenes because he felt they "stopped the movie cold" or words to that effect.
I absolutely agree with Jim Emerson's statement that some critics are trying to stuff Scorsese back into the mafioso breadbox with their latest critical heapings on “The Departed�. Their praise is laced with a depressingly dismissal attitude of some of the most eclectic and challenging work that has been generated by an American director for the last twenty years. Scorsese has been in a type of ongoing renaissance since “The Last Temptation of Christ�, directing projects with his hyperkinetic and erotic style that are infused and intoxicated with his own love of the movies.
From “Casino�, to “Cape Fear� to my own personal favorite “The Age of Innocence�, Scorsese time and again shows us the intelligence and machismo of a real artist that understands the mechanics of movie-making and the emotions of an intelligent audience. Even his one dud of the bunch, “Gangs of New York�, is littered with hallucinatory images, beautiful set-pieces and the great Daniel-Day Lewis’ overlooked performance of the wacky and chilling Bill the Butcher.
In the end, I believe that inexperienced and lazy critics want to corral Scorsese into the mafia pen because it is easy to do so. I also suspect that when the director is eventually gone from us (may that not happen for a long, long time), they will be the same ones to crown him the greatest living director of the last fifty years while overlooking all but a few films in his great body of work.
Joe Ramirez
Pleasanton CA
To Jon Langager:
Okay, I see what you mean now. I was thinking more along the lines of a story's internal logic, versus justice as we popularly define it. I think its internal logic is precise to the point of fetishism, which does seem to be the trend with HK action films and South Korean horror films.
I don't consider Costigan's death a stunt, however. I think he was the only person in the story who thought he'd get out of that life alive (remember Wahlberg's comment early on, featured in the trailers: "think they killed him already?" -- that "already" is key, as if the death itself is a foregone conclusion, and the only variable is when it happens), and frankly if anyone got out of it intact I would have felt cheated. I feel that if you're going to present a world that grim, you'd better follow it through to its conclusions. Getting out alive would be too Hollywood, too pat. It would've sold out the integrity of the rest of the movie's glib bleakness.
I understand, though, this is a more nihilistic view of justice (call it "poetic justice") than what you're referring to. That everyone who touches this life becomes compromised and then dead seems to be the big statement, here, and in that the film's justice is precise and merciless. Even Wahlberg, who (presumably) lives on, can only continue his work by going rogue.
I agree with some of the others here that most are praising The Departed as Scorsese's "best since (insert gangster film here)" is less ghettoizing the director and more just identifying a trend in his pictures for the last, oh, 16 years or so. I enjoyed the hell out of Bringing Out the Dead (and The Aviator, and Gangs of New York, for that matter), but the kind of heedless energy was missing. They're grim, largely joyless affairs.
His trademark heedless energy is most obvious in Goodfellas and Casino, in the latter years. It's an infectious tone, and I think that's why you're seeing a lot of people commenting on how exciting The Departed is. They missed it.
You can tell the storyteller loves the story as much as anyone alive, and I feel that The Departed is the first time we've seen Scorsese so obviously enamored of the material since Casino. That critics are responding to this enthusiasm, even calling it a "return to form," is a bit more innocent than what many are suggesting here. It just seems Marty gets the most excited when he's talking about modern gangsters.
Im not quite sure where Scorsese stands in todays culture. Sure he's revered but is for the right reasons ? Its eerie but fascinating to discuss a living cinematic icon who pubicly cant go beyond expectations which he created. He's never recognized for THE LAST TEMPTATION (or any other film), its always GOODFELLA'S. THE DEPARTED is far from perfect; sloppy editing, rehashed scenarios twice over. If anything BRINGING OUT THE DEAD was a more proper return than this film. When Scorsese states THE DEPARTED is a throw back; he certainly doesnt cinematically, perhaps financially ? I enjoy an artist who can switch effortlessly between generes(a task Speilberg has yet to polish)and remain original. Hopefully this recent boost will restore Scorsese's confidence in continuing with pictures like, THE AVIATOR & THE LAST TEMPTATION.
Good film. My one big headshake was over Matt Damon's character. As a creation, Colin Sullivan just doesn't seem psychologically possible. Why? Because I just can't believe that he could be had so cheap. He was bought off with a few loaves of Wonderbread? What?
I mean sure, it'll make some great PB&J sandwiches but why would that convince you to cash in your integrity and risk grotesque, unlivedownable disgrace? Especially if you're a guy who's every word and behavior says: I love being a cop.
Know what I mean, Departedfans?
Honestly I thought this was the best movie of the year. A lot of the complaints about the overacting of Nicholson, or, even more prevalent, the constant "the Hong Kong one was better/shorter", seem pretty tedious and minor. Calling the movie flawed is like complaining that one of the girls you're about to have a threesome with has a weird-looking cheekbone.
The Departed is American filmmaking at its best, with great ensemble acting under the direction of a master craftsman at the peak of his form.
It's actually pretty interesting to compare Scorsese's "gangster" films, because in each case the cultural setting of the "mob" serves a slightly different purpose. For instance, "Goodfellas" seemed to be particularly concerned with the culture of the mafia. There are countless explanations of its customs, from the protected status of "made men" to the way they cook their food (in prison, no less) to how the mafiosi's wives interact with each other.
"Casino," on the other hand, is about a venture that's not really part of the every day mob experience. Ace Rothstein isn't your typical mofioso-- just look at his last name. Here, Scorsese focuses not on the culture of the mob, but rather on one character's day in the sun (and subsequent downfall) in the context of the mob.
In "Gangs of New York," Scorsese is heavily engaged with the depiction of a specific milieu; however its cultural setting (NY gang life in the 1800s) seems more like a _setting_ rather than a subject-- and of course it takes on historical significance greater than the settings of "Casino" or "Goodfellas." Also, the gangs are used by the characters to acheive their objectives-- as opposed to "The Departed," where it's the characters that are being used by the mob.
What is the role of mafia setting in "The Departed"? For me, its main purpose is to serve as a catalyst for the plot developments. It's rather more ominous in this film than in Scorsese's other films-- Costigan is in real danger here. And this danger provides real motivation for Costigan, as well as a constant sense of tension.
In any case, I think it's an interesting way to analyze the different ways a film's cultural setting can function.
I can't believe what I'm reading. I just saw the departed and it was the best six dollars i've ever spent, maybe the best movie i've ever seen. Almost every movie i see I feel like I've seen before, the same predictable plot twists, the same emotions, the same recycled scenes and endings. This movie is different, it's surprising, it doesn't insult your intelligence for even watching it. Case in point: the movie's good guy gets killed off in an instant, no warning, no drawn out death scene where he says something truly insightful and fulfilling. Bamn, that's it. You just don't ever see that, it was brilliant. "ending on a goofy visual pun makes fools of the audience for caring." What are you talking about? I hope someone can back me up on this, because the critics are clearly out to lunch, they should stick to watching artsy fartsy movies and foreign films, that's where they belong.
Excellent movie. Each star had a significant role which made the picture very interesting and provacative. The only part that was unfortunate was that fact that in previews, they show Mark Wahlberg firing his gun. Well, it obviously blows any element of surprise in the end of the movie, since he clearly hasn't fired a gun once. Other than that, this movie should be nominated for an Oscar.
My main problem with The Departed is the ending. I'm not some fool that thinks every movie should end "happily" with all loose ends tied up (Chinatown is a shining example of the opposite). But as someone has mentioned, The Departed is a crime-thriller, not a crime-drama. Scorsese seemed to put so much brilliant effort into having the pieces fall perfectly into place for the film's final confrontation, only to have it become a pointless, meandering mess. It's as though Scorsese thought, "This movie hasn't had enough of my trademark violence or artistic touch, so I'm really gonna wow 'em with my ending." If we're going to get a cops-and-robbers movie with showy characters but no emotional connection to them, you at least need to give us a satisfying story, not an abrupt turn to lunacy and violence with numerous character revelations, red herrings, McGuffins, and unanswered questions.
I have only seen all of 3 Scorcese films, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and The Departed, and I have found that while I can see what a good director Scorcese is, I don't like many of the characters in his movies. I will say that I liked Leo DiCaprio's character, as well as Martin Sheen's. After Raging Bull I was left with conflicted feelings. On one hand, I had seen a movie that really examines behavior and has the best boxing scenes I have ever seen in a film. But I left unhappy because the characters made me sick. But I think this is a tribute to Scorcese and the writers. His movies often deal with characters who just aren't very loveable. His movies have taught me that to be a good director you don't have to leave the audience feeling good, just truly feeling something. The Departed to me was very emotionally packed, especially at the end. I was confused throughout a lot of the movie, but thinking back on it, that's not a bad thing. This movie is all about confusion and deception. The main point is Scorcese knew what he was doing and made a good movie.
I love The Aviator... and like The Departed very much. In my estimation they're both solid, if not out and out spectacular, pictures.
Scorsese is judged by a higher criteria than most.
That being said, I think both will age very well.
A good but overrated film. Better than GANGS of NEW YORK, not as good as THE AVIATOR. And definitely inferior to INFERNAL AFFAIRS.
Oh, and to say this movie ranks with TAXI DRIVER and GOODFELLAS, as some critics have suggested, is to laugh!
I thought it was fabulous entertainment.
Was it Scorsese's best film? No...it was a remake of a Hong Kong action movie. It was a bit of fun after he knocked himself out trying to win an Oscar with his past 2 movies and failed. And it *was* fun, and hugely entertaining. It suceeded far beyond what it was aiming for.
Oh, and by the way...I rented the original Internal Affairs and liked Scorsese's take more.
Scorsese's version of CAPE FEAR is one of the best "Cop vs Crook" movies I've ever seen (Even though Nolte's character is a lawyer). It's as tense and tight a movie as I've ever seen. And it concerns itself primarily with two people: the lawyer (Nolte) and the crook (De Niro). And everyone around them, though important, is secondary to those two. It is not a story about lawyers, or a story about crooks. It is a story about those two particular people.
I see THE DEPARTED the same way. As someone else mentioned, it is not a crime drama, it is a crime thriller. And a damn good one at that. In my opinion, maybe the best I've ever seen.
I didn't want another GOODFELLAS or CASINO. On the contrary, I was excited to see Scorsese do another all-out thriller like CAPE FEAR. And I couldn't have been more pleased.
I would gladly place this amongst the ranks of TAXI DRIVER and GOODFELLAS; simply because (in my opinion) this movie is the best of its type that I've seen in many years. In the same way I thought THE AVIATOR was one of the best bio-pics I'd ever seen. If it finds that rank in my book then yes, regardless of how they rank compared to each other, they are the pinnacle when it comes to their genre.
I agree 100% with Jim Emerson; the reviews that call The Departed Scorsese's best film since Goodfellas are a slap in the face. Has anyone out there seen The Age of Innocence? That is an all-time great movie, a classic if you want to use that term. The Departed is a fine film, almost certainly the best to come out this year, but it is by no means a great film. I'm not sure that The Departed was better than any of Scorsese's films since 1990 (other than Cape Fear and Kundun), let alone all of them. It certainly was not as good as Casino or The Age of Innocence (and in my eyes, Gangs of New York, a film I feel is nearly as underappreciated as The Age of Innocence). If anything, I believe this has been a testament to how many people there are out there that just flat-out do not understand movies.
I am a bit suprised at the high praise this movie has recieved. The Departed is a very good action film, with some clever dialouge and dynamite, dare I say Oscar worthy acting from Leonardo DiCaprio. But to compare this to Goodfellas or even the Aviator is absurd. The first three quarters of this film are riveting, but the last quarter of the film left me dazed and disappointed. It tries to top its ending over and over again. I truely believe that The Aviator was Scorcessees greatest film since Goodfellas, and will hold up much better than The Departed. I have a hunch that Scorsesee was looking for this to be his popcorn film and God Bless him. Because all popcorn films should be this fun as opposed to the braindead schlock we usually get from Hollywood.
It seems to me that everyone is talking about "The Departed" within a somewhat narrow frame of discussion -- Jack's acting, the editing, the tonal dischord -- or through the lens of Scorcese's past achievements. I think that it's a rather complex film and that, while I may not agree with some of Scorcese's artistic choices, "The Departed" calls for a good amount of pondering and rewatchings. I've actually been haranguing friends and family all week about it, suddenly interrupting unrelated conversation with new, loud insights and violently shifting assessments of its merit.
One thing that I did definitely enjoy was the motif of surveillance -- the security cameras primarily, and the way the characters look up at them and talk about them. In a similar vein, when Costigan is in Martin Sheen's house and Martin briefly looks upstairs in case his wife should be awake I almost squealed in delight. It just seemed to me such a congruent little moment that cutely reflects the other instances of people looking up worriedly. Maybe I'm just easily amused, but those great little moments make film so worthwile as they tend to be the most memorable and they cannot be reproduced in any other medium. It's really a terrific scene.
The "pun" that is receiving the brunt of the criticism here is far from "cute" or a "wink" but one of the most cynical endings in a Scorsese movie... period. Following the remarkably gruesome and nihilistic climax, the last shot suggests a perpetual cycle of intricate bureaucratic double-crossing that is beyond our control. The rat reflects a society so intertwined with paranoia and corruption that even the "good guys" (read: Wahlberg... or is he?) are doomed to take a swim in the cesspool of unending violence. Scorsese has always used humor as a sort of defense mechanism, but never has that made it less terrifying or real. Or in the case of "The Departed," never has the humor suggested something so bleak.
I agree that this is not one of his great pictures, but it is very, very good. (It is a shame that people don't get how good Bringing Out the Dead and Age of Innocence were.) It is not a personal Scorsese picture that obsessively observes its characters. It is more a traditional plot driven film--just an outstanding one.
As for Infernal Affairs, a movie I love - well, The Departed is just a different movie with different objectives. One is cool, while the other is hot. Infernal Affairs may be the better movie, but The Departed is in many ways the more pyscholocially astute and believable story. The SOuthie setting with its conflicting loyalties and class consciousness has a lot more depth than Infernal Affairs where the loyalties feel arbitrarily decided on. But it may be that you have to come from a similar neighborhood to appreciate that. (If you were raised outside a cops or crooks kind of neighborhood, you imagine the people in the Departed are simply choosing sides. They aren't--it is a lot more complicated than that.)
Sure, The Departed may not be the equal of Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, GoodFellas, and perhaps a few other of Scorsese's films, but it's a very good genre film nonetheless. Sure, I have some quibbles, but in what, in my opinion, has been a seriously off year for American films, this is among the best of them I've seen thus far.
Scorcese can't hit the major league pitch anymore. Infernal Affairs laid out some awesome moral themes about good/evil, moral choice, suffering, guilt---ALL CLASSIC SCORSESE THEMES---and Departed whiffs on them all. Instead we get JACK! Does he think he's Brando in Missouri Breaks, or himself in Witches of Eastwick or Batman? Whatever, his characterization hi-Jacks the movie. The Departed ultimately reveals the sad consequences of Scorcese's concessions to Nicholson---a moral lesson for us all.
It's occasionally useful to make comparison between and among movies, as many/most of the previous commentators have done, and I understand why so many people do it, but as an old guy who's seen far more movies than he can remember, my own view is that a film has to stand or fall on its own merits.
In that context, I think "The Departed" fails. Not badly - it's very well acted, and technically excellent - but it fails nonetheless. Sure, Jack Nicholson is over the top, but his character is over the top, so that didn't bother me particularly. What did bother me, despite the skill of their respective performances, was the sheer unbelievability of most of the other characters.
I liked Mark Wahlberg's character and performance, too, but my guess (I've never been a cop) is that a real cop that mouthy NEEDS to disappear in order for the rest of the guys in blue uniforms to get anything done. Matt Damon's Sullivan was absolutely bereft of morality, and never seemed the least bit tortured until the little old ladies avoided him in the hallway right at the end. Basically, there wasn't anyone on the screen except DiCaprio's character that I cared about. That might have more to do with the screenplay than with Scorsese himself, but it's the way the film struck me, nonetheless.
I do agree with Jon Langager that the demise of the hero was well-done - a surprise that I didn't see coming - but other than that, I just didn't believe these characters. Vera Farmiga does about as well as one could expect with a role that's as cardboard cut-out as any female role I've seen in quite a while. It's just not believable, though it's not Vera's fault - ANY attractive young actress with decent chops could have been cast there with the same result.
I also confess to a pet peeve: the envelope, which appears to be incredibly important, but then simply vanishes with no apparent effect. When even I can find a red herring on the screen, it's way, way too obvious.
The Departed had my complete and intense focus until the last few scenes. Suddenly I'm reminded I am watching a movie made in present day "let's be sensational - forget believable" Hollywood by a wonderful movie maker who has taken extreme artistic license. I don't like being ripped from the fantasy this way - right when I'm completely enrolled.
Still worth seeing - at least on DVD.
i have not yet seen the original so i did not know the twists to come. and as i watched scorcese sympathize more with the decaprio rat character, i dreaded the inevitable mediocre tv movie of the week ending. you know, the one where decaprio catches the rat damon, gets the girl, and is everyone's hero. yawn.
but i was pleasantly surprised with the twists, i even cheered when decaprio got whacked, and after contemplating the movie i find i really liked it. to me, 'the departed' was a character study of rats, quite a few as it turned out, getting what all rats deserve: a bullet in the head.
It was an OK movie. I think the main flaw was that Jack and Alec were miscast. Alec had no idea what to do with his character. Actually, Alec was doing the same character in "Along Came Polly". There was too much Jack in Jack. He didn't know what to do, so he went back to his tricks. When he did that line about "having a rat" and started acting like a rat, I had enough of him. I dodn't believe Jack for a second in that role and that ruined the movie for me. I think anyone from the "Sopranos" would have done a much better job.
The year that the Aviator didn't win best picture / best director, I made a comment that Scorese is overrated. At that, my wife asked me how many Oscar's did he have, and I said "none", to which she replied, "Then how is he overrated?"
I have to begin by saying that "The Departed" is the best film I have seen this year so far. But, as far as Martin Scorsese is concerned, I feel that he is on a roll as I loved "Gangs Of New York" and "The Aviator" equally. Perhaps some of the extreme praise being heaped upon this film (aside from the fact that Scorsese and his cast and crew are all working in peak form)is the fact that overall, this has been a dismal year for movies and FINALLY, here's something with grand style, energy, commitment and a forcefullness that makes the viewer sit up and pay attention. This movie simply delivers on its promise and as a frquent filmgoer who has been let down by so many films this year, I was pleased and thankful to see something that was adult, complex and not ashamed to entertain and surprise the audience. For me "The Departed" was like a smart bomb with the overall lazy and sleepy cinema of this year. I hope this signals a better fall and winter. But, I do have a question...With all of this talk about whether "The Departed" is being over-praised, why is there always this sort of discussion concerning Hollywood films from name directors and not for smaller, independent films? For me films like "Junebug," "Little Miss Sunshine" (which I liked) and "A History Of Violence" (which I hated) are consistently (in my opinion) over-praised and there never seems to be a question about those films. But, if Cameron Crowe makes "Elizabethtown," or M. Night Shymalan makes "Lady In The Water," they are immediately dismissed and not critiqued as seriously as independent films. Why are people so ready to tear down the big films like "The Departed"? Is it because it's making too much money and why should that even matter when the film, Hollywood or independent, is a terrific film as this one is? Just a thought.
taken on it's own, "the departed" is a fast paced, entertaining movie. there are flaws, no doubt, but it seems that the sum of it's parts make up for those flaws. it was three hours that didn't feel like three hours to me.
having never seen "internal affairs" i have no way to compare it. but knowing that "internal affairs" is a shorter film, leads to the basic conclusion that "the departed" probably could have been shorter, and more effective for it.
compared to the rest of scorsese's body of work, this movie seems coy, and trivial. it feels like he did it just because he thought it would be fun to do, and fun to work with these actors. that is to say that it's minor scorsese.
“The Departed� was good but not excellent. Jack Nicholson hammed it up through most of the movie. If he had less screen time I would have thought he made the movie but there was too much of him being too much. Matt Damon portrayed the nasty little shit I always thought was in him. He was great. Leonardo DiCaprio was also very good portraying the mental stress I would think a mob mole would have. Mark Wahlberg could have been a bit over the top but I think his character’s personality evolved from working with big ego macho cops and, for me, he was very believable. Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Ray Winstone were good in their supporting roles. Vera Farmiga was OK. I guess I didn’t believe her as a therapist. I think she need a bit more meat, emotionally, and as the girlfriend, physically. I didn’t see the original, “Infernal Affairs� so I can’t compare the two. This version’s story, especially towards the end, seemed rushed and forced to finish with the big gun battle but the mechanics of the movie’s cop story was secondary to the story of the two moles. If the movie is examined for the story of the cops trying to get Jack Nicholson it comes up short but the mole parallel story was intriguing and Matt and Leo were great. It was a violent movie and the ending was a bit much. Well worth seeing but not Scorsese’s best. His best are icons, “Raging Bull�, “Taxi Driver�, “Mean Streets�. “The Departed� was just a good movie
It was the first Scorcese movie I almost walked out on. The ending was ridiculous. I looked around at my fellow theatregoers to see if anyone else was dumbfounded. Watching those folks go down like dominoes, and knowing Scorcese made this, didn't jibe for me.
I agree that The Departed was "good but not excellent", but I had almost the opposite reaction to the previous posting in terms the weakness of the acting. The biggest acting weakness for me concerned two of the central characters: Damon and DiCaprio. First of all, DiCaprio has never come across as a "real" person to me on screen. That may work to his advantage in a film like Titanic where he is more or less a romantic fairy tale character, but Scorcesian realism is out of his reach. Second of all, he doesn't come across as even mildly gritty even after the make-up job. Line up the mug shots of the other henchmen with DiCaprio's and you wonder why it was so hard to determine the one that didn't belong. In addition, I really didn't feel Matt Damon did anything earth-shattering with his performance. When you think for a moment of how complicated and interesting Matt Damon's character (and DiCaprio's character) must have been on paper and could have been on screen, it just seems like a missed opportunity. It would have been better to use new, undiscovered talent who would have done the characters more justice. As for Jack . . . yes he was doing some easily identifiable Nicholson schtick, but Nicholson communicates something genuine and real to me even if it comes across as predictable. Nicholson and Sheen had the most memorable performances, at somewhat two ends of the spectrum. Baldwin and Wahlberg seemed like over the top one-dimensional improv characters. But in the end the performances of Damon and DiCaprio are the main reason that this is not a "great" movie. I can't help but think when the psychiatrist said something like "Your vulnerability scares me" and there is a boring cut to Dicaprio's face . . . and that face never seems to change for me, ever. It's like a cute face for teen magazine cover but it's like there's no depth below it. DiCaprio just seems like too much of a wimp to be a tough guy . . . He obviously had been working out for the film but he still looks like a hollywood wimp who went to work out at the gym. Damon's performace is just hard to describe, its like he didn't give anything to the performance. It was just hard for me to believe that Matt Damon could figure anything out that his character did in the movie. I'm sure Matt is an intelligent person, but he's just not shrewd-clever. I guess I was hoping for a performance along the lines of Guy Pearce in LA Confidential, a performance that had meat to it, that actually seemed like the guy was actually that clever. When Damon "discovered" something I knew it was because he had "discovered" it when he was reading the script. Great actors make you believe that they are discovering something as they do it on camera. Watching Damon's acting is like reading a screenplay. The telephone scene with DiCaprio is a good example of this. Here it seems like one of DiCaprio's best scenes in the film, maybe because he's acting against Damon. DiCaprio generates all the drama of the scene, Damon seems to be going through the motions of what the screenplay says as if its memorized (listen on phone . . . wait for him to hang up . . . think for a moment... call him back...). DiCaprio at least has some physical expression. The chemistry of DiCaprio and Damon is a very, very long way off from the chemistry of DeNiro and Pesci. And neither of those two Departed stars could even be put in the same class when it comes to Scorcesian realism.
I refuse to watch "The Departed" and I'm putting my foot down. When I first heard that there was going to be an American remake, I was rather keen to see what it was going to be like since "Infernal Affairs" is one of my favourite films. However, when I saw the trailer, I was absolutely put-off. There were scenes in there that were stolen wholesale from "Infernal Affairs". I knew it was a remake but I didn't realise what a rip-off it was going to be. I'm pissed off and indignant that unknowing filmgoers would think that "The Departed" is one of the best movies they've seen without watching the original and without due credit as well. And yes, Jim, I too think that you absolutely do not get HK movies if you find them filled with empty action and little else. You must then be mistaking all HK crime and police films with Jackie Chan films, which I have to agree are shallow and filled with empty albeit thrilling action scenes, just like the actor himself.
I don't understand what everybody here is complaining about. I thought this was the most tense film I have seen in ages. I was completely involved and on the edge of my seat from beginning to end. This is my favourite movie so far this year.
Imagine walking into a museum, starting a discussion why you think that Renoir is not as good as the Van Gogh.
You'd either be thrown out or laughed at. But with films it's obviously fine to compare seperate works from seperate era's.
It only stops you from enjoying the film you're watching. Why cares if Rogert Ebert thinks Scoop isn't as good as Annie Hall or that The Departed isn't as good as Goodfellas ?
Do we need a green light fom all the critics before we may enter the cinema ?
I thought it was boring, pointless, and completely implausible. And also, it contained the typical finale death scene which Scorsese has avoided so many years where the bullets that instantly kill all through the movie suddenly lighten up a little so the kingpin mobster can make his sendoff speech. Stupid and formulaic. The whole thing.
Bart-W: I think your analogies are a little off-base. First, I'm a critic who would NEVER tell readers NOT to go see a movie. This whole thread is set up as a forum for discussing "The Departed" after people have seen it, and inviting them to express their own opinions and expressions and doubts and questions. So, talking about what works or doesn't work in a movie should never be confused with giving or denying "permission" to see it. (Only your parent or guardian has that power, if you're under 17.) We're all adults here and can make our own decisions. Critics make arguments, but they don't think for us.
Second, the comparison between Renoir and Van Gogh doesn't quite work. Most people here are comparing Scorsese's most recent work to his past work (and providing historical perspective is part of any critic's duty). As I may have said to you months ago about "Scoop," when you compare it to Woody Allen's best work, you can see right away why it's a minor one. That's not the same as saying it's irredeemably lousy or that you shouldn't see it. But anybody who values "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" and "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Crimes and Misdemeanors" should be able to see how "Scoop" falls short of those. Likewise, anyone who values "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver" and "GoodFellas" and "Casino" (and, I'd argue, "New York, New York" and "After Hours") should be able to see (or, at least, a critic should be able to argue) that "The Departed" doesn't measure up in many ways.
Now, when it comes to comparing two artists or works, it's not as simple as your scenario of comparing Renoir to Van Gogh. OK, they're both considered impressionists, but then what? Their subjects and styles and concerns were very different (and Van Gogh didn't generally paint nudes). So, which paintings are you comparing? A portrait and a landscape?
In the case of "Infernal Affairs" and "The Departed," a hit Hong Kong action film (previously distributed by Miramax in the US and available on DVD) and the Scorsese action film based upon it, comparisons are not only necessary but inevitable. Scenes in the first film are recreated or reworked in the second, so comparisons are meaningful and enlightening. This is also the first time Scorsese has directly "remade" an earlier movie. So, perhaps a more apt comparison would be to one of Van Gogh's repaintings of an earlier work by another painter -- like a couple of paintings he did "after Millet." Then you can compare and contrast the styles of the two artists when applied to fundamentally the same subject. That, too, can be an illuminating approach.
So, please, don't feel so defensive. The whole idea of this blog is to bring up ideas (some of which I will support, some of which I will argue against) and let everybody who wants to contribute make their case. Nobody's giving, or asking for, "permission" to go see, or enjoy, or detest, or find flaws in, or find marvels in, any movie!
While it can certainly be frustrating when critical discussion of a work seems to center wholly around comparison with an original (be the work at hand a remake, adaptation, or just similar to a previous piece), what it can do is uniquely illuminate the choices made by the artists. And the biggest thing that bugs me about The Departed is the apparent decision - again, highlighted violently by comparison with Infernal Affairs - to lay all that general smarminess and emasculation on the Andy Lau/Matt Damon character. Hey guys, he can't get it up, and he likes politics! Obvious sign of weak moral character. Let's all cheer for him to die.
It's not that decision in and of itself that's the problem, but what it implies about the viewpoint of the movie. As I recall, what made the original fun was the way it kept my loyalties divided as a viewer. Both of the leads were fairly sympathetic (and equally sexy), and a lot of the tension in the movie came from the ambivalent feelings this inspired. In The Departed, this tension is gone, and it's just another damn cat-and-mouse game with a cosmic-justice style ending. Thanks, Hollywood Joe! Never seen that before! It really surprised me that the picture chickened out on treating both leads with respect, and in such a weirdly juvenile way.
On the other hand, I don't want to be outright dismissive of something an established filmmaker like Scorsese decided to do - I just had a really strong gut reaction against this aspect of the adaptation. Does anyone have any better theories on why they chose to weaken the Matt Damon character so much?
(SPOILER WARNING!)
Perhaps it's because I've seen "Infernal Affairs" and had loved it, but "The Departed" seemed more like a rip-off than a remake. For me, almost none of the additions and changes in the film worked in improving the film. There are remakes that have been unsuccessful, but at the same time admirable for their attempt.
For example, Manchurian Candidate. While the film didn't impress me all too much, the adaptation into the modern media-campaign of the politics was interesting, despite it being a remake. Watching "The Departed," kept reminding me of just how almost exactly the same in terms of staging all of the scenes were put together from "Infernal Affairs." The additions and changes, such as how Nicholson's gang got away during the stakes scene, Madolyn's romance with Costigan's character, amongst many others served no purpose for the film, but I believed served to worsen the film. The stakes scene seemed as if the police are just completely incompetent. It also lessens the weight of the importance of the deal that Nicholson is making.
Madolyn's character and Nicholson's are the two major weaknesses in the film. I don't see Madolyn's purpose in the film other than to ease the pain from Costigan's character by sleeping with him. She's not interesting, there is not much remorse she goes through the fact that she cheats on her fiancee, it's as if she walked into a move she has no idea what it's about.
Nicholson.... I won't go into, since many people have already written about why and how he is distracting to the film.
Mark Wahlberg..... as much as I loved his performance, he doesn't serve any purpose in this film other than to serve the ending.
I'd say there is absolutely no reason to see this movie over "Infernal Affairs" other than that you don't want to read the subtitles.
I saw the film last night (10/18); Very good movie, compelling characters and storyline, and I think DiCaprio should get an Oscar nomination. I also thought Wahlberg and Sheen were great, too.
I have written about Scorsese extensively, and I am one of the few admirers of the underrated "Bringing Out the Dead." I think what has happened is that Scorsese has a signpost, that being "GoodFellas," that is unfortunately being used as the standard for everything he has done since. Frankly, "Age of Innocence" is as much a masterpiece as "GoodFellas" is, but its stakes and concerns are different.
"GoodFellas" is the epitome of the gangster genre and has inspired many directors, even Scorsese himself with "Casino." Frankly, Scorsese has proven that he is not only interested in gangsters, and so when he comes back with a movie that features gangsters who are incidental to the plot, it is considered a return to form. But what if Scorsese made a movie about Christ again or a similar troubled love story like "Age," would he be seen as tackling something that doesn't serve him well, or would people say it is a return to form?
"The Departed" is really about the day-by-day operations of the state police, the cat-and-mouse game that ensues between two different moles, and how one's identity becomes lost when you can't tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy. It is a noir thriller but it is hardly a gangster picture. Considering his vast body of work where he has explored different genres throughout his career, Scorsese is concerned with morality in all aspects of life, not just the mean streets.
The Departed is not better than "Casino" or any movie that Martin Scorsese had made prior to that one. But it is right behind it seeing that it works off of a terrific other film called "Infernal Affairs". That having been said, "The Departed" is the best movie I have seen this year, so far.
One cop has gone undercover as a gangster and one gangster has gone undercover as a cop. Each side begins to believe that they have a mole amidst them because every bust (for the cops) ends up empty handed and every drug deal (for the gangsters) gets busted up.
Both of the main charaters have the same boss at the gangster and cop juncture and they never know of each other or meet until the last five minutes of the film.
The reason that "The Departed" is so good is because it makes "Infernal Affairs" a better film by adding to the character developement. Tony Leung plays as the real cop, gone undercover as a gangster in "Infernal Affairs" and he sees a shrink every once in a while. He shows up at her office, pops a couple of pills and goes to sleep on her sofa as she plays Solitaire (or Freecell, I can not recall). WHy is he so tired? Because "The Depared" announces that his character (played there by DiCaprio) is having problems working undercover for a mass murderer. His nerves can not take it and he's losing sleep at night.
"The Departed" makes "Infernal Affairs" a better film.
Scorsese lets you feel the "Mean Streets" vibe as the film begines but soon borders on "Goodfellas" territory with violence. Then it approaches "Gangs of New York" territory with the characters that are all utterly bad. And those that are good people suffer the most. "Gangs of New York" is a lesson in history so if someone disliked the film because its characters are all rotten just remember that those people had existed and that they made Manhatten into what it is today.
"The Departed" is strong as a drama and is filled with suspense from the scenes that involes actual police work (for both sides). The performances are fantastic and as down to Earth as they can get. Jack Nicholson deserves recognition for playing a person so evil and murderous that you want to hate him but can not because underneath he is still Jack Nicholson.
The rest of the cast holds down their forts in the performances of their careers (except for Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen; they are always amazing).
D.
I think "The Departed" is marvelously entertaining with some very good performances all around, but with one great performance that thrums underneath the entire film: Leonardo DiCaprio. While everyone debates to what degree Jack was over-the-top or if Matt Damon was left with little to do, Leo really makes us care for him.
I think the wonderful thing about a new Scorsese movie is how "awake" his audiences are: we're constantly searching in every scene for greater meanings than we would care to watch out for in most other movies. That leads me to suspect why some ardent Scorsese fans have felt disappointed by this one: it's an entertainment. But that's fine with me because, oh, what a good movie it is. It moves with assurance and simplicity in the first hour and then it gathers steam and really moves with energy that's headlong and breakneck.
This movie, like "the Godfather II" or "Kill Bill", is based on a very simple premise, but it's not about that so much as "how it's about it", as Roger Ebert says.
I recalled "Glengarry Glen Ross" watching this movie, sometimes with the snappy dialogue, but mostly in the way it sees it's men, which is to me what this movie is really about. This is about men who get to lead the kinds of lives left in the hazy childhood memories of most grown men: playing cops and robbers. I especially liked Martin Sheen's quiet performance as Leo's contact within the department. In an unexpected meeting at Sheen's house, watch how when he asks if Leo is hungry, he really means it. He sincerely cares for the kid at the same time that he's using him.
Notice the nuances: the men behave according to where they stand in the pecking order of either the police department or Nicholson's gang of baddies. There is a specific structure on both sides that is interesting to follow: in that interview scene between Sheen and Walberg and Leo, watch how Sheen uses Wahlberg to build trust between himself and Leo. Yes, Wahlberg is funny, but that's because his character is very aware of his second-fiddle standing to Sheen at the office, which is precisely why he overemphasizes his role. Notice the differing levels of trust between both sides and how much more appealing it would be to "belong" in Nicholson's crew instead of the backstabbing police department.
This is Leo's best work to date. His character carries tension around his mouth while his eyes dart around, forever manic, calculating, dreading. I loved the scenes between him and the psychiatrist, filled with need and hunger. There is a lovely moment in her old bedroom when Leo sees a photograph of her as a child; it's hanging halfway up the wall until Leo sees it, takes it in, and moves it to where our eyes would see it the moment we walk into the bedroom.
Perhaps in time audiences will realise that Jack is over-the-top in bursts and that he has some very good scenes here, especially near the end with Leo. They sit there alone with each other while everything is said in subtext. Yes, Jack makes the rat face in that scene, it's funny, but notice how the arch of that scene shows Jack's aging character; on one hand, exposing Leo seems to be on the tip of his tongue here, but the fact that he's losing his grip on power consumes him more.
Matt Damon plays many of the same notes he played in "The Talented Mr.Ripley", having to squirm out of one situation after another while we have to constantly remind ourselves that he's the bad guy. It's a credit to him as an actor that he can fool us like that; he does it so easily.
Those flourishes all throughout "The Departed" make it one hell of an entertaining Friday night movie for adults.
Personally, I dismiss the whole "best since" syndrome we always get with the release of every new movie by a major director. I think what really needs to be said is that if you really love Scorsese, you'll rent "Bringing Out The Dead" with a Nicolas Cage performance that just breaks your heart. That movie made under $10 million at the box office in 1999, and is unfairly neglected. Consider that had it been directed by a new director, it would've received the acclaim it deserved.
The Departed: missing scene found (tongue in cheek)
*screen fades to white - flashback*
drill sergeant: Those who break the rules will be like them. They will be expelled!
*close-up of Alan Mak and Andrew Lau*
drill sergeant: Anybody want to trade places with them?!
*close-up of Martin Scorsese*
Scorsese: I do. *looks up at Alan and Andrew, face full of remorse*
*screen fades to black*
"Says the Buddha: 'He who makes films in Continuous Hell (i.e., Hollywood) is seldom original. The needless creation of uninspired remakes is a big hardship in Continuous Hell.'"
Next up: Hollywood's reworking of Béla Tarr's Sátántangó. An 83 minute Technicolor feature with Jack Nicholson playing an eccentric Oklahoma farmer wallowing in desperation and passivity...that is until he hooks up with a robot and a talking pie destined for a California video game championship tournament! Any and all cats in this film are CGI. Rated R for graphic violence and lack of character development.
P.S. I love Scorsese's work, but this particular film did nothing for me. Nevertheless, I am going to see it again so that I can better understand my reasons for disliking it. I am truly envious of everyone who has fallen in love with the film. I am saddened (and surprised) by the fact that I was disappointed with it. Perhaps my love of Infernal Affairs kept me from enjoying Scorsese's version.
I will admit that the only Scorcese film I have seen other than "The Departed" is "The Aviator." I think both films are good, but Scorcese is in top form with "The Departed." This film succeeds because of the combination of a talented all star male cast, great plot, and a brillant screenplay makes this film worthwhile to watch.
The film is no slouch in the style and verve department, but the characters never came alive. The only character who really stood out to me--fleshed out, interesting, dangerous--was Wahlberg's investigator. Aweseome performance.
It is a great genre picture, but it is not Scorsese's best. I just never got emotionally invested in Damon or DiCaprio and the danger they were both facing was never fully palpable other than in the scene where they are chasing each other down alleyways.
My favorite Scorsese pic and one of my top five in moviedom is "The Aviator." Transcendent, amazing, has to be seen on the big screen. The "Wild Angels" scenes alone are stunning.
I thought it was good, not excellent. It was sluggish and lacked the cohesion of the better Scorcese films. For a movie with so much potential there were very few truly memorable scenes. Nicholson with the two call girls at the opera and their susbequent cocaine sex outing was perhaps the most compelling scene in the whole movie.
Nicholson (my favorite actor and a great inspiration for many years) was in excellent form, especially considering he was sixty nine years old when the film was made. His Plutonian nature is serving him well in his later years. As good as he was, DiCaprio was even better. His intensity got my attention. Another strongly Plutonian character who will be around for a long time and get even better with age.
Three stars for The Departed.
I'm still suprised at the number of people who found DiCaprio's performance great and a few even mentioning oscar. Granted I think DiCaprio had a couple good scenes (the phone scene with Matt Damon and the scene where his aws revealed as a phony at beginning) . . . but it is obvious to me that DiCaprio was simply miscast for this role fromt he beginning. I thought it was as mismatched as casting Rodney Dangerfield in a dramatic interpretation of Hamlet. I can't help but to think: are people perhaps confusing the character developed by the screenwriter with the character developed by the actor? Was DiCaprio's acting really that good or was the character well written? Best Screenplay nomination, perhaps, Best Actor, not by a long shot. I think there are hundreds of other actors who would have give a better performace. DiCaprio's best moments in the film came when acting against Whalberg and Damon . . . and acting against those two would make anyone look like Olivier. Should we give credit to Dangerfield for muttering "To be or not" while wiggling his tie? Or maybe perhaps give some credit to William for penning the words?
The Departed is absolutely Scorcese's best film since Goodfellas. Casino is good, but the lackluster performances by James Woods and Sharon Stone brought the film down a notch. The Departed marks Scorcese's exit from epic filmmaking a la Gangs of New York and The Aviator. Both films are excellent in their own right, but could have been made by any skilled director. They lacked that distinct Scorcese style. Scorcese rediscovers his niche in The Departed. The sharp editing, intense character development, vivid narration, and electrifying classic rock soundtrack techniques that Scorcese initially developed in his masterpiece Mean Streets are all resurrected for The Departed. The Departed is the best film of 2006 and it would be a travesty if the Academy once again snubs America's greatest director.
Whatever. Yeah, The Departed is Marty's best since The Aviator--because The Aviator was a masterpiece! The Departed, though, is not just another Scorcese gangster film--not by a long shot. This is a real departure. It's an almost Greek morality tale for a society descending into true amorality. Five stars out of four.
I'll agree that it his his best movie since GoodFellas, but I think his two best movies (Raging Bull and Taxi Driver) were not mafia movies anyways.
I thought that The Departed was better than Infernal Affairs, which i saw first. I think the dichotomy of the two characters was lost in both films by the second act, and Scorsese's film is much more saturated in crime and corruption than the former, lending a much more pulse-pounding thriller aspect that was missing in the first film. Infernal Affairs was more of a painting, The Departed was a collection of paintings, not always interlocked perfectly, but still extremely entertaining. Ironically, I feel that The Departed should have been longer. There were some real De Palma type scenes cut short, especially the devilish Jack Nicholson scene w/ his two brauds. That was a scary couple of minutes, and if that character's desperation to feel or act or do something outside of this game was stressed a bit more, the third act would have really been something.
"The Departed" is a Wily Coyote cartoon in terms of plausible plot line. The Martin Sheen character gets thrown of the roof. The motive - Jack's orders? No. He was a threat to thugs? No. And then to make it even more moronic we are told one of the thugs is an undercover cop working for Sheen. So we are expected to believe he either participated in the murder of his boss or stood passively by as other thugs did it. Come on, daytime soaps have more plausible plot lines.
And will someone please explain how Leo came into possession the "magical tapes" which recorded all of Jack's conversations. And what about Leo's motive for inviting Matt to rooftop from which his own boss was killed? Was his plan to arrest him to the music of West Side Story.
This freakin film is a cartoon. And it is an insult to call it a "Boston" film. No Boston reality whatsoever. If the Leo character had spent weekends in Southie growing up he would have had to have known the Matt character. Given how insular Southie is it would be impossible not to know each other.
And the acting? Leo constipated the whole film. Matt doing GWH character grown up. Walberg in an SNL skit. Jack channeling the Devil he played in Witches. Girl non existent. Baldwin only one worth a hoot.
Movie sucked, a weak ass Tarentino knock off.
I was dissapointed at first after watching the movie, but I realized I was only dissapointed because I had certain expectations about what the film would be, and had a similar reaction to Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that although there is a lot of crazy Scorsese energy, the emotion is a bit muted. There are some very emotional scenes, but emotional the same way a Kubrick movie can be emotional- everything is always very distant.Pay attention to the way the music is a shadow in the background, rather than up front and center like in most of his movies. In the trailer the song "Comfortably Numb" has really strong emotional impact, which is what I expected- in the movie it is played softly and emphasizes what the song is about- the characters are numb, they are the departed, they are the living dead, and the movie feels the same way, which is a bit weird, but that Scorsese could create that feeling shows his skill as a film maker.
I also find it incredulous that Scorsese took the time to include the scene of DiCaprio passing the "all impoortant" envelope to Madolyn and did not follow-up on it later. Was this on the cutting room floor? Any thoughts?
Most of the reviews I've read concerning Scorsese's latest film seem to fall towards either extreme.Many have called it one of his best films,while others are vehemntly trashing it.My personal opinion veers towards the middle ground somewhere(although i did need to see it twice to get there).Yes,Scorsese is unquestionably one of the greatest filmmakers to contribute to the medium as an art form,but it may be a bit harsh to expect another masterpiece each time out of the gate,especially this late in his career.Should the film be lumped in with Goodfellas or Casino?Perhaps,if only because the genre is so familiar to the director that he can make a picture like this in his sleep.There certainly isn't the feeling of freshness or the cinematic flourishes that mark Scorsese's best work.That being said,this is still one very entertaining picture.It's always exciting to see Scorsese work with people he hasn't before.Damon and Dicaprio turn in some of their best work here,while Baldwin and Wahlberg deliver some of the most priceless dialogue in a razor sharp script.And nobody can call this movie boring.Plot holes?Sure.A few too many twists towards the end? Given.But let's cut the master a break and enjoy this one for what it is.A skillfully made thriller laced with black humour that I wouldn't call a waste of anybody's time or talent.
I'd say it was the best show since the Sopranos. Jack reminded me more of Tony Soprano than Micahel Corleone who would eat one for lunch and the other for a snack within a NY minute.
That said, it was a great flick til the end. I think it was Ebert who said Hollywood's rule of thumb for a good movie was to have the good guys chasing the bad guys and having the good guys win and never getting killed.
More and more the good guys are getting killed like Kostner in the Guardian.
Damn, in the Departed, everyone gets killed including all the bad guys and all the good guys. Even with the last bad guy standing in the end I felt bad when he was whacked.
The ending ruined it for me because of some wise ass producers going away from the rule of thumb. ugh!
I suppose this board just shows how disconnected I feel from most critics and most of popular culture.
I think "The Departed" is a great film. Do I think it's Scorsese's best? I doubt it. But I do think it's his most purely entertaining film. And it's refreshing to find a director of his stature making a film with great actors that does not take itself too seriously.
Frankly, I can't stand most movies that come out of the crime genre of recent years. Even Michael Mann can't make crime films right anymore ("Miami Vice" may be the worst movie I saw this year along with the Pirates sequel...wait check that, I got dragged to see "The Decent"). It seems as though style over substance is resinating more than ever, but I'm thankful that Mr. Scorsese has made a movie that has both, but not too much style.
I can't believe that someone remarked that this movie is weak compared to a Tarentino film. Last time I checked all Mr. Tarentino has been up to lately is producing crappy horror films, he needs to get back to making movies. And nevermind the fact that Tarentino would never exist if it wasn't for Martin Scorsese or Jean-Pierre Melville, etc. Oh, and Brian DePalma sucks i.m.o. "The Black Dahlia" is another empty film, just as many of his films are. The fact that people have started comparing "Scarface" in the same ranks with something such as "Goodfellas" or "The Godfather" is appauling.
Anyway, I guess I had no attachment to "Infernal Affairs" so I think both movies are pretty good, but I agree with a BBC review of "Affairs" that said it was overrated. I don't know what makes people say the original was so great. I don't see how it's better than "Heat" or "L.A. Confidential" or any other well acted police procedural...although those two movies are an example of the type of material that almost transcend their genre.
I also disagree with Mr. Emerson that some Hong Kong cinema that has more action is less appealing than something like "Infernal Affairs." "Hard Boiled" from John Woo is a movie that totally influenced "Affairs" and in fact "Affairs" ripped a few scenes directly from that movie.
And to be honest a movie like "Hard Boiled" or "The Departed" resonate with me more simply because they are more kinetic and when done right if a film is full of kinetic moments then that adds to the tension of the film in general.
Perhaps to put it best, I will quote another good movie which rips off good movies and that would be "Swingers."
"It's movies...Everybody rips off everybody."
Steven, the "all impoortant" envelope given to Madolyn WAS followed-up on. It was the reason Dignam showed up at Sullivan's apartment. What else would Costigan put in that letter but incriminating info about Sullivan and contact info for Dignam?
R King, Delahunt COULD NOT have worked for Queenan. If you believed the TV reporter (Costello did not), he was working undercover for the Boston Police Dept. while Queenan was a Captain in the Massachusetts State Police.
As for the recordings, Sullivan told Costello that the undercover cop definitely wasn't Costigan because the latter successfully ignored their misinformation sting. Since Costello finally trusted Costigan and since he was the only crew member left, the departed mobster's lawyer gave him the tapes.
Scorsese is a great filmmaker with one problem: length. Most of his movies of the past 20 years are potentially-great movies that just drag on too long. If it's truly a masterpiece, like Goodfellas or The Aviator, we don't mind, but then there are others, like Last Temptation or Casino or Gangs or THIS that have interesting plots and quality acting, but just give us 20 minutes more than we need, and go from being "Wow" to "Enough already." Btw, Kundun is a fluke and quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.
I thought this movie was not nearly as good as people say it is. First I saw the movie and thought it was crap and not as exciting as either Goodfellas or Casino. I liked those movies b/c there was an element of realism in those films. This one was comic book like with too many unreal events. For example, the cat and mouse game between dicaprio and Damon was rediculous because in that amount of time one was bound to see the other. Also, it was so obvious who the mole was in Nicholson's group. It was Billie. It would not have taken a rocket scientist to figure this out especially since billy used to be on the force. Finally to grant Matt Damon full authority to snoop for the mole and rule him out was unreal. Then at the end with all the multiple murders, don't even get me started....that's all.
One word about this movie: UNNECESSARY! Unnecessarily written and randomly placed lines ("Oh the Patriot Act! I love it! I love it!"), unnecessarily taken and randomly placed shots (M.S.: "Yeah let's do a panning zoom of the briefing officers one after another for the heck of it and throw in some barrel shots to look sophisticated."), unnecessarily made and randomly placed scenes ("Dirty O'le Jack with Hookers and Coke after an Opera"), and unnecessary "deus-ex-machina" type plot twists at the end in an attempt to over-gorify the story in its last 5 minutes... All have amounted to a movie that is only amusing to today's stupified audiences who will only catch symbolism if it's written in capitals all over the screen in blinking font blended with sexual imagery. ("Dude! The rat at the end, walking on the balcony... Scorsese is such a smart guy dude...") Please people. Stop making movies for 12-year-olds and throwing crap like this in our movie theaters.
Last post by Oz one of the best I've ever read. Couldn't agree more. That people are promoting Departed for an Oscar just stuplifies me. I am the one who made a Tarentino reference only because for me his formula was sketchy colorful characters coupled with vivid violence and forget about plausible plot lines. Replace vivid violence with vivid sex and isn't that the formula for porn movies.
And I am repeating myself, but as a born and bred Bostonian is really burns me when people call this a great Boston pic. If you want to see Boston captured in tone and style rent The Verdict with Newman. Except for the bogus accents (the great Baldwin the exception) this film captured nothing about Boston. It could have been set in Cleveland or Spokane or anywhere.
That anyone could talk about The Departed and Goodfellas in the same sentance is an abomination. The former is a cartoon, the latter a classic.
I was fully expecting Martin Scorcese to cameo with a bow at the end of the film, and have his brains blown out against the wall.
Sigh, such a technically capable director, with nothing of value to say!
I am disappointed with the choice to use these Rolling Stones songs again.
Talented director that only "communicates" through excessive violence. The audience actually laughed as practically every character was killed. I'd like to see M.S. make a film where no one dies - could he do it? I doubt it.
Bob Scagnatti, what does "one was bound to see the other" mean? Why would it matter if they bumped into each other every now and then? As to the obviousness of the identity of the mole in Nicholson's group... well, yes it WAS obvious to Costello. He was constantly accusing Costigan of being the rat, so he and Sullivan set him up with a disinformation sting operation. He didn't bite and Sullivan swore to Costello that Costigan wasn't the rat. As to granting Matt Damon full authority to snoop for the mole while ruling him out... there were two reasons. One, his immaculate record. But more importantly, he was the one who started the rumor that there was a rat in the Staties. That ruled him out by default.
It strikes me as odd that Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ was deemed both sadistic in its violence but all antisemitic. Scorese's films overall reveal a far deeper sadism and a groteque racism, albeit not anti-semitism. Why is rascism and prejudice applauded for one director and reviled by another?
All the actors were self-consciously aware and celebratory about being in a Scorsese picture. Boston accents are more annoying than New York accents. Mobsters are not that cool, and far from hip. The glorification of them is dated, stale and quite boring. Matt Damon is a dork. If Leo continues rejecting his sex symbol status by being pure, cerebral, intellectual, serious, and desheveled, he will sustain his potential longevity and have a shot at Brando/Dean mystique. His upcoming film though, strategically previewed b4 DEPARTED, will be a point of furious ridicule--just by virtue of how absurdly stupid his accent sounds. Jack is cool. Jack is Jack. Jack is jacking off in another movie. I'm Jack and I am sardonic and sexy and twisted and crazy. I am Jack the jack off. I love to jack off all over myself because I'm Jack and I can, and if I don't, nobody will take me seriously. Wrong. I never thought I'd get tired of Jack. But I am. Doses of extreme are good. Extreme extreme is no good. It exhausts and de-sensitizes. Jack in the box. The jester Jack is a Jack in the box whose branded "Jack" is becoming a jack off jerk. Bring back the Jack before he became a CrackerJack. Christopher Walken is the new Jack. Composed and quiet. He is the Gentleman's Jack.
Gimme Shelter opening was moody magic until Damon's smarmy grin entered the screen. Damon's Mr. Ripley was uncanny, creepy, brilliant--this was just silly. Kevin Corrigan was excellent. The ending was weak: a predictable bloodbath. Considering Scorsese's fetish for blood and violence, DEPARTED lacked the creativity of pure disturbing violence. Tarantino's searing MichaelMadsenManicVanGogh scene is the benchmark and Scorsese didn't even touch wood in this popcorn movie. It's not a film, it's a movie. A movie for people to feel cool when they leave. "Did you see The Departed? It was AWESOME. Jack is sick." Shut the fuck up. Have you even heard of King of Comedy?
Go back to the drawing board Marty. A supporting actor nomination is all you're gonna get sir. And unfortunately that god damn saint of a filmmaker Clint, with his goodness and connection with the good hard-working folk of America, is going to beat you again. But this time, it won't even be a competitition.
I'm tired of hearing about "Infernal Affairs." Is it a better movie than the "Departed"? Maybe. But "Stray Dog" is infinitely better than either film, and "Infernal Affairs" doesn't cover any ground Kurosawa hadn't dealt with forty years earlier. I'm also tired of hearing about "GoodFellas" which is one of Scorcese's least enjoyable films. Scorcese is at his best when he manages to open up emotionally while keeping his tendency toward sentimentalism and camp in check. That's why "Gangs of New York" isn't any better than "Pirates of the Carribean" and "Kundun" is a masterpiece. I'm not a huge fan of Scorcese. Along with "Kundun" his only great films are "Taxi Driver", "Cape Fear" and "The Age of Innocence." And, now, "The Departed." There are some overwrought moments, to be sure, but there is a loose-jointed freedom in the film, and a remarkable naturalism to almost all of the acting. There is real vulnerability and emotion and tension. These things aren't as common as we'd like in film these days. So, stop comparing it to two films it's not, and actually spend a few minutes thinking about the film it is.
While I too am tired of the constant comparisons being drawn between "Internal Affairs" and "The Departed", I do feel that comparison to Scorcese's other work falls within fair comment. My problem with the movie is not some plot failures or the " lets hurry up and tie up all the loose ends" finale. My problem is that in the hands of any lessor director, this would be an above average and entertaining movie. The fact that Scorcese made the film, with the talent that he exhibited in his prior work, makes this simply a poor movie.
And that rat on the balcony with the capitol dome as backdrop? Not even a film student would stoop to that level. What was he thinking?
PLAIN ENGLISH.Three quarters of A good movie.Jack Nicholson goes all"The Shining"on us & really just becomes A caricature of himself.Sad.The ending was like"Ok,it's four lets shoot everybody & maybe make happy hour."
Certainly not in the league with Goodfellas,Casino etc...
Jack Nicholson is A great actor.Too bad his ego got the best of him in this one.I'm not A filmaker,but if I was,I would have made him take direction.It is my/your movie after all.
If you're seen the original you can't help but make the comparison. I'm glad to see that there are other frustrated viewers out there.
I ask first time watchers, and not everybody liked it. It was only the plot and acting that really seemed to make the movie - plot stemming from the orginal. However, Infernal Affairs was done with more grace and artiscal style than the wham-bam-thank-you from The Departed.
I hate when movies treat the audience like they're stupid and dangle the clue and hints obviously around the screen, making sure you'd catch their meaning later.
Great acting, but I wish, in the Departed, that the gangster-turned-cop character was developed more, like it was in Infernal Affairs.
I found that the scene in the beginning of Infernal Affairs was key, with the stereo system. Also, the scene where they all stake out to attempt to sabatotage the drop - was SO poorly done in the Departed.
Also, doesn't anyone find it funny that in the original both moles infiltrated the system from when they were teenagers until they were at least 30 - at least 10 or so years. And in the Departed, Leo was only in there for a few months-a year.
I thought "The Departed" was exellent. My second or third favorite Scorsese movie (behind Goodfellas and neck-in-neck with Taxi Driver). I think the fact that its a straight genre film has lead many to underestimate it greatly.
First, the direction was wonderful. The montage-like visual structure of the first half is simply jaw-dropping and many of the camera angles seem lifted directly from old film noir and western films. Further, the way Scorsese ratchets down the pace and ups the tension in the second half is a marvel.
Damon and DiCaprio, two actors I've never been particularly fond of, display a level of gravitas that neither actor has even approximated in past performances. The way their secrets eat them alive is nearly unbearable to watch, as is their shared loss of identity and understanding of loyalty. I did not think Damon was overly-villainized, I thought he was pitiful because he wanted to be good.
Finally, I think the morality of the film was very telling--both in relation to Scorsese's past films and our times. Everyone's playing a fixed game in the Departed, where no one can win and no one gets out alive. By the time Damon and DiCaprio face off, their father figures are dead and the only reason they have to continue their pursuit of each other is routine.
The details that the screenwrtier added about Boston were precious and lifted this film way above the original--of which the premise was, by far, the most interesting aspect. And the way the ghosts of the Departed hang over Boston, by the end of the film, is incredible. I think this film says a lot about Bushworld and an America that continues to fight unwinnable wars, values corruption just as much as it does the prosecution of the corrupted, and continues to deny its part in the creation of evil in the modern world.
The Departed was good. How good is it? It's not great. How could it not be entertaining with that acting pool. Jack Nicholson, because he should always be mentioned.
Story? Plot? it's easy. It's predictable. And I think a 12 year old boy wrote the final scenes. Have him shoot him, and him shoot him, and then he gets shot. stupid!
simply overrated
I have long admired Mr. Scorsese's pictures. From his most morally personal ("GoodFellas") to his most commercially sensationalistic ("Cape Fear"), he has never been anything if not a sharp, intelligent artist, working nuance into every story and drawing wonderful performances from actors whose work sometimes does not reach the level of artistry achieved in a "Martin Scorsese Picture." "The Departed," while a good film, is no "GoodFellas." Such was the proclamation given to me by people who saw the picture before I. There is much about the picture that is good: most of the performances; the whip-sharp editing, courtesy of Ms. Schoonmaker; Mr. Scorsese's direction; and a screenplay that dared to be (until the final shot) rather blunt in its tragic implications. Mr. Nicholson's performance offered something of a paradox. By now he is known as being "cool" as "Mr. Bad." And while there are intimations of that "Jack" stock character in Frank Costello, I also felt Mr. Nicholson pulling back from going full-tilt with it. There was nothing "cool" about this "Mr. Bad." He was a sick individual, filled with poison, and had no other recourse but to slowly implode. I respect that he didn't go into full "Joker" or "Jack Torrance" mode, yet there were moments when I could not help but remember: That's "Jack" up there, not "Frank." His accent was interesting whilst he was using it; it kept going in and out, and hitting upon certain words ("marshes" as "mahshes") does not a credible accent make. (Ms. Smith did better with hers in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie," which she has said depended on nailing certain words: "girls" as "giurls" with a slight little lilting roll.) Mr. Damon did his best with a thoroughly weak and disgusting character; Mr. DiCaprio was surprisingly intense. However, Mr. Wahlberg was the true powerhouse here; it's nice to see him doing work as good as that seen in "Boogie Nights." And Vera Farmiga -- she did well with what she was given. It was her silent, murdering look in the funeral scene that truly elevated this crime caper to grand tragedy. Alec Baldwin? When will this actor receive the respect he has truly earned ("Glengarry Glen Ross," "The Cooler")? The direction was vintage Scorsese; the soundtrack, too. Though "Gimme Shelter" was well-suited to the picture, it is in danger of becoming too much of a staple in a Scorsese gangster picture. I liked the picture, but yet there is something that keeps me from declaring it as his "best" since "GoodFellas," just as it keeps me from placing "The Departed" on the same shelf as that 1991 masterpiece. I'm not sure what it is, and I will see the picture again in an effort to discern it. For all of that, it is a good film; it is certainly better than most of the tripe in which Hollywood has its hands submerged these days. And yet... there does seem to be less of a "moral" stake in this picture than it other Scorsese pictures. "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," "The Last Temptation of Christ," "GoodFellas" -- one felt the moral weight of each picture; the tragic element of souls lost, gained, and lost again. "The Departed" flirted with this, but never attained the level the other pictures have (mind you, based on one viewing). So I will go and see it again, and do my best to follow Mr. Scorsese's instruction: "When you watch a film, don't try to analyze it. Just sit there and ask yourself, 'Do I think this is good? Is it entertaining?'" We shall see.
The movie was too long, had too many rats, and became laughable with all the shootings. I stopped caring about the plot and the characters during the first half of the movie. I wish reviewers were less awed by certain directors and actors because this film was not good and no amount of celebrity could fix it.
I can't say I was doubly impressed with The Departed--then again I was not turned off by it. I do believe it was a rare Scorcese effort that lacked an over-the-top acting performance like Sharon Stone in Casino or DeCaprio in The Aviator. His directorial style does not lend itself to an overload of star quality like we saw in The Departed.
Your right the Aviator is very underrated. I thought it was a great film. But i think i can do you one better and say that i really didn't think that Goodfellas was that good. At least not as good as Casino. I know that may be blasphemous for a lot of people but hey. Anyway there was a scene in the Departed where Jack (real names not character names) after talking to Leo leaves and then comes back behind Leo while Leo is talking to Jack's right hand man. I got the impression that Leo was not expecting Jack to come back and actually surprised him. I think it was an imporvisation that they left in the movie if not it was some really good acting. Can't wait for the dvd to find out.
The Departed was top-of-the-line storytelling. We care about characters; we laugh with them, we cry with them, we jump back in fear as something frightening happens to them. Editing is top-notch, transitioning flawlessly from one scene to the next. The soundtrack fit the film perfectly, especially "Gimme Shelter" and "Shipping up to Boston." It's an all-around great movie, and certainly much better than the quick cash-in movies Hollywood as been putting out as of late.
"The Departed" was one of those movies that starts out well enough, but about half-way through Scorsese's dementia kicked in and he forgot about the characters he had developed and any plot that he might have originally had in mind and just started to arbitrarily kill people off like he needed to get rid of them in order for the movie to end.
One strand of the story that he completely left hanging was the package of documents that Costigan left with the Vera Farmiga character. If she turned them over to anybody, you certainly could never surmise that from the movie. If she didn't, then the whole frigging thing was even more pointless.
All in all, I give the first half of the movie five stars and minus five stars for the last half, equalling zero starts overall.
It's very good but not great, and certainly more developed than much of the dreck that makes it to theaters nowadays. But it was also an adaptation, meaning that it essentially leaned on and learned from a better film, a rather unfair advantage over original material.
Plot holes aside (the letter at the end, the real loyalty of the dying "mole," etc.), the story, despite its twists and turns, is rather conventional, and the film suffers from an overabundance of typical Hollywood stereotyping -- the Irish as neandethalic thugs, the Italians as greasy opportunists, the Chinese as clueless wannabes. At least one character didn't even ring slightly true: the Harvard-trained psychiatrist, whose personality and maturity are closer to the girl at the Clinique counter than an Ivy League M.D. with post-graduate training! Still, at least she had some development; many characters were simply blank slates defined more by their nefarious actions than any sense of history or purpose.
The film is watchable mostly because of the performances. Nicholson reprises a lot of his posturing from "The Shining," including that feral head down, gaze up thing he does, but he certainly brings more charisma to the role than a lesser actor would. Both Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen are terrific in supporting roles, and even the so-so "superstars" of their generation -- DiCaprio and Damon -- do better than expected. I have to give credit to that de-evolutionary wonder, Mark Wahlberg, too.
While there are very effective moments, Scorcese's direction sometimes seems rather vanilla compared to his earlier efforts. For a guy that revels in gliding camera shots and splashes of multi-colored violence, he seems almost as restrained here as in "The Aviator." Without the visual pyrotechnics, the superficiality of the plot, which amounts to a rather complicated chessgame with more questions than answers, are more obvious. Thank goodness the soundtrack helps to keep us distracted.
I have to wonder, too, how many times we have to see the same basic stories about European-American gangs preying on each other, as well as ethnic minorities. Once upon a time, I loved American movies, but their narrow view of character and story now makes me gravitate toward foreign films and classic cinema. That's too bad because with my education and income, I'm probably in most ways part of the key demographic for films.
The film was great in spots, but not in enough of them. It was very drawn out, and lasted at least half an hour longer than it should have. When DiCaprio's character almost tracks down Damon's character on the city street, I anticipated the end of the film was nigh, and that we were headed for a great, dramatic showdown. However, it then proceeded to take another half hour or more for them to get to the ending, and I felt as though the material in that span was little more than filler. The cursing in the film was over the top and excessive, so much so it distracted from the plot, which itself was again very drawn out. The performances by the actors were phenomenal, I cannot deny that. Jack was great as always and I gained a lot of respect for DiCaprio's ability as a dramatic actor, but the plot just seemed to take forever to evolve and despite the ending's surprising aspects, I didn't think it got where it was going well enough and didn't actualize the kind of potential it seemed to have at the beginning. I had high expectations and frankly, I was let down pretty hard.
I find it fascinating that Scorsese's films recieve so much historical revisionism. Besides his early classics ("Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver") and the universally acclaimed "Goodfellas", his films ofter recieve a lackluster reponse upon release only to be deemed classics later. "Casino" for example, did poor business and got lukewarm (read-disappointing) reviews at the time.
What's next? Will cineastes and critics suddenly see the power of Nick Cage and Patricia Arquettes wooden performances in "Bringing out the Dead"? Will "Kundun" suddenly be seen as the lost masterpiece of Italian-American-Buddhist cinema?
A lot of these comments claim that "The Departed" is not as good as "Goodfellas" or "Casino". While I certainly agree with the former claim, I think "Goodfellas" is Scorsese's very best, I don't see the "Casino" comparison.
"Casino", in my opinion, is a terrible movie. The characters are despicable and lack the charisma that made "Goodfellas" so enjoyable. The gore is so over-the-top as to be nearly desensitizing and the story is lackluster, at best. Scorsese's direction is great, as usual, but it often feels like he's going through the motions, attempting to make "Goodfellas 2", which many have said is true of "the Departed".
I enjoyed "the Departed" much more and found it to be innovative for both Scorsese and American film. While the incredible script and performances of "the Departed" don't match the incredibly high level of quality found in"Goodfellas", they certainly trump seeing Joe Pesci put a fella's head in a vice while Sharon Stone and James Woods wear ugly clothes and do too much cocaine.
And performance wise, Nicholson certainly matches DeNiro and Pesci, creating a character that has both of their tendencies while being a totally unique screwball in his own right. And Damon and DiCaprio fare much better than Liotta and Bracco did in Goodfellas, where their performances were the weakest link.
I agree, as well, that the Aviator is underrated. It does not have a lot of the flair of a typical Scorsese picture and the cinematography is not quite as well handled as some of his other movies, but it is entertaining and informative and packs plenty of zing.
i saw the hk original and the departed basically copied dat film 99%. from the rooftop meetings to the breaking of Costigan's cast. the 1% dat they didn't copy, they shud hv. the ending left me shaking my head. **SPOILER ALERT!!!** my reaction was "WHAT??? EVERYBODY DIED??? HOW LAME IS DAT??". i can't help but compare it to the original. in the original, damon's character WAS remorseful and he WANTED to become a good cop at the end. dat was the reason he killed the mob boss n the 2nd mole. i didn't feel dat sullivan was remorseful at all in the departed. maybe, the writers of the departed felt sullivan shudn't live coz of the things he's done. moreover, the film made Costello like a crazy guy which i don't really enjoy compared to the original. also, y bring in a 3rd actor to play the 2nd mole when brown cud've very well BE the 2nd mole?? i think dat wud bring another surprise twist for the ending.
all in all, the film wasn't that great so i dunno y ppl say is scorsese's best work. if you want to watch it for the story, watch the original. it's a lot better.
I feel that "The Departed" is in fact not only the best film that Martin Scorsese has done since "Goodfellas", it far surpasses the films like "Casino" or "Gangs of New York" that came after "Goodfellas". Not to take anything away from those films, but "The Departed" had a fresh feeling to it that a film like "Casino" did not have. Maybe it was the un-conventional ending, the idea to use source music (a Scorsese staple) and a score written by the always reliable Howard Shore, or the casting of Matt Damon as a very bad guy. Whatever it was, this film excited me and I left the theatre with certain images branded into my head, such as DiCaprio's character peering into his love interests window while standing in the pouring rain. The way the film looks is as important as anything in this film. Being a person who has lived in the Boston area my whole life, I can tell you that they NAILED it! In the way Scorsese has always made New York City a character in his films, he has done it for Boston in "The Departed" better than any film I have seen, including "Mystic River" of "Good Will Hunting". The characters are complex and flawed, and are either with each other, or against each other, and thats it. The cops are arrogant, and the hoods dress in baseball caps and hooded sweatshirts, not Armani suits. Not to say the film doesn't have flash. Theres plenty of it! But you'll be too caught up in the rapid fire storytelling and engrossing plot to be able to take it all in at once. Not only is this a great film, it is possibly rivaled only by "United 93" as the best movie so far this year and will rank high among the best crime dramas made in the last 20 years.
I would never call "The Departed" a disappointment simply because it's a tad superficial. It's an entertaining, energetic, wonderfully stylish return to what Scorsese does best (call this condescending if you will, but it's the truth).
People claim to admire "The Age of Innocence," "Kundun," and "Gangs of New York," but honestly I don't see why. They are all deadening bores to sit through. Scorsese has a forte, a strength, a predilection--for the gangster movie--and to deny this is to succumb to the same sort of sycophancy (i.e., star-fucking) that makes pretentious people say "Interiors" is a better Woody Allen movie than "Take the Money and Run."
That said, I have never been a particular fan of "Mean Streets" or "Taxi Driver" or even "Raging Bull." My favorite Scorsese remains "GoodFellas" by a wide, wide margin. Now "The Departed" takes the number two spot, with "The King of Comedy" a very close third.
For me, CASINO is really GOODFELLAS PART II. While watching it, I felt that Scorsese--having been denied a much-deserved Oscar for GOODFELLAS--was trying to make the same movie, but on a grander scale and with even bigger stars.
For me, Scorsese's best movies remain TAXI DRIVER and GOODFELLAS. Despite having seen MEAN STREETS numerous times, I still can't get fully into it. I think its loose, episodic nature prevents it from achieving the full force it could have had. (No matter what, it's still worth watching just for De Niro alone.) And RAGING BULL, widely considered his greatest work, to me remains a brilliant film on the outside with a void at the center: Jake La Motta remains a one-note character from beginning to end.
I await the vitriol.
Addendum to last post: I have seen this film a second time, and my opinion of it did go up a few notches. I still hold on to some of my past criticisms and maintain, as many have, that this is a "less weighty" film than Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, etc. But as fast and as sardonic as the film is, it does manage to deliver a convincing portrait of male (and particularly Irish male) anger... DiCaprio and Sheen's characters stuck with me more the second time around.
With The Departed raking in more $$$$ than any past Marty film, it may finally scoop up that long overdue golden statue... and even if it goes to one of the director's lesser works, that will be a welcome thing to me.
P.S.
I haven't read this entire thread, but has anyone seen Scorsese's documentary on Bob Dylan? Now THAT is an excellent film, one that more than deserves the comparisons to his heyday.
This movie is the best movie scorsese has made ever. Better than Goodfellas, the aviator, and casino. Ilove all these films and yet i think The Departed has the best chance to be nominated and win every oscar its nominated for. Best picture of the year and in scosese's career
I have to say how surprised I am to hear some of the negative comments about The Departed. This is one of Scorsese's finest films and redefines the thriller genre. Scorsese has truley made this film is own; weaving layers of complexity to each character that examines faith, loyalty, guilt and the environment that shaped them.
Unlike Infernal Affairs which feels almost static and compressed to accomodate its short running time, The Departed is alive as any film he has created. Scorsese allows ample time for the development of story and character and crackles with energy in every scene.
Much like he did in Cape Fear, Scorsese gives us a film that is more about the soul of each character than simply the conclusion.
This is my favorite film of the year.
As others have commented here, I think that the Departed is a flawed and overrated movie, and not Scorcese's best work. The acting certainly is phenomenal on virtually accounts, but as someone mentioned earlier, the parts themselves are two-dimensional, and the dialogue wooden to the point of being laughable. I cringed at a number of points--especially Vera Farmiga's incomprehensible question to DiCaprio in the very unbelievable seduction scene, "Your vulnerability is really freaking me out. Is it real?" The writing of Vera Farmiga's character was especially poor and hard to believe--I found her highly unprofessional behavior (sleeping with a recently former client?) very unlikely for someone of her pedigree.
I think the screenplay is really at fault here. While the parallel story device works to a degree, there are actually a lot of unresolved issues, inconsistencies and generally poor choices. Why did Costigan give the psychiatrsit an envelope to keep for him that never re-appears? Why does Wahlberg's character have to kill Damon's character in the end--was Costigan really so stupid so as not to send the tapes to anyone else? These and many other issues, make the movie feel loosey-goosey to me, despite the tautness of the action scenes and the tension that exists throughout.
There has been a mistake made. The blog has "Don Henson's" name attached to my remarks, and, I would gather, vice versa.
The movie essentially worked until near the end when the characters started developing inconsistencies. Why would Nicholson let DiCaprio know that he thought there was an cop on his crew? Why tip him off, just test him and/or whack him. Why would DiCaprio after seeing the envelope leave it sticking out and run off? Didn't he know that Damon would figure out what was up? And why did DiCaprio and Damon both forget about Whalberg at the end? If I, a fellow watching a movie was wondering these things, the gangsters and policemen who have been trained to be always thinking and careful should have been thinking of them. The plot resolution was just sloppy.
The Departed is really hyped up. It succeeds in being a comedy though. Alec Baldwin, Mark Walhberg and Jack Nicholson all give hilarious performances. If you are looking for simmering thrillers, look no further than Infernal Affairs. Tony Leung in Infernal Affairs really looks like he's going to break down any time soon, while di Caprio is closer to the Doc's pants than to breaking down (although I actually can't see the connection between the Doc and di Caprio, unless no connection is actually necessary for going to bed together).
I enjoy The Departed totally. It is hilarious, I guaran fxxxxxx tee.
I couldn't agree more with this article. I am a huge fan of Scorcese and I believe The Departed is a fantastic film. However, much of the critical consensus surrounding this film is very condescending and downright annoying. People act like Scorcese hasn't done a great film since Goodfellas. Um, Gangs Of New York? Nominated for best picture and best directior, The Aviator? The same. People can be tough especially when Scorcese has raised the bar over the years for film direction but come on...he is a first class director...in my opinion the greatest american filmmaker in the business right now. I believe this is a better film than Casino and I still think Goodfellas is his greatest film (Raging Bull is a ridiculously close second). Leonardo Dicaprio's performance was hands down the best of his career, his vulnerability, internal conflict and intensity was mesmerizing to watch. Scorcese has created a legendary crime American crime drama, however, let's not let his latest feat take away from some of the very good films he has made over the past 15 plus years.
I had a similar experience to one of the earlier posters when my husband and I saw "The Departed" yesterday afternoon. After we watched the credits, my husband told me he thought the movie was very good. What did I think about it? I'm not sure. I thought the acting was all very good, but the roles, for the most part, were too thin and chopped up for me to develop much feeling about any of the characters. I loved the music used, but I'm not sure how good the editing was at times. The clinical psychologist was completely unethical and unprofessional. One does not sleep with one's patients or move in with them! (But as my husband said, everybody else in the story was "on the take" and dishonest, so why shouldn't she be?) At any rate, I loved "The Aviator", with its fabulous sets and cinematography, and "The Age of Innocence" and the perfect quietness of the portrayals of characters with desperately felt emotions. I realize these are completely different stories from that of the mob movie, but I think they are superior films in every way to this one.
Excellent and engrossing Cable-TV cop story.
Character Questions Some questions I think the folks on this board can answer. What was with the time lapses in the movie? At times I felt like I was watching flashbacks. Like the scene where the psychiatrist moves in and is showing Matt that picture of her..but then later she hooks up with DiCaprio and he is looking at the same picture? Was that a flashback?
2nd question is..what was Matt's obsession with the brightly colored dome? Can more people speak to clues around Matt and Jacks relationship when Matt was younger? I've seen a few posts..but what do people think? Lastly, did I miss any clues that Matt Damon's partner was also a mole for Jack's crew?
All i have to say is anyone who see's this film and doesnt walk away shocked is not all there in the head. This movie had me from start to finish. Now i wouldn't got as far to say it is better than goodfellas, but i will go as far to say it is the bedt movie of the year hands down.
I've just gone through and read every post, and I feel like the film is getting bashed a little too hard. No, it is not Goodfellas, Raging Bull, or Taxi Driver, or even Casino. Everytime Scorsese makes a film that isn't an instant classic, there's going to be complaints.
As I said in my previous post, though, this is unqeustionably the best American film of the year. Is it flawed? Sure. Most movies are. Jim Emerson, you confound me. You're so willing to knock The Departed at every turn, and yet you've been handing out 3 1/2 and 4 star movie reviews like candy, scarcely mentioning the weak points of those movies. Scorsese may deserve a double-standard, but it would also be nice to look at the movie objectively and say what you think about it ignoring the expectations and talent that perhaps was not used to its fullest extent.
Some responses to T. Murray's questions: I don't recall any flashbacks, but the film's time lapses definitely had me confused at times. We see DiCaprio taken into Nicholson's crew, then a short time later, we learn that it's already been a year. So the distance of time between each scene could be a day, a week, a month, or more. Matt kept looking at the gold dome of the gov't building. It expressed his desire to rise through the "legitimate" ranks of power, although his past wouldn't let him. We definitely aren't told much about Matt and Jack's history between Matt's childhood and adulthood. As far as Jack having Matt's partner as another mole, I think it's just one of many absurd plot twists thrown into the movie's final moments. How could Matt have never met him before bootcamp if they've both been working for Jack for years? It's kind of like the ridiculous revelation of the other mole in Jack's crew: The cop that apparently had a hand in killing Martin Sheen (his real boss).
I think one of the things Scorcese did do with the original material was adding some humor into the script. I watched "Infernal Affairs" a day after the "Departed" and what struck me most was how melo-dramatic the HK version is. The original was a humorless effort, full of cheesy, emotional music. In contrast, Scorcese's use of rock music and just the way he films it in general adds a sense of humor and absurdity to the original. When we see the Martin Sheen character fall off the roof, it's silent in the Scorcese film - but in the Hong KOng version, the music overwhelms the moment: it's almost like whacking the audience on the head....Personally, I prefer the Departed for its humor and more subtle way of making its point.
I've seen it twice and enjoyed it both times. My response? Someone with a sense of humor is resonsible for this film. Yes--humor!
WARNING: SPOILERS
The Departed is an incredible film (the best film this year) that, once again, proves Martin Scorsese as a Master filmmaker. Scorsese knows all the rules to narrative storytelling and because of this, he knows how to (purposefully) break them. If we jump to the end, the films ending works so well not due to the violence but rather the way the violence plays out. There are no dramatic speeches or last words, no cheesy overwhelming score; it is fast and real. As moviegoers we have grown use to films that follow a formula; the hollywood movie stars always get the girl after an intense (or not so intense) showdown with the evil villian. What happens in "The Departed" is so much different; the films (seemingly) main antagonist, played with glee by Jack Nicholson, is killed before the movie reaches the third act. DiCaprio's fame is even used to a filmmaking advantage. "It's Leonardo DiCaprio", we say to ourselves. "He's a huge movie star, they can't kill him." They do. And it is brilliant. Sound also plays a huge part in the film. Rather than pounding us with a loud, giant soundtrack, the film has a softer, more powerful tone. Scorsese often uses silence to emphasize moments, ie., the death of Martin Sheen's character and the scene when DiCaprio and Damon confront each other over cell phones. No dialogue, no music, just pure film.
Excellent movie but the end disappoints.... At his best, one of America's best directors closes films with powerful statements about how men of power and wealth become "nobodys" and he missed this opportunity here. The final ending of "one cop doing a revenge killing of another cop," is weak when you consider the outstanding endings of many of his other movies of this genre. This is not how the movie should end and as a result it loses the impact and what we remember is the "pun" ending... how sad. The best scene in the movie? The dramatic silence between the good cop and the bad cop... you could hear a pin drop in the theatre.....
Sorry, too many posts up there to read. I did read quiet a few though and I think the whole premise of comparing this film to the "original" (ie Infernal Affairs) is faulty. A film should stand on it's own terms. Comparing it to IA is just not useful. Who cares if IA was better or not, what matters is this work. IMHO it did lack some cohesivness and the ending sort of bothered me a bit, but I enjoyed everybit of the Departed especially the well written and interesting characters. Some lines here are bound to be classic.
What bugs me about this movie, right off the top of my head, is how badly miscasted many of these characters were. Dicaprio did what he could with the character (in my opinion, I sensed the stench of a poorly written script from miles away once he starts OVER-whining within a week of being a mole : totally unconvincing as his "angered" emotions felt very forced and unrealistic), Marky Mark's casting was dead on, but I felt Damion was a very hollow character and there was not at one point, anywhere in the movie, where I felt I could feel sorry for him, unlike Andy Lau's character, which at certain points of IA, you felt like he could actuall become a good guy and overcome his past.
Jack's character was very much over the top. A much better choice would have been somebody like Ed Harris, a calm, yet serious actor, that could do the angry "rage" scenes without coming off as a supervillian.
And what's up with Sheen as the Police chief? Out of all these guys, he was the worst - at no point was I convinced that this was a smart and intelligent leader in the police force that is injecting a mole into the Irish gang circle. Sheen came off more like a grandpa / santaclause like character with his rosacea saint-nick cheeks. His "acting", was bland and laughable, felt more like he was just reading off lines from a monitor at best, and he just clearly was miscasted, as if they just thrown him in there in order to further fill this movie up with more high honored hollywood stars. The relationship between the chief and dicaprio's character was almost nonexistent, something that they should have focused on (read: Leung and Wong's relationship in IA), rather than give precious screentime minutes to Jack and his "lets bash the priest" (another useless scene) tripe.
Overall I felt TD was mediocore at best, theres just so many flaws and shortcomings that I would love to go into (but I wont because I know people will think i would be way too critlca) prevents this movie from becoming anything other than average.
Just another thing that really bugs me to this day about TD, that almost makes this movie out to be a comedy, are you telling me that a grown man over the age of 40 cant spell a simple word like "Citizen"?
If youve watched IA, you would know that they used the Chinese character, guard, and let the dumb guy confused it with another character which uses the SAME sound but has a different meaning.
It just bugs me how dumb they made these gangsters to be, out of any word that they could have used they had to go for "citizenship", this plus the very very poor chinese coming out of obvious 3rd generation american-asians (who were supposed to portray, you guessed it, "crazy" communist crooks from the overseas), really made me and the rest of the theater giggle as in whether TD was meant to be a comedy or an actual crime-thriller.
Costello had more than one man undercover. I believe Mark Wahlberg worked for him, too.
I agree wholeheartedly with Jim Emerson and the critics he excerpts. I was immensely disappointed by "The Departed," which seemed more like a collection of audition pieces culled from a variety of scripts than a film with characters you could care about. Almost every scene was laughably overwrought, and was completely unbelievable either in or out of context, such as the last scene with the rat walking across an external balcony railing 20 stories up. Yeah, right. That’s an amateurish, obvious, film-school stunt, not the work of a mature director. And the performances! Acting that's entertaining or diverting isn't necessarily good. Jack Nicholson needed a leash and a muzzle, and I don't know how someone of Scorsese's age, experience, and stature failed to provide them, when the much younger Alexander Payne managed to extract a beautifully nuanced performance in "About Schmidt." Jack and his colleagues were chewing so much scenery, it made me wonder what kind of slop was on the craft services table during the shoot. There was neverending contrivance in the plot, also. Why would a cop who’s so deep undercover that he went to jail blow that cover by waltzing into police HQ in Boston (in full view of the dirty cop’s apartment) to meet with a police shrink? I also couldn’t make head nor tail of the ridiculous exchange between DiCaprio and Farmiga as the psychiatrist. Their tone of voice made it sound as if they were talking about Important Things, but absolutely nothing was expressed. Their first scene together was a perfect microcosm of the entire movie: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It's clear my post will not be read, here among the vast many others. Regardless, I feel the need to defend a masterpiece.
Scorcese's magnum opus (among his list of other masterpieces) is Taxi Driver. But he's been known for the gang scene, of course, and yet I think Jim Emerson is wrong in chastising those who praise him for "returning to form". Indeed, Gangs of New York is about the streets too and he's made great movies in the last ten years, but this was the tightest and far more emotionally impacting than apparently these critics say.
The overriding theme, which is ironic and humorous in itself considering the topic of "returning" the gangster-themes, is a sort of final complement, a final answer, to Goodfellas's theme of being enraptured by mob-life, while it also destroys you. Jack Nicholson is brilliant in portraying a mobster who sullenly does realize the futility of everything he does and all of that way of life. He knows it's all an artist's vision created of a tuber, and yet he knows also that the artists are not there to please artsty fanatics or create art: they are the FBI, politicians in the Statehouse, creating a distraction for profit.
Matt Damon plays it coldly and convincingly so that we see him for who he is... rather, see the lack of a self he's built up, see that, since his childhood, he lost any real humanity in a trade for public trust and accolade, a literary friend of Othello's Iago. And this leads into Leonardo Dicaprio's stunning performance. While his Boston accent may use, to quote my Bostonian cousin, "the accent that a Californian might think a Boston accent is like", it is brought to greatness by his depth of personality and passion. He brings us right there with him in desperation, shows himself wayward and yet fighting for something better, never finding it except in Scorcese's beautiful themes.
Which leads to the undercurrent of manhood and reversal of alliegances. Towards the end, Costigan desperately warns Costello against impeding doom. Why would he try to help this mob boss he's been desperate to take down since he was hired, but for a fondness for him he has developed? Sullivan, likewise, frustratedly realizes the great tragedy of his situation, the dryness that comes with living truly human, with working for your side by forever being apart from them and never developing a humanity in one's self enough to realize the flaw of being a mechanism of your own success, yet more powerfully a toy which hurts others for ostensible success.
I come close to conceding to the contrived role of Vera Farmiga, a veritable reporter from which we can see the devices of Costigan and Sullivans' characters. Veritably, a stork delivering Costigan's baby into the future (that he may live on), as great punishment to Sullivan.
But she defends her casting with acting intense enough to show her as a bitingly formidable presence, human enough to yearn for the humanity she wants from Costigan but established, powerful in action enough to want to stick with Sullivan. But then, her character is accelerated when the truth is revealed and she is able to regret her decision, but just too late, with Costigan's death. But like a glimmer of hope, Costigan and Maddens' baby sits in her belly like that same glimmer of hope which survives the tyrrany of any vicious crimelord or syndicate, any town ridden with violence and held under a cloud of the fear of rising above it.
OK, here it is, for those who are homophobic.....skip over my review. Costello and Sullivan are closeted homosexuals. There are so many implications of this in the movie, although subtle, they are there. Remember Costello raising some eyebrows at the restaurant with the priests? Yep, he was molested as a kid by a priest and his distaste toward the Catholic Church is evident of this. Also, the scene right before Costello is shot and killed by Sullivan, if you remember the dialogue, Sullivan made it very clear that he was no 'son' to Costello. "All that murderin' and f%$ckin......." Just rewind your dvds to that scene. I also researched this movie in depth and it seems that 'The Departed' is part based on Irish crime lord, James 'Whitey' Bulger's life. Most aspects of Whitey's life mirror the movie, so in depth that it is documented that 'Whitey' was bisexual and even had a relationship with FBI agent, H. Paul Rico. Back to the movie, remember when Costello had one of his many mistresses in the room and he threw out some cocaine onto the bed and told her to 'get numb', well by the position of their bodies, we can assume the obvious. How about when my man Costigan called Sullivan a "two-faced faggot" after Costigan heard all of the FBI wire taps that Costello had on him before his demise??? I'm very sure that the subject of Sullivan's sexual orientation came up a few times during his talks with Costello. Well people, you make your own opinions as I've made mine. Love the movie, I don't really care about the subtle hints of homosexuality in the film, I just find it incredibly genius of Mr. Scorsese's sneaking it in there.
the movie just came to dvd and people are all ready bickering over whether or not its a classic. let it breath. good or bad review, critics walked into this film with goodfellas and casino on the brain and made their judgments 20 minutes into the movie. scorsese has made those movies before, this one is different. this is a movie about both sides of the law, that's been forgoten. the departed is not as emotionally engrossing as goodfellas but it shows so many facsits of the human condition you get something new out of it everytime you watch it. scorsese is doing something different. He is reinventing himself and his favorite genre when most critics would have liked him to just put goodfellas in boston. like he did with casino in vegas. Critics seem to be on a rush to put out the fire that the audience started. most critics loved it too. The departed is one of the best works in the scorsese collection just because of its sheer entertainment value. Everything is kind of off in a silly way and nicholsons performance was a bit outlandish at times but it was fun to watch.lots of laughs and a new found edge to scorsese's "mean streets" film making are set perfectly to the films underlying theme, deception. When you spend so much time living a lie bad shit happens its that simple. So is its content as cinematicly profound as goodfellas? no but its the next best thing a really great popcorn flick. Its a flawed masterpiece but still a masterpiece. bringing out the dead is up there but i think this is his best film since goodfellas. i think you guys should watch it again this time try to enjoy yourselves.