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.