I decided several months ago that Martin Scorsese 's The Departed will be his best film since Goodfellas because of the urban grit, cops-and-mob-guys milieu. It should be, I mean, or has the best chance to be, given the home-turf factor. And now along comes this AICN early-bird review, which is a melancholy pan, the guy obviously heartsick about what he feels obliged to pass along. There's only one thing to do (and it's not hard), which is to slip into denial about it and stay that way until...

New CAA, ICM Digs<< previous | next >>

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 7, 2006 at 7:49 PM

comment #1

JD says ...

And don't forget that Miami Vice's early reviews were far worse than this.

Posted by JD at June 7, 2006 8:59 PM

comment #2

Guilda says ...

Also, Goodfellas had among the worst test screenings ever for Warner according to Arnzilla over at the Totally Unnecessary Departed Board

Posted by Guilda at June 7, 2006 9:19 PM

comment #3

Dubbs says ...

So far, the words being thrown around describing The Departed are "urban," "gritty" and "tough guy," but one of the most memorable things about the original Infernal Affairs is how poetically and gently several of the key dramatic and/or death scenes are handled. Somehow, I figured Scorsese would be drawn to remaking I.A. as much for these scenes as for the double-crossing plot. Scorsese's pateneted, graceful camera movements could certainly go a long way in reinterpreting the more melodramatic moments in the original film.

Posted by Dubbs at June 7, 2006 9:20 PM

comment #4

Daniel Zelter says ...

If WB wanted it in Boston, they should've hired Troy Duffy to direct. Anyway I was able to see the original-no thanks to Harvey and Quentin-and I really enjoyed it, but I have a feeling Marty's gonna cop out and use a sugar-coated ending like the one shown in Mainland China so he can buy a PG 13 rating and sell more tickets. BTW, if you're in the L.A. area, the New Beverly will have a double feature of Raging Bull and Goodfellas next weekend.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at June 7, 2006 9:27 PM

comment #5

Sniff My Finger says ...

"If WB wanted it in Boston, they should've hired Troy Duffy to direct."

But WB wants this movie to be GOOD.

Posted by Sniff My Finger at June 7, 2006 10:00 PM

comment #6

kent says ...

So, critic/blog ppl routinely decide in advance if something's going to be 'great'? Is this how crap like Kill Bill got reviewed into masterpiece status, and other stuff gets a bad 'buzz" because everyone decides to trash it in advance?

Posted by kent at June 7, 2006 11:12 PM

comment #7

richard crawford says ...

I hope this great director will be up to snuff again. There were lots of wonderful moments in The Avaitor. However, I suspect not. No matter. His movies will always be something. Mean Streets is his masterpiece. Taxi Driver is right up there, and Alice Dosen't Live Here Anymore is awfully good. I also like Casino, Goodfellas (but it ain't no masterpiece) The Last Temptation of Christ was interesting. I never liked King of Comedy or Raging Bull....and i realize most Marty fans do.

Posted by richard crawford at June 8, 2006 7:16 AM

comment #8

Peter Martin says ...

Uh, since when are early reviews from AICN to be taken seriously?

Posted by Peter Martin at June 8, 2006 8:13 AM

comment #9

Andre says ...

"If WB wanted it in Boston, they should've hired Troy Duffy to direct."

LMFAO.

And it's not like they could get him anyway. Troy and his "syndicate" buddies are too busy taking over this town.

Posted by Andre at June 8, 2006 9:28 AM

comment #10

Clarence says ...

Give him the benefit of the doubt! He's one of (if not THE) greatest working American directors today. The print this person saw was a work in progress, and I'm sure Marty will tweak it to perfection.

Posted by Clarence at June 8, 2006 9:52 AM

comment #11

Anonymous says ...

"If WB wanted it in Boston, they should've hired Troy Duffy to direct."

Boondock Saints is one of the most annoyingly adolescent movies I've ever seen.

Posted by Anonymous at June 8, 2006 10:02 AM

comment #12

Rob says ...

I think Scorsese is an over-praised director. Sadly, those early AICN reviews are about what I'd expect. What's interesting to me about the review Jeff mentions is that the guy clearly wants to like the film but after seeing it all he can do is issue a resigned 'I suspect it won't be quite as good as everyone involved in this probably hoped.'

Posted by Rob at June 8, 2006 10:07 AM

comment #13

andrew says ...

"Uh, since when are early reviews from AICN to be taken seriously?"

exactly.

Posted by andrew at June 8, 2006 11:44 AM

comment #14

Rob says ...

"Uh, since when are early reviews from AICN to be taken seriously?"

Bet you wouldn't be saying that if the reviews were raves.

Posted by Rob at June 8, 2006 12:02 PM

comment #15

Geoff says ...

Scorsese has claimed he hasn't even seen the original film.

Posted by Geoff at June 8, 2006 2:56 PM

comment #16

andrew says ...

"Bet you wouldn't be saying that if the reviews were raves."

It would still be the same. AICN is Star Magazine for movie nerds.

Posted by andrew at June 8, 2006 3:30 PM

comment #17

delbomber says ...

The only legitimate criticism I could see anyone making of 'Goodfellas' is the ridiculous attempt to portray Joe Pesci as a 20-something gangster early on. Pesci looks at least 50 throughout the entire thing, and having his skin folded back near his ears didn't help...although this process didn't make him look as vaguely Asian here as it did in 'My Cousin Vinny'...

Trivialities aside, it's one of the best of the decade and along with 'Casino' is the last of Marty's wholly satisying films.

Posted by delbomber at June 8, 2006 6:34 PM

comment #18

Arnzilla says ...

"Melancholy pan?" I don't remember reading those words here yesterday. Anyway, the guy says outright that he liked the film and only compares it unfavorably to a film that he thinks is one of the greatest ever made. Some others in the audience at that test screening were more impressed. Four were raves, one said it was mediocre, and this one thought it was good but not great. All based on a two-hour, forty-five minute rough cut. Sounds pretty good to me.

Posted by Arnzilla at June 8, 2006 10:22 PM

comment #19

Rob says ...

Ah, the inevitable arrival of Arnzilla aka the Relentless Scorsese Shill. There are three things in this life you can be sure of - death, taxes and the appearance of Arnzilla whenever doubt is cast on his beloved director. I sure hope Marty is paying you for your efforts, Arnie. You deserve it.

Posted by Rob at June 9, 2006 12:12 AM

comment #20

Arnzilla says ...

This from a gentleman who would swoon if he got the chance to paint Clint Eastwood's toenails.

Posted by Arnzilla at June 9, 2006 1:17 AM

comment #21

Alexander says ...

God, can Scorsese make a picture these days that *isn't* 165 minutes long?

Posted by Alexander at June 9, 2006 10:06 AM

comment #22

Dave Polands Gur says ...

Since when does anyone take what AICN's says or does seriously????

That site should have folded 3 yrs ago.

Posted by Dave Polands Gur at June 9, 2006 11:29 AM

comment #23

Rob says ...

:God, can Scorsese make a picture these days that *isn't* 165 minutes long?

Wearying isn't it. Doubtless we can look forward to another shitstorm of Aviator-style hype about a Scorsese movie that turns out on inspection to be another bloated, patchily engaging effort from The Great Director (joke). Doubtless this mediocrity will be defended with the usual hilariously petulant 'arguments' from the likes of Arnzilla, e.g., 'The Academy hates him! It's all a conspiracy! Marty doesn't make movies to win Oscars!! (big LoL at that), Marty's movies are too challenging for the general audience!, Marty could film himself taking a dump and it would still be better than most directors best!!' etc, etc, etc. But for all that I still retain a grain of hope that this hopelessly overpraised director may yet pull it off and deliver a truly satisfying movie from start to finish.

:This from a gentleman who would swoon if he got the chance to paint Clint Eastwood's toenails.

Arnie, is that the Clint Eastwood with two Best Director Oscars and two Best Picture Oscars on his shelf? Is that the Clint Eastwood you mean (as opposed to Marty Scorsese who has precisely - and deservedly - none)? Hey, sure you do!

Posted by Rob at June 9, 2006 12:07 PM

comment #24

Arnzilla says ...

Yep. that's the guy. But there's no conspiracy. Like those of Hitchcock and Kubrick, Scorsese's films don't move the Academy emotionally in the manner of Mr. Eastwood.

Posted by Arnzilla at June 10, 2006 6:18 PM

comment #25