comment #1

EDouglas says ...

"splattery"? "smashingly"? "Best-written" is certainly subjective.

Watch that 100% plummet after the New York all-media on Weds.... too many contrarians in town who'll find fault with the movie just to spite those who are raving about it.

comment #2

berg says ...

The best 150 minutes I spent glued to the screen in a long time ... The first thing the pr person asked me when I walked out ... What about Academy Awards? I told them to ask somebody in the Academy.

comment #3

Craig Kennedy says ...

I've been thinking one of the flaws of both Gangs of New York and The Aviator was that Scorsese was trying too hard for the Oscar. Like the baseball player who's thinking too much about hitting the ball and keeps striking out. The Departed feels like kind of a return to basics for Scorsese and maybe with the pressure off and expectations lowered he relaxed and nailed it.

The Oscars officially and finally stopped meaning a damn thing to me the night James Cameron hoisted multiple golden statues into the air and proclaimed himself "king of the world" but they obviously mean something to Scorsese and I hope he gets one.

It could happen. Hollywood history is filled with happy accidents.

comment #4

donnyboy says ...

Edelstein didn't write a review. That was a rehashing of the plot with inappropriate adjectives tossed in.

The movie is too long, hits the same notes in the final 40 minutes more than once, and the leads Damon and Dicaprio look like workers at a Gap. As cops? Mobsters? That's absolutely laughable. Why is Marty working with such posers? Does he need help with some loans or something. Man, why did he get so much creditability, to waste it on casting such vapid actors as Baldwin, Leo, Damon...and the always dull Martin Sheen...Ray Winstone is the only one (and Jack) that have any sort of energy. The other actors can't play big, because NOTHING IS THERE: talent, guts, a pulse. Oh, but wait, we can have Leo furrow his brow and act constipated for two hours....yippppe!!!! Go save a tree. Get your eyebrows waxed for the third time this week.

Is it better than most of the crap now in theatres?

Yes.

Is the screenwriter able to avoid expository sentences --for the better part of the movie--unlike most crappy writers?

Yes.

Is it a great movie?

Not even close.

Will the world continue to revolve if Marty doesn't get a small golden inanimate object?

You bet your ass.

So who cares?

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

The thing is, EDouglas, very few people care what those contrarians (Armond who?) really think.

comment #6

Nate West says ...

And Prizzi's Honor was about something?

comment #7

austin111 says ...

EDouglas has a point about the New Yawk critix. They'll find plenty to mash up in this film, deserving or not. Let 'em.

As for a flick that was nominated for Best Pic with no real substance -- how's about PULP FICTION. There are plenty others out there. It's a joke to think that AMPAS is incapable of nominating a film that's just fine entertainment.

Edelstein's review seemed to be more of a rehash of why Infernal Affairs was somehow a better film.

comment #8

EDouglas says ...

So has anyone NOT seen The Departed who might actually pay to see it on Friday? I hope we'll still be able to have discussions once the non-critics had a chance to weigh in, but WB has a lot ridiing on this one opening well and if it ends up being a bunch of journalist/critic hype (ie if Texas Chainsaw wins the weekend) than I'm sure critics (and online ones) are going to be taken even less serious than they are now.

comment #9

T. S. Idiot says ...

Pulp Fiction isn't about anything? Butch doesn't have to go back to save Marsellus, but he does. Wolf tells Jules and Vincent there is a difference between being characters and having character. There are comments about honor and courage throughout, and Fabienne still misses her blueberry pancakes. Prizzi's Honor is a mafia satire but still says something serious about family and loyalty and doing what a man has to do.

comment #10

f.bush says ...

What about the "The Silence of the Lambs" as a film that cleaned up at the Oscars and lacked a societal message?

comment #11

sardine says ...

and Mr. Wells did not think Mr. S. had it in him to make a good movie. Only Clint makes the good ones (not true) huh Mr. Wells.

comment #12

The Winchester says ...

Could somebody remind me of the societal message in Gladiator? I can't recall it.

comment #13

Jean says ...

To the Winchester: we hang our hats on the same rack, sir. As Roger Ebert has often said: "it's not what a film is about, it is how it is about it."

To donnyboy: Your point is well taken, but then what other films this year do you qualify as great (if any)?

comment #14

Hopscotch says ...

To answer a question above: "Why does he work with such posers?"

He needs the posers for financing. The only reason he got money for Gangs was because Leo was in it. He'd rather work with these guys and have a $80M budget, than with an untested guy for half that.

I can't fucking wait for this movie. AND not to sound like a Debie Downer, I still remember Kong's pre-release hype. Critics went apeshit for that movie, and we all know what happened after that.

comment #15

donnyboy says ...

To Jean:

Great? The only true FILM that I saw was Claire Denis' THE INTRUDER.

To hopscotch:

"Why does he work with such posers?" You ask?

Totally, %100, I agree, it is financing, to make a BIG Picture. Why does he need the affirmation of John Q public? It is just sad. The guy did Taxi Driver. What it is the point?

comment #16

CamilleD says ...

I loved this movie. And- I hate Scorsese.
He has always felt utterly pretentious to me.
But this film runs so fast it leaves you breathless and is very very hard not to like.
Is it an Oscar candidate?- yes- especially after seeing Flags of Our Fathers which is very weak.

comment #17

austin111 says ...

Pulp Fiction - what do people really remember from that film other than Tarantino's deliriously "pulpy" style, which he's never been able to replicate satisfactorily since (not even in Kill Bill) and John Travolta's big comeback?

Flags of Our Fathers very weak????? Tell me this is true!!!!

comment #18

CamilleD says ...

Austin 111: Saw Flags this week and had a sinking feeling- no pun- from the first twenty minutes. Heavy handed voice over explaining all the character's emotions throughout film. We all expected an invasion of Io Jima story, but Eastwood can't match the Private Ryan beach landing and you keep thinking I've seen this before- only not as good. The film flashed forward and back over multiple time lines before establishing the core story- the invasion- so you sit wondering how the hell these pieces fit together- annoying- not inspired. The truth is more than half the film is the story of three guys who re-set up the fallen flag after the famous picture was taken- all the original guys died- and were asked to take their place. The US neded "heros" and no one can see the faces i the photo. They go on an ENDLESS whistle stop tour raising bond money for the war. Along the way- they all have nervous breakdowns. And this is all intercut with the actual invasion when they were still with their unit and after they've left. Help.

At the end you're thinking- okay- I am not feeling anything for these characters. Nada.
The real story is probably what was going on with the Japanese- the island was a holy site and they had about ten thousand guys defending 8 miles. Hundreds committed suicede when they failed. Maybe the redemption Will be in the Japanese companion piece cause it ain't here.