"Departed" theory

email this story
read comments (47)
post a comment

My theory-of-the-moment is that a good portion of the Departed dissers who've written in over the last 28 hours or so are basically responding to all the praise from professional critics. They're posting, in other words, out of a longing to slap down the know-it-alls and set them straight. I believe that the actual hoi polloi verdict -- i.e., one more fully reflective of how most ticket buyers are responding -- is more enthused than what's been coming in so far. Or am I...you know, wrong again?

Scott doing Penetration<< previous | next >>Bad cards

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 7, 2006 at 4:58 PM

comment #1

Nick J says ...

All I know is I saw it last night at a sold-out 6:30 showing at the AMC 25 on 42nd Street in Manhattan and they LOVED it. There was applause when Scorsese's name came up at the end. [Deleted by site publisher]

Standing in the line for the bathroom afterward, this huge black guy who was maybe fifty years old said to us, "Best movie of the year. Best movie of the year. *Everybody* was good."

Oh, and when DiCaprio kissed Farmiga in her kitchen, some guy yelled, "Yeah, Leo!" That was a little weird.

Seriously, though, I can't think of the last time I saw an audience get so jazzed at a movie.

Posted by Nick J at October 7, 2006 5:19 PM

comment #2

austin111 says ...

Yeah, it's a little early to be making prognostications about the movie not being all that, I think! It needs to sink into the "public" consciousness, so to speak. We'll know if it's caught fire or not in a week or so, especially if the media starts to really pick up on it and/or it starts to show real legs.....yadayadayada

Posted by austin111 at October 7, 2006 5:25 PM

comment #3

Griff says ...

I know, I know, I'm a Philistine, and not a real lover of film. But as I've gotten older, I find I have less and less interest in watching films where people are doing terrible things to one another, no matter how well-acted, well-photographed, or well-edited the terrible behaviors may be. For that reason, I won't be bothering to rush out to The Departed, or junk like TCM (which is a cash canker on the backside of film history).

Posted by Griff at October 7, 2006 5:30 PM

comment #4

EDouglas says ...

Nick, one thing that's never going to change on 42nd Street... they still love talking to the screen. I remember when I first moved to New York 20 years ago and the scariest experience I ever had was seeing "Throw Momma from the Train" on 42nd Street. I honestly thought I wasn't going to leave the theatre alive because the big guy sitting behind me was obviously talking to the screen expecting an answer.

Posted by EDouglas at October 7, 2006 6:02 PM

comment #5

EDouglas says ...

Re: what Jeff said... I'm sure I can proudly say I was one of the early detractors, but that doesn't mean I didn't like the film. I just don't think it's as great as everyone else seems to think. I think it's very entertaining and amusing but what I liked about it are the parts that weren't covered (in my opinion better) in the original film. I'd still recommend the film, but I wouldn't recommend seeing the original until after you see it... and then go back and see how the original works by being more subtle in places (the opening scene, the two main characters meet and have a conversation about hi-fi equipment!) and then exploding when it needs to. Scorsese's is just full-on from beginning to end and by the time it gets to the good stuff, you're already exhausted. (Granted... I should add that it was the third movie I saw that day.)

Incidentally, I had a similar experience with Vanilla Sky/Open Your Eyes. I saw the Cameron Crowe one first and really liked it (not loved it) but when I saw the original, I realized how much of the good stuff came from that and how much better Penelope Cruz is when she's acting in Spanish.

Posted by EDouglas at October 7, 2006 6:08 PM

comment #6

NYCBusybody says ...

I also saw it at the Empire 25 on 42nd St, and man, the line was loooooooooong 50 minutes before show time. Spontaneous applause all throughout. I thought DiCaprio was fantastic - Nicholson, good, but nothing exciting for me. But what a thriller. Fan-fucking-tastic.

Posted by NYCBusybody at October 7, 2006 6:48 PM

comment #7

Geoff says ...

Yeah, Nick J's comments really lure you in. He says everyone loved it, there was applause after Scorsese's title card...and then bam, he discusses two critical plot points in a very, uh, un-subtle way. Thank god i saw the movie beforehand.

Posted by Geoff at October 7, 2006 7:07 PM

comment #8

OddDuck says ...

Nick J, you really did pretty much give away some big plot points, so this "stop whining" bullshit is not exactly the appropriate response. First you come off as an idiot, and then an asshole. Nice.

Posted by OddDuck at October 7, 2006 7:09 PM

comment #9

erniesouchak says ...

"The Departed" strikes me as Scorsese's desperate bid to court a younger audience than is typically attracted to his movies. Lots of fast editing can't make up for the fact that dramatic tension is virtually NIL. Let's face it: Nicholson runs amok. Very few of his scenes have any weight AT ALL, and he's supposed to be the baddest of the bad guys. Anyone who saw Infernal Affairs will know THAT tubby bad guy was a REAL ACTOR. And sorry, Leo is many things, but a tormented tough guy he ain't. I got a kick out of Alec Baldwin, who is fast becoming one of the best supporting players in the biz, and even the cretinous Mark Wahlberg (whodathunkit?), but other than that, this movie was BIG WASTE OF TIME.

Posted by erniesouchak at October 7, 2006 7:14 PM

comment #10

Nick J says ...

Hey, first I apologized. So suck my dick.

Posted by Nick J at October 7, 2006 7:38 PM

comment #11

Chris D. says ...

A lot of great directors have adapted earlier material. While almost shot-for-shot, Scorsese still managed to give it his own spin and get performances out of everyone who are not always - let's face it - on their game. Having seen Infernal Affairs didn't spoil it for me. And as for Nicholson - you hire Jack to deliver Jack and he did. Definitely Oscar noms this year. I saw it this week and I'm seeing it again tomorrow.

Posted by Chris D. at October 7, 2006 7:54 PM

comment #12

nemo says ...

Relax, Nick. Those guys saying you spoiled some major plot points are full of shit. You were plenty vague enough, an nobody is going to fail to be surprised on account of anything you said.

And I agree with Chris D. that going in knowing the plot doesn't spoil a thing. I saw Infernal Affairs, and I still found myself startled by plot turns I should have seen coming.

Posted by nemo at October 7, 2006 8:17 PM

comment #13

storymark says ...

Only vague to an idiot. Everyone else seemed to figure it out from what he wrote.

Posted by storymark at October 7, 2006 8:37 PM

comment #14

DeweyY says ...

Jeffrey told me to post this, so here goes, taking out some comments because of spoilers...

I hate like hell to say this, but I felt burned by "The Departed." I am a huge Scorcese fan, think that DiCaprio does some of his best work in a great overall cast, and that so much of the film is right. I have been salivating to see this film for months, and the great reviews had me hyped to see one of the best films of the year.

Well, I might have seen a couple of good hours, but it was far from a top 10 film, and most definitely is not a Best Picture caliber film. And yet, for the longest time, I thought it would be.

The film rockets out, sets up its conflicts and characters, and has them doing great things, and saying wonderful dialogue. I was amazed at the shards of great dialogue flying about the screen, these great actors just killing with the material they were given. Funny, profane, and at times, almost profound. I just kept thinking about how I was gonna rave about this flick to my best friend, who has lived in Boston, and is as big a Scorscese nut as I am.

Then the last half hour happened. There were warning signs. The psychiatrist character was working for me, then it just wasn't clicking anymore. I could not figure out what role Frank Costello's wife (or was it just mistress?) played--there seemed to be somewhere they were going with her. I figured there were just scenes on the cutting room floor, like a subplot they culled out. Then Mark Wahlberg's profane cop gets shuffled out of the film, and the whole damn thing collapses.

The original film was a shot of cinematic adrenaline. I was totally engaged, and felt the HK version came to a perfect and shattering climax. Just at the point the remake was ready to bury the original, it unraveled.

Jeff, can you really sit there and say the last half-hour makes any damn sense? That it does not betray everything before it? The audience (pretty packed matinee today) was laughing at the film.

The guy wounded during the shootout after Queenan's murder--was he really a cop or not? Why does Walhberg quit and not think it was important to help William out at all? Why is Frank an FBI informant? (This never amounts to anything interesting.) Why does he record his conversations? Why does William give a character an envelope with something in it--that NEVER pays off in any way? Are we supposed to take the last scene in the film seriously, especially when it is followed by that hamfisted final shot. (I can't say what it is for fear of being "spoiler boy.") I cannot believe a director of Scorcese's stature filmed that shot, and then decided it should end his film.

See, I am just about angry thinking about it. This one needed another pass through Monahan's screenwriting software. Somebody needed to look at the original again, and see how to solve the puzzle of the film. Because this thing was an unholy mess. Nodody's actions make sense in that last half hour. None. Of. Them.

I wanted to love it. Hell, with the run of "meh" films I have seen running through the multiplexes lately, I needed the film to be not only good, but great. Instead, I left with a sour taste in my mouth.

I ain't bucking trends, and just reacting to the great reviews and trying to be contrary. I literally have no idea what people are raving about. When a movie goes so seriously awry in its last act, it cannot be considered a great entertainment. It has to be considered a failure. Sorry.

Posted by DeweyY at October 7, 2006 9:24 PM

comment #15

le corbeau says ...

SPOILERS AHOY...

"The guy wounded during the shootout after Queenan's murder--was he really a cop or not?"

No, they put that story out to protect DiCaprio. The guy accusing him before he dies makes that clear.

"Why does Walhberg quit and not think it was important to help William out at all?"

Because he sees that his side has lost the departmental turf battle to the guy he thinks betrayed his boss (by suspecting him, tailing him and getting him killed). Also, he's upset and not acting completely rationally.

"Why is Frank an FBI informant?"

Because he's playing chess with the law on a board a level above his crew and willing to sell them out to protect his own skin. (I agree this is not developed in how it affects Damon when it clearly has plenty to do with their last scene.)

"Why does he record his conversations?"

Same reason.

"Why does William give a character an envelope with something in it--that NEVER pays off in any way?"

See Infernal Affairs...

"Are we supposed to take the last scene in the film seriously, especially when it is followed by that hamfisted final shot."

I dunno, dead seems pretty serious to me.

Posted by le corbeau at October 7, 2006 10:01 PM

comment #16

Doghouse Reilly says ...

Just got back from seeing it. I really don't get what all the fuss is about. Honestly, it doesn't even merit all of Dewey's "Why" questions above - it's a big dumb action movie. Of course it makes no sense. An entertaining and funny big dumb action movie, but really...best picture? Surely you jest.

Scorsese has been making movies for a long time and in everything he makes, he employs formidable skills as a craftsman refined in that time. But craftsmanship and technique aren't what made him great in the first place. I don't know that I would say he phoned this in, exactly, but did he really give a damn? I don't know. I doubt it. This, to me, is the work of a man unable and unwilling to draw anything from life for his films, and who is desperate for approval. It's not hackwork, but it's "16 Blocks" "Inside Man" etc territory. Is that the stuff of a "best living director"?

Posted by Doghouse Reilly at October 7, 2006 10:09 PM

comment #17

Drew says ...

Actually, Mgmax, the guy wounded during the shoot-out absolutely is a cop. He's not accusing Leo of anything. He tells him he knows he came to the wrong address, and then asks him repeatedly, "Why didn't I tell anyone?"

He didn't tell anyone because they would have killed William immediately. The guy is indeed a cop as the news claims later. Frank just dimisses it because he's convinced that even the news is in on it, trying to bring him down.

Posted by Drew at October 7, 2006 10:15 PM

comment #18

le corbeau says ...

But if DiCaprio understood that, why is he about to kill him to keep him quiet when he dies? An undercover cop wouldn't out another cop. The theory only works if we assume that DiCaprio doesn't get that from what he says, in which case, how are we supposed to get it?

Posted by le corbeau at October 7, 2006 10:52 PM

comment #19

Joseph says ...

I just got back from seeing it and have to agree, to a certain extent, with the naysayers. I think the acclaim for the film is fixed almost entirely in the fact that this is Scorsese back in the Mean Streets/Taxi Driver mode and away from the Oscar-bait pictures. But truth be told, I actually enjoyed Gangs of New York much more than The Departed (not The Aviator, though).

The great thing about Infernal Affairs was how tight and compact it was--it just flew along and gripped you the whole time. In The Departed, the script piles on so much excessive detail that the movie gets bogged down and just becomes tiresome after awhile.

And Nicholson is just one big punch-line in the movie--he's more over-the-top here then he was as The Joker--and watch him get another Oscar nod for it.

That said, there were some great moments in the movie, and the acting by Leonardo DiCaprio and especially Matt Damon was terrific.

Posted by Joseph at October 7, 2006 11:27 PM

comment #20

MovieBob says ...

DeweyY:
"Why is Frank an FBI informant? (This never amounts to anything interesting.)"

Boston native here, might be able to field this one.

This addition to Frank's character is, possibly, a "local" reference to Whitey Bulger, our most famous gangster of recent. How much is coincidence I don't know, but there's a lot of little similarities between the Frank Costello character and Whitey in certain respects.

He's been missing and on the feds "most-wanted" list for years now, but when he was active he ran a very Costello-like (though less opulent) operation complete with a "Mr. French"-like sidekick named "Rifleman" Flemming. When it all fell apart, it eventually came out that Bulger had survived and thrived as he did as a protected FBI informant, a situation which it was later determined contributed to several deaths in the law enforcement community.

Dunno if anyone connected to the film has said definatively that Costello is based in-part on Whitey, but it's a reference that local boys like Damon and Whalberg would've gotten immediately. When the "Frank is FBI" scene came up, the Boston audience I saw it with went NUTS.

Posted by MovieBob at October 7, 2006 11:32 PM

comment #21

Devin Faraci says ...

The character was definitely based on Bulger - it came up at the NYC press conference.

Posted by Devin Faraci at October 7, 2006 11:38 PM

comment #22

Devin Faraci says ...

Also, Frank as informant is incredibly interesting. It's a betrayal of his own people, and the whole movie is about betrayal.

Posted by Devin Faraci at October 7, 2006 11:39 PM

comment #23

Devin Faraci says ...

"It's not hackwork, but it's "16 Blocks" "Inside Man" etc territory. Is that the stuff of a "best living director"?

Posted by: Doghouse Reilly [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2006 10:09 PM"

What is this hatred of solid, well made genre work? John Ford would have gotten no respect from you when he was alive, I guess.

Posted by Devin Faraci at October 7, 2006 11:41 PM

comment #24

austin111 says ...

The Departed isn't perfect...OK. But it's pretty damned great anyway. I have to admit the first 20 minutes or so were hard for me to get into. I thought something was a little offkey but then it just kicked in and never let up. Is it Scorsese doing Tarantino, whatever....I didn't feel that particularly with the exception of one or two moments -- the last one being a likely suspect. Beyond that I was fascinated at how things seemed to get better and better, the acting was absolutely amazing in this. The script was great. The way Scorsese developed the whole Boston Irish milieu, fine. Does this thing resonate at all? Hell, it does with me and I'm not necessarily an easy sell.

Posted by austin111 at October 8, 2006 12:18 AM

comment #25

AlexStroup says ...

"Jeff, can you really sit there and say the last half-hour makes any damn sense?"

Well, I'm not Jeff, but I can say that. The last 30 minutes made total sense to me.

Posted by AlexStroup at October 8, 2006 12:36 AM

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Another thing I don't get is why Marty's willing to push the R rating on violence and foul language, but he copped out on the sex scenes.

Posted by D.Z. at October 8, 2006 2:29 AM

comment #27

Doghouse Reilly says ...

Devin: name the film that my screen name comes from and tell me again how I "hate" a well made genre film. Anyway, where do you find hatred in my post? That's a bit extreme, no? I said it was entertaining and fun. I said that it was made with skill. I also said that it was a big dumb action movie, and it is - it's relentlessly shallow and empty, but made well enough so that the superficial pleasures mask the basic hollowness of the film.

Posted by Doghouse Reilly at October 8, 2006 4:47 AM

comment #28

milestogo says ...

When Goodfellas came out, some critics and audience members liked it only up to the point where Liotta gets busted, then felt it limped to the credits. Scorsese slowed the film with editing to comment on Liotta's new lifestyle. I'm sure the last 30 minutes of the Departed will sit better with the detractors in the future.

One of my initial problems of the film was the use of Gimme Shelter twice when he used it in Goodfellas and Casino. Upon reflection, Costello is giving the young Damon "shelter" the first time you hear it, and Damon is giving Farmiga "shelter" the second time you hear it. And wait, DiCaprio feels "comfortably numb" without valium when he's banging Farmiga.

There's more going on in The Departed than anyone realizes right now.

Posted by milestogo at October 8, 2006 5:24 AM

comment #29

Doghouse Reilly says ...

I don't mean this to be snarky, but wouldn't a great director figure out a way to actually dramatize those emotions rather than just using music as a crutch, Zach Braff style, pasting it onto a scene to to do the heavy emotional lifting when the material itself doesn't?

Really, if Scorsese is reduced to using "Gimme Shelter" in a scene about giving shelter and "Comfortably Numb" in a scene about being comfortably numb, maybe it's time to give it up and start making commercials. I have some ideas: "Born to Run" to sell Adidas; "Back in the High Life Again" to sell Miller; "Margaritaville" for Chevy's; "Sail Away" for Carnival Cruises. The possibilities are endless.

Posted by Doghouse Reilly at October 8, 2006 6:38 AM

comment #30

Chris D. says ...

Anyone care to discuss the father-son-sibling-rivalry motif that runs from beginning to end?

Posted by Chris D. at October 8, 2006 7:33 AM

comment #31

austin111 says ...

Doghouse (great moniker for someone like yourself, I must say) - if you think the film is shallow, unresonant, etc., fine. I can only speak for myself here and it did resonate. I found enough resonance in Damon and DiCaprio's characters alone to make it more than worth my while. The acting alone is worth the price of admission, little less whatever stylistic florishes Scorsese wrought. It ain't perfect but close enough.

Posted by austin111 at October 8, 2006 7:38 AM

comment #32

Nick J says ...

I thought the movie was absolutely terrific, but I had the same question about the sex scene. That was mentioned over and over in the pre-release press and then it turned out to be a few shots of Jack's hand dipping into a bowl of coke. Odd.

And the Costello guy who got killed was definitely an undercover cop. Just as Costello had (SPOILER, maybe, I guess...) more than one mole in the police, Dignam and Queenan had more than one mole in Costello's crew. So partly that scene was setting up the revelation of Damon's fellow mole.

And as for "But if DiCaprio understood that, why is he about to kill him to keep him quiet when he dies"--well, he was about to kill him *until* he realized he was undercover! Pay attention--the guy accuses Leo, Leo reaches for his gun or knife or whatever, the guy grabs Leo's hand and says "Why didn't I tell anyone else," Leo then realizes the guy must be undercover also, and then the guy dies. Follow?

On a totally unrelated note, I saw Borat last night. Afterward, all I could think about was how good The Departed was.

Posted by Nick J at October 8, 2006 7:46 AM

comment #33

NYCBusybody says ...

D.Z. made the point that I made to my friend last night, that the film was oddly non-sexual, no explicit sexual shots at all. For a Scorcese crime film, that seemed odd, and certainly shows we're not in the 70's anymore.

And the one sex scene there was...man, a camera panning down the woman's clothed body, off the corner of the bed, and then the scene is over? Only thing missing were rustling curtains, like a 40's film.

Posted by NYCBusybody at October 8, 2006 7:47 AM

comment #34

milestogo says ...

Doghouse, maybe I misunderstood your post as much as you misunderstood mine, but it sounds like you just compared Martin Scorsese to Michael Bay and McG.

Posted by milestogo at October 8, 2006 8:29 AM

comment #35

KAM2112 says ...

SPOLIER ALERT DON'T READ IF HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE, OR TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA AND PSYCHO.

The film falls apart in the worst plot pileup I have ever witnessed and it DESTROYS the film.

Why is Costello an FBI informant who's worried about being spied on by and FBI informant? What fucking sense does this make-I'll tape record incriminating conversations of myself but donâ€™t send a rat to do it cause I'm doing it myself???????? I mean what good are the tapes to him but to put himself in Jail???????? What oh see -I have a tape recording of myself giving matt Damon the order to kill ten people and he did so see he's a bad guy go arresting- What fucking DA listens to this tape and arrest Damon and not Nicholson??? What fucking sense this makes I don't know.

WHY THE FUCK would Dicaprio's character call Anthony Andersonâ€™s character to help him bust Damon??????? Anderson's character is going to watch you pull a gun on his hero boss and say yeah you got the mole. Great job???? Oh I get now, fuck me I'm so stupid, I guess he has to be there because if Anthony is there so is his partner and he needs to be there to shoot Di Caprio. Fuck your right, why didn't I see that.

Whose baby is it????

Why give the manila envelope it's own scene then it's own CLOSE up and never use it??? Just drop the fucking thing thatâ€™s the point of Final cut pro you can use it to edit.

WHY would a undercover cop help throw another cop maybe even his boss off the roof of a building?????

If all Scorsese wanted to do was kill all the characters then just do it at the fucking last drug deal scene-doesn't make the movie make anymore sense but at least you get more icebox thinking-

I mean WOW-Hitchcock said it best the hardest part of telling story is figuring out what will superglue an audience to the screen-never in my life have I felt the entire audience fall out of a movie people where laughing as a character they spent two hours with got shot in the head?????????????WOW you really have to be a moron to fuck up like this. They didn't applaud when the man they hated for two hours got shot they laughed and everyone, I mean everyone got up and left before the credits even rolled-What a monumental fuck up.

I'm in film school now and everybody is trying to prove how smart they are with their scripts and shorts instead of doing what works-instead of relying on dramatic tools that was good enough for men like Homer right on down to Author Miller-sorry for writers or directors reading this may come as a shock to you but your not going to reinvent storytelling-think about the shit that has worked for thousands of years distill it and fucking use it. Think about psycho had Janet Leigh got killed five minutes before the movie ended? Not the same movie. Or if Petersen got shot into live and to die in La by a character that was a not in the movie a fucking ghost in the machine.

It really saddens me to say that Scorsese should heed that advice. The ending of your film didn't need to be smart and a fucking gimmicky trick it just needed to work.

Posted by KAM2112 at October 8, 2006 8:30 AM

comment #36

le corbeau says ...

"And as for "But if DiCaprio understood that, why is he about to kill him to keep him quiet when he dies"--well, he was about to kill him *until* he realized he was undercover! Pay attention--the guy accuses Leo, Leo reaches for his gun or knife or whatever, the guy grabs Leo's hand and says "Why didn't I tell anyone else," Leo then realizes the guy must be undercover also, and then the guy dies. Follow?"

Okay, I buy that, especially since the parallel is thus established for more than one mole is on each side.

Posted by le corbeau at October 8, 2006 9:01 AM

comment #37

Nick Rogers says ...

Half of me wishes I hadn't seen "Infernal Affairs" beforehand, half of me is glad. If I hadn't, the plot turns might have (at least temporarily) distracted from how flabby the film was - painfully clear when knowing what's going to happen. Because 95 percent of this movie's audience hasn't seen "Infernal Affairs," they'll have the initial high and buzz. (I think a lot of critics are in this camp, too.) Give "The Departed" time, and I think it will be seen as nothing more than a just slightly-above-average, overlong action film. And whoever said above that the last shot was hamfisted, amen to you. It was like a Guy Ritchie punchline.

Posted by Nick Rogers at October 8, 2006 9:28 AM

comment #38

Jean says ...

KAM2112:
-Costello records himself as insurance. Should Damon's character ever double-cross him, he has the evidence to take him down with him. And as prior posts had discussed and in the final scenes, Frank's an FBI informer - he could cut a deal to get off scott free.
-Leo calls A.Anderson's character because Anderson recognizes Leo in a prior seen ("
Yea. He was at the academy...")so someone will believe he's a cop (just undercover).
-I agree with the envelope - it could've been cut but we did need that scene of Leo talking to Farmiga's shrink.
-The plot line had other ends for the characters as shown at the end of the film. It copies "Internal Affairs" (have you seen the original? I'm curious about what you think about the films in comparison) until the very end, which I thought was the "audience pleaser".
-I do agree with your comment about film school. Yes, as an artist you do need to separate yourself from the pack, but students don't have a handle (much less mastered) the basics of story / film / visual storytelling. One has to master the rules before one can break them.

Posted by Jean at October 8, 2006 9:40 AM

comment #39

Joseph says ...

Not to defend an overrated movie, but I understand why the manila envelope scene is there: he tells her if something happens to him to open the envelope; something happens to him; we assume she opens the envelope; then, in the last scene, something happens to another character by a fourth character. How did the fourth character know to do this? The only thing I can think of is that whatever was in the envelope was passed on to that fourth character.

Posted by Joseph at October 8, 2006 9:52 AM

comment #40

KAM2112 says ...

SPOLIER IS ALL OVER THIS DON"T READ IF NOT SEEN THE FILM YET

Thanks Jean I do disagree with you for the following reasons.

It's still unclear to me why he would call anderson's character to help him, the best place to bust Damon is at work where others have seen his face the night he came in. Anderson would be there too. Dicaprio has the tape just march down to the office play the tape in front ot Damon and Baldwin and you kill Damon's character in the worst way. If homer were writing that script Dicaprio would have had a flaw that would lead to the last seen like say pride or like say what Friedkien did with "to live and die in LA. Peterson's character is pushing too hard too fast and without rational-He is Vain and his Vanity kills him. Not the same with Dicaprio, he wants out- the people holding him there are all dead or have quit their job why does he return to take Damon down? His loyatly to martin Sheen's character-maybe but as said before if his aims to hurt damon in the worst way possible it only way to do that is to attack him at work. The Fact is The writer did not set up the characters properly or use what he did set up. He has a character who wants out but doesn't take the chance to get out when it arrives. Matt Damon's character can only be killed at work, not at home in his fucking living room-the movie is about men and their jobs-their function not the booty of their crimes-but work-if Damon is going to die it has to be public and at work-like Nicholson died- at work. Homer would never write that bull shit, it the screenwriting that wakes me up at night thinking shit did I really set that up? Am I really bring that audience to this- I'm working on a zombie script with a buddy that is very different and every time we meet to talk about it and map it out I keep saying dude are we bring the audience to this thing properly-how else can we take them here? is that the best way? is it really working??-Fuck Monahan he is a weak writer cause in both his films those are not question he asks himself and if he does he's not intelligent with the answers. I mean in kindom of heaven how the fuck do you show a man struggling to hear god voice and never show that at some point he had a relationship with god????
then in the middle of the movie he moves on from that fuck this I can't hear god's voice so fuck him-are we really setting this in the middle ages where god wasn't a question but a fact more certain than death itself????

As far as incrimating Matt Damon's character with the tape- Why send those tapes to Dicaprio's character unless Nicholson knows he's a cop-I mean what was a guy he thought was a loser drug dealer going to do with the tapes that the lawyer wouldn't have done better with-like release them to a newspaper or the DA???

Like my buddy said that script had to end at the office.

Posted by KAM2112 at October 8, 2006 10:36 AM

comment #41

KAM2112 says ...

And Joseph

SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ IF HAVE YET TO SEE FILM

So Dicaprio's character sent Wahlberg's character a letter saying " if you are reading this I am dead and the mutherfucker who killed me is that prick you had a fist fight with. kill him for me."
"Ps by the way here is a copy of a tape to prove it"

Does that make sense to you?

why not send the tape to a newspaper or the DA

but all of this is narativley dumb-three faces are on the poster for this film the conflict has to be resloved between those three faces-the main character can't be killed by a ninth tier charcter who ain't in the fucking movie and the main character can't ask for a fifth tier character to revenge him from beyond the grave it's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad screeenwriting.

Stephen Fears gave a talk other day about making movies and I love what he said-movies are crude-it's like being a child- essentially they are simple don't over think it don't be a genius for genius sake- shit just has to make sense and be a Succinct picture when all the pieces are put togther.

Departed makes no sense.

Posted by KAM2112 at October 8, 2006 10:52 AM

comment #42

Nick Rogers says ...

I'm convinced that the only reason Anthony Anderson was called in was because he'd been cast in a previously hitherto nothing role that, rather sadly, called upon him to seriously act as a cop in distress. Anderson's capable of something more than comedy (see "Hustle & Flow"), but this was a woeful mismatch.

Posted by Nick Rogers at October 8, 2006 11:14 AM

comment #43

nemo says ...

"Only vague to an idiot. Everyone else seemed to figure it out from what he wrote."

The people who were complaining didn't figure it out. They had already seen the picture.

Posted by nemo at October 8, 2006 2:06 PM

comment #44

lawnorder says ...

SPOILERS -- caution...

I've got to say that THE DEPARTED is a major disappointment for me. First the good: Leo did a great job with the role - I only wish he was serviced by a better film. I thought Whalberg was excellent as well. I liked Vera Farmiga (especially at the beginning), but then I sensed she was floundering with the lack of development in her role. Seems like they improv-ed a lot of their later scenes. No chemistry between Vera and Matt and Leo - she felt a little too mature for Leo. Ray Winstone is a movie god and is always appreciated, even if he doesn't have much of a role. Sheen was solid. A couple of good lines. And that's about it.

I'm a big fan of INFERNAL AFFAIRS and quite frankly, the best bits in THE DEPARTED are lifted right out of the plotline of INFERNAL. For a Scorsese picture, I thought the directing and camera movement was extremely pedestrian. I thought the film was lit too bright and not textured enough. INFERNAL feels like a dark, moody flick for most of it's running time. I found Damon lacking in the role. He seemed too flip and uninvolved. I never sensed that he was under any real tension. This is my least favorite performance of his (and I usually find him spot-on). Nicholson's Costello was a mess. He was too over the top and too "Jack" all the time. There's no way a guy in Costello's position is looking to call attention to himself and his undercover operative - yet, that's exactly what he does in the porno theater-dildo scene. These top mobsters are all about deflecting attention from themselves. They're not out there in public acting like raving maniacs. That's something out of a comic book. Scorsese should have known better than that - although from what I hear, Nicholson walked all over him and just kept coming up with weirder shit. I completely agree about Scorsese being afraid to "sex" the film up. He's great at depicting headshots (too CGI looking for my liking), but he's afraid to show us a bit of T&A. I think he's too uptight and puritanical to direct a good sex scene - when has he ever? What happened to the scenes of Nicholson doing blow off some hooker's pussy? Paul Walker eating Vera Farmiga out on the washing machine in RUNNING SCARED is sexier than anything you see in this film. I thought the editing was horrible (I never thought I'd ever say that about Thelma Schoonmaker's work). The cutting just seemed to jump around. Steadicam and crane shots were lopped off before they could resolve themselves and it felt messy. I liked Howard Shore's score, but at times it was used as wall to wall elevator music, when Scorsese wasn't falling back on tired needledrops. Whoever squibbed Nicholson for his death scene did a lousy job covering up the protective padding beneath the blood pack (or maybe it was the blood pack itself). You could see the damn thing under his shirt as he was dying. CGI can fix that shit in a heartbeat. Clumsy stuff.

I also agree with a lot of the later plotpoints that don't add up. Are the filmmakers so lazy that we're just supposed to figure out how Whalberg came to know about Damon's betrayal of Leo. I guess we're supposed to assume it's because of the envelope. How hard would it have been to show Farmiga depositing an envelope in the mail addressed to Whalberg's character. Or Farmiga picking up a phone and asking for him? This is a flaw from the original INFERNAL AFFAIRS, but Leo meeting Damon on the rooftop to "arrest" him is bullshit. He could've walked into the precinct with a copy of that tape and deposited it on Alec Baldwin's desk. And when Dicaprio spies the envelope (with the background checks) on Damon's desk - another bogus plotpoint. Damon's character was too meticulous to leave incriminating shit like that out. He would have shredded it weeks ago. Just way too convenient. And I don't buy Whalberg's character just taking off without giving any consideration to Leo's fate. The guy was no doubt still watching the news and had pals on the force. The moment Costello was whacked, he would have come forward to ensure Leo was protected. I don't know what Alec Baldwin was doing in this film. He seemed wasted. He kept acting like a goofball whenever he was around Damon - I half expected him to be on the take and Leo's assassin in the end.

I'm sorry, but I really wanted to dig this film so much more. I just think because Scorsese's back in the gangster genre, everyone's willing to cut him a huge amount of slack. I'm not about to drink the kool-aid. The film is bloated and superficial. I didn't even get a strong feel for the neighborhood or the mob rankings, or even some of the secondary crew members. It's hard enough to buy the notion that the Irish mob and the local cops have planted a mole in each other's enterprise, but then to add a second mole to each of them... It becomes ludicrous. And that last scene with the rat outside on the ledge. I half expected a huge hammer to come down and smash it on the head, because that's the way I felt Scorsese was treating the moment. It was laughable and cheesy. I know everybody and their mother is going to love this film and praise it to high heaven, but I just left the theater shrugging my shoulders. I thought it was ultimately a waste of a good cast. And one more thing, but the fucking hand in the plastic bag being used to intimidate Leo - that was ripped off straight out of a far, far better Irish mob film, STATE OF GRACE. Penn, Oldman, Harris - that felt authentic to me. THE DEPARTED feels like an Irish flavored version of 21 JUMP STREET. Bring on the haters...

Posted by lawnorder at October 8, 2006 3:38 PM

comment #45

Nick J says ...

Lawnorder,

But...you *are* the hater.

Posted by Nick J at October 8, 2006 5:34 PM

comment #46

JRoos says ...

SPOILER ALERT!!! SPOILER ALERT!!!

I'm with you, Lawnorder.
Okay, people - here's the thing. The Departed missed, and it missed huge. It is well-acted, has some crackling dialogue, and some memorable shots - otherwise, it fails. These are just some of the flaws:
The Biggest - A lack of clarity. Now many of you may claim that Scorsese and Monahan were going for some sort of ambiguous, "who knows who's corrupt" thing. If so, this is the wrong kind of forum - a movie likes this needs a plot like a Swiss Watch (see LA Confidential). This movie is loaded with ???? For example (and I'll try not to be too much of a spoiler)...
1.) Explain Whalberg's actions at the end of the film. Did he receive the letter/CD's from Damon's girl? Are we just supposed to assume he did, or did he merely suspect Damon was the bad guy? Why don't we see his recieving the letters/CD's? (And - why does the woman in the hallway pull her dog away from Damon before he enters his apartment, as if he's a "bad person" - at this point in the story he is supposed to publicly be known as a hero. What's going on there?)
2.) The "other cop" in Costello's outfit - are we to assume that he was involved in Queenan's death (seems like a slight breach of command, even if he is undercover - by the way, he's the first guy out of the car shooting when the cops arrive.)
3.) Is Vera Famiglia's character the only psychiatrist in the Boston area? Because it seems that Dicaprio was taking a big risk by sharing his problems with a woman whose office is upstairs from the entire Boston Police Unit, who, with the exception of Sheen and Whalberg, think he is a low level Southie thug.
4.) Does anybody believe that Costello is the type of guy to tape his phone conversations? Also, what moment in the film do we see the "tight bond" between Costello and Costigan that would allow us to believe that Costello would leave the audio recordings to Costigan in case of his death? (BIG LEAP)
5.) The Chinese plot begins, ends, and is never heard of again. The climactic "drug deal" comes out of nowhere and seems like an excuse to just kill of all of Costello's cronies.
6.) Costello begins the film as a true figure of menace, and then increasingly becomes more and more silly and deranged as the film goes on. Was this a choice by Monahan because he knew it would allow him to make some leaps in logic? Or is it just Jack hamming it up and no one (not even dear Marty) having the balls to tell him to stick to the character?
I've got plenty more, but I'm tired. Ultimately, it's a shame- The Departed had enormous potential.

Posted by JRoos at October 10, 2006 12:41 AM

comment #47