comment #1

Daniel Fienberg says ...

The way I'd put the difference between Patterson here and Crowther with the reviews you mention is thus (and I think this distinction is *crucial*):

Crowther had no way of knowing that he was being contrarian on Cleopatra, Strangelove or Bonnie and Clyde. That he was out-of-touch with the moviegoing public and with the evolving critical community became evident only afterwards. He hadn't listened to months of Internet buzz about the movies, hadn't had her perceptions tarnished. He walked into the movies and gave an entirely uninfluenced reading and wrote entirely uninfluenced reviews. You couldn't have read them on the morning they were published and known they were wrong. You might have known that after seeing any of the movies that afternoon, but not earlier.

Patterson, from a point two weeks after the movie's release in much of the world, is writing 100 percent with the intent of being contrarian. He's saying, "I've spent two weeks listening to deafening buzz from across the Atlantic (and probably from his own side of the Atlantic) and I'm going to go against those sentiments exactly because I know how entrenched they are." His is a reaction against the critical response as much as against the movie. He's saying, "Dear Lord, every critic is writing the *exact* same thing about this movie and I'm not buying it."

I know that it's out of lock-step for me to say it, but I think that The Departed is a good movie. But it's not of a level with Scorsese's best (speaking only for myself here) nor would it be in any reasonable discussion for the year's best films if this year's cinematic output weren't so horrible (again, only my opinion). But if I wrote my basic review, it would be positive. It would be "Fresh" on RottenTomatoes, which doesn't appear to be going against the critical momentum.

Surely you, Jeff, have been hyperbolic about some movies just to make a broader point? Surely you've posted dozens of vitriolic posts about a frivolous movie about a French queen even though you know that in terms of pure cinema, it's better than oodles of movies about which you say nothing. You don't do it because you think that movie's 12 times worse than, say, Beerfest. You do it because you want that alternative voice out there in the wilderness.

Or else Patterson's just a crazy old coot. But I think there's a big difference in what he's doing...

Daniel

comment #2

Daniel Fienberg says ...

Hmmm. That was needlessly long. I apologize.

comment #3

austin111 says ...

I don't know what Patterson is, but I usually find I don't agree with him much. I think basically he is a contrarian just because it suits him. I've come to regard him as occasionally amusing to read, but also a little prickly and unkind. And he certainly seems to relish being outside the loop. I suppose it makes him feel that much more superior to the rest of us. It'll be interesting to see what he writes about Clint Eastwood's new film, nonetheless.

comment #4

Hallick says ...

There's no deciding which tone is more repulsive here. The "ME!ME!ME! its all about MEEEE!" one; or the "I watch Martin Scorsese...and I know Martin Scorsese...and YOU SIR, are no Martin Scorsese!".

But this is by far my favorite sample of terminal self-regard:

"I've been here before with other directors. I had to give up on Francis Ford Coppola after Godfather III, something I should have done a good five movies earlier. Wim Wenders went from being my favourite living director to my least favourite, literally in the last five minutes of Wings of Desire. But, as I did successfully with Neil Young and Bob Dylan, I patiently await an autumnal return to form, a last blast from the ebbing furnace of creativity."

Up yours, Patterson.

comment #5

Patrick says ...

Finally, somebody tells the truth about this
false masterpiece! Bravo, John!

comment #6

Jeremy Smith says ...

Isn't Patterson way too young to be having a Crowther moment?

comment #7

Nate West says ...

Patterson isn't saying anything remarkable, he's just saying it in a way that foregrounds "Patterson." As if anybody cares. In the end, "The Departed" is an engrossing crime movie that leaves little to chew on when it's over. It bounces along; it entertains. But that's it. It's not a personal project. There isn't much depth. The fate of the its characters doesn't hit with the oomph it should. It's a solid movie-movie, but I wouldn't rush back to see it a second time.

comment #8

T. S. Idiot says ...

I agree wholeheartedly with Nate West. I love Marty and was entertained by The Departed, but it's inferior to its source. Infernal Affairs is full of existential angst. The characters feel real pain when they experience loss, regret, betrayal, etc. Marty's are just characters in a movie. The bloodbath at the end becomes a joke, and the rat shot destroys any emotional/psychological subtext. Patterson could be right that Marty never makes another truly satisfying film, docs excluded.

comment #9

donnyboy says ...

Bonnie and Clyde, what an overrated piece (save Bos' review) of unmitigated silliness.
Dr. Strangelove reminds me of an after school special.