I liked this one (and Leo and Jack, specifically) just fine, and probably a good deal better than most of Scorsese's other epics of macho violence (I think this is clearly better than Raging Bull and GoodFellas, but bear in mind I've never thought much of either of those films).
I don't think it's a miracle or anything, but I just thought I'd pop in to say sometimes it's nice to be on roughly the same page as most everyone.
(Translation: very entertaining. But this is every bit Scorsese-for-hire as his previous two big budget studio films.)
Is this to say "not Scorsese-for-hire at all"? Because Gangs of New York was about as much a pet auteur project as I can imagine for Scorsese. At what point do we call his work "for hire" simply because it covers artistic territory that the director more or less created decades ago?
Whatever. We'll agree to disagree on this one. All I can say is everytime Jack appeared, he took me right out of the picture and destroyed whatever minimal pleasure I was getting from the film. I sat there wondering why half the audience was laughing at this crap.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Sonic Youth wrote:Um... 'scuse me, my friends, but would anyone really hire Jack without the certainty that he was going to give a Jack performance? What else would they use him for?
Honestly, I don’t think that’s news to anyone, Sonic. I don’t believe it’s out of the realm of discussion to comment on the fact that Jack is being Jack (yet again) and to express the desire that we thought he might’ve put in a slightly different kind of performance given the source material and different director. Other "persona-like actors", such as the ones you named, have been known to step out of themselves and deliver a different kind of nuanced character on-screen (to use your examples I’d cite Cary Grant in None But the Lonely Heart and Audrey Hepburn in A Nun’s Story as being distinctly different from the usual characters they’d portrayed before and after). That Jack’s essential Jack-isms actually do end up working for the character and the film really just speaks to good casting.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
Um... 'scuse me, my friends, but would anyone really hire Jack without the certainty that he was going to give a Jack performance? What else would they use him for?
Or, put another way, is anyone really expecting ol' reliable to expand his range at this point?
Jack is very much in sync with the film, because the film is artificial, overblown, caricatured and hysterically entertaining. Pefect fit! Not everyone can be transformative Meryl Streeps and Lawrence Oliviers. Some actors are Cary Grants, James Stewarts, Audrey Hepburns and Walter Matthaus. Lots of actors eventually reduce themselves to their ingrained persona, which makes it more difficult to see the character instead of the actor. In which case, you can do one of two things. Either revel in your onscreen persona or lazily coast along. And Jack has been lazy in past performances, but here he's electric. "Watch me be Jack, you mofos!" The performance is a lark. The movie is a lark. Works for me.
I really can't be entirely objective about this one. It gets off to a somewhat shakey start in which Jack Nicholson wears off his welcome before the first scene was finished, but I haven't been this entertained all year. The characters are entirely archetypal and would probably fail to resonate terribly much on the page, but there is such economy to the screenplay that perfectly sets up Scorsese and editor Thelma Schoonmaker for what is essentially throttling entertainment. I never had the opportunity to be bored with this film - and keep in mind, I am writing about somebody who hasn't seen 'Infernal Affairs' and, really, I don't care. I'm sure much of the film's power derives from the fact that it was already I'd imagine a pretty good film. Having not seen that one and just recently held utterly capt for the film's duration, I can attest that this movie works.
And then there's Jack. There is a Who Else?-ness to his presence in the film, but I can't say that I really entirely approve of what he's doing exactly. I feel as though that voice will be heard a lot on this board. But I would like to take a moment to posit that had someone besides Mr. Nicholson been cast in this role, would the equilibrium between he, Damon, and DiCaprio seemed so strangely harmonious? In their casting, the movie possesses a "movieness" the lack of which would hamper the film's greatest strength (again, I haven't seen the first one): based on who these characters were, what "Jack" was doing and "Leo" and "Matt" were doing, I didn't have a clue as to where this movie was going to end up. This is also the first of Scorsese's blatantly Oscar-baiting films in which the superfluously star-studded supporting cast really pulled through on all accounts, especially Alec Baldwin's knowing delivery. Vera Farmiga's love interest character is admittedly the weak link in the film's intrigue, but the casting of a Cameron Diaz or Angelina Jolie to ensure wider release appeal would have been a tiny disaster, and while not terribly blown away with this much-lauded actress on my first impression I feel gracious not to have been submitted to such convention. Also, I feel as though this is Leonardo DiCaprio's best performance to date, both by way of casting happenstance and the actor's maturity.
I feel as though because of Scorsese's "detatchment" (like he really doesn't care about this movie!), the superb craftsmanship, and an extremely adept ensemble, 'The Departed' can qualify as a pretty great film.
Penelope wrote:And, I'm sorry, but one of the main problems with the film is Jack Nicholson; the man has become a cartoon--sure, an entertaining cartoon--but it's totally out of synch with the rest of picture--I couldn't take him seriously as any kind of menace.
THANK YOU! Thank you, thank you, thank you. Ever since I saw The Departed last night my eyes have just about rolled out of my head whenever anyone has said anything about Jack having a "great" performance. I found him to be absolutely ridiculous.
To me, The Departed felt gratuitously violent, but maybe my opinion is colored since I've seen this story done before - and done well - with very little violence. There is so much more going on in the story worth exploring and the violence didn't really add anything but shock value. Instead, they didn't really touch the character drama much and instead put the violence on FULL BLAST. The story as to how the two moles got planted into their organizations was changed for The Departed, which I thought created some credibility issues. Lastly, it's just WAY too long. It could stand to lose about 30 minutes.
I am of the opinion that Matt Damon didn't really create much of an interesting character. Leo, however, was great once the movie got on its feet. This is the first adult role I've seen him of his for which he really deserves praise.
This wasn't as bad as I thought it'd be, but, like Penelope, I really don't think it's anywhere near deserving the praise it has been getting. Are people falling all over themselves for this movie simply because they've been hungry for another crime drama from Scorsese?
At least the changes they made to the story prevent them from being able to remake the sequel.
The great pleasure of Infernal Affairs was how it enfolded its tight economy and efficiency into its themes of secrecy and identity. It was a movie that kept you not only glued to the screen and guessing what happened next, but where the individuals' allegiences really lay--it was an example of how limited character development and visual restraint can actually make a fantastic movie.
Scorsese and screenwriter William Monahan take the opposite tack: throw as much backstory into the brew as possible, complicate the narrative, ratchet up the violence. The result is too much. It's exhausting after awhile, as the excitement and thrill gets sucked out of what is, after all, a terrific concept. It's a solid *** effort, but the orgasmic reaction to this movie is excessive.
And, I'm sorry, but one of the main problems with the film is Jack Nicholson; the man has become a cartoon--sure, an entertaining cartoon--but it's totally out of synch with the rest of picture--I couldn't take him seriously as any kind of menace. The more naturalistic humor of Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg was much more conducive to the overall effect. Poor Vera Farmiga--it's as if she just gave up halfway through the flick.
The reason to see the movie, above all, are the two terrific leads. Leonardo DiCaprio is very, very good--in The Aviator, he seemed to be trying too hard--here, he hits every note just right. Even better is Matt Damon, who manages to create the most fully realized, most emotionally nuanced character in the film--it's a subtly exquisite performance.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
What a shame that the television commercials sold this one as a crime drama. The Departed is a wonderfully droll gangster comedy. Mamet's allure with the underworld continues unabated, and this is his craftiest sleight-of-hand yet. Spanish prisonsers abound, as he delves further into his life-long themes of identity, loyalty and the art of the double-cross. But The Departed is more than that. It is also a devastating commentary on contemporary crime films. These cops and gangsters that populate the movie are so wonderfully archetypal, so dependant upon our familiarity of cop/gangster conventions for the joke to get across successfully. As usual, Mamet has no shortage of delightfully profane and fearlessly racist utterances that reduce the audience to stitches, but they are written and delivered with just the right dollop of synthetic studio-sheen. Only a seasoned writer could come up with this screenplay! Only in high-financed studio films do people talk in such high-style formula! And Jack Nicholson throws himself into his role, giving the comic performance of his life, lapping up all the hilarious potentialities inherent in his role as if he dove into a sloppy mousse pie. Damon and Dicaprio provide respectful sidekick support, giving Jack all the room to bluster and glower. Picking up the rear are Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg who deliver their one-liners with brio. Playing the straight role and love interest is Vera Ferigna, whose name is Ukranian for "bathroom break". Unfortunatly, Mamet drops the self-knowing concept in the final half hour and takes the film to another dimension. Until then, The Departed is the funniest, winking-est comedy of the year.
And as a bonus, Mamet is improving as a director. Indeed, one could say his new film looks Scorsesean. But Scorsese would never be so conventional as to include a softly-lit, slow motion lovemaking scene with soft pop in the background. Or would he?
(Translation: very entertaining. But this is every bit Scorsese-for-hire as his previous two big budget studio films.)
Hmm. I'll defend the remake of Cape Fear. No, it's certainly not as good as the 1962 version.
But so few films truly terrify me anymore, and I quite honestly thought I would have nightmares after seeing Scorsese's version. Robert De Niro and especially Juliette Lewis are terrific.
criddic3 wrote:Everything was way over the top, though I think Juliette Lewis had some effective moments in it.
I completely agree. Juliette's scene in the high school theater is a great piece of acting. Her seamless transition from coy to uncomfortable to downright scared is very believable and quite intense.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
