departed1.jpg
As Good As It Gets

The Departed / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | October 16, 2006 | Comments (58)


I have to admit, I was a little worried there for a while about Martin Scorsese. He hadn’t exactly gone soft — no one who could orchestrate the orgy of bloodletting that was Gangs of New York could ever be accused of being soft — but he had begun to lose his moorings a bit. The dazzling Casino couldn’t help but recall his modern masterpiece GoodFellas, but Bringing Out the Dead was just alienating, as if Scorsese himself couldn’t find the meaning behind the story and decided to pull out all the technical stops in hopes no one would notice. (We did.) Similarly, The Aviator, which reteamed the director with Leonardo DiCaprio, was an overlong biopic that never really knew where it wanted to go (though Scorsese’s No Direction Home was a masterful look at early Bob Dylan). Scorsese is a filmmaker of phenomenal talent, but he had abandoned the gritty tales of urban crime and immigrant strife that had propelled him to the top, and in doing so began to lose touch with the pulsing heart that had shone through in his classics. That’s what makes his The Departed, adapted from 2002’s Hong Kong smash Infernal Affairs, such a pleasure to watch: It’s not just a fantastic, frenetic police-and-thieves thriller, but also a welcome return to form for one of the best American directors working today.

The film leaps into the fray from the first frame, slamming down into the streets of Boston in the recent past, oozing with the sweat of the city and set to the backbeat of the Stones’ “Gimme Shelter.” Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), a local kingpin dealing in all kinds of criminal activity, lectures his lieutenants about the meaning of life, stalking the shadows like the devil himself. Frank stops by a diner to collect his protection payoff and confronts young Colin Sullivan in the process, and he persuades the boy to come to work for him. Scorsese seems to bend the light away from Nicholson until the moment Frank steps forward to tell the boy that, when there’s a gun pointed at your head, it doesn’t matter if you’re a cop or a criminal. The boy eats it up, and Scorsese cuts to years later: Sullivan (Matt Damon) is an officer with the Massachusetts State Police, and he’s still working for Frank. Sullivan makes the leap to detective the same afternoon that Billy Costigan (DiCaprio) is assigned by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) to go undercover inside Frank’s gang; Sullivan and Costigan even pass each other casually outside Queenan’s office. The plot flies unrelentingly forward through the prologue, and by the time Scorsese’s finished arranging the pieces, Sullivan is on the rise with the staties and Costigan has been booted from the force to enhance his cover. Such a complex set-up could easily have occupied half the film, but it’s only the beginning of Scorsese’s tightening spiral of violence and deception.

Costigan gets in touch with his cousin, a small-time drug dealer, in an attempt to raise his profile and infiltrate Frank’s outfit. Costigan’s extended family has been steeped in local crime for a couple generations now, and there’s always a sad glint in DiCaprio’s eye as he balances his distaste for his own personal history with a desire to do his job. Costigan eventually earns Frank’s good graces, even as Sullivan and the rest of his task force pursue Frank and his crew. People on both sides of the law are barely keeping it together: It takes only the slightest provocation for the detectives to turn on each other and start swinging in the middle of the office. These paroxysms of violence far outmatch the occasional fights in Infernal Affairs, and add to the sense that everything’s slowly but surely coming unglued. Sullivan is pushed to extremes in his attempts to balance two careers and a relationship with a psychiatrist (Vera Farmiga), and Costigan’s job as a brute enforcer begins to cause serious wear on his psyche.

Scorsese’s technical strengths remain in top form here; he’s always been in love with the means by which a story is told, not just the telling, and his constantly moving camera, careful use of irises, and meticulous use of music are outstanding. Almost every scene is underscored with music, whether the original compositions of Howard Shore or the classic rock and blues that permeate Scorsese’s neighborhoods. The constant music highlights the building pressure and often crushing tension that threatens to overwhelm Sullivan and Costigan as they slip deeper into their artificial lives, and the silence, when it comes, is extraordinary. In this way, Scorsese is the opposite of most directors: When he wants your attention, he whispers.

Scorsese has assembled a wonderful cast that fires on all cylinders. Sheen and Wahlberg are so good at these kinds of supporting roles it’s easy to take them for granted, though anyone would be hard-pressed to outshine Nicholson in a role like this one. Gliding his way through the film, Nicholson is gifted enough to play cruel without going over the top. Damon and DiCaprio are outstanding as well, and their few moments together onscreen are genuinely compelling. Damon’s character has a harder edge than his Infernal Affairs counterpart, a welcome and believable change from screenwriter William Monahan, who tightens up several relationships from the original film while still remaining faithful to much of the source material.

Infernal Affairs was a smart thriller that subverted expectations and used its brain as much as its muscle, but Scorsese’s remake is the ultimate Americanization of the original, in the best and truest sense. Scorsese imbues The Departed with a sense of place and history that the original only hinted at, and he turns the film from a tense drama into a sprawling epic about living in the ruins of the American dream. It’s no accident that Sullivan’s code when he calls Frank is to refer to the mobster as “Dad,” just as Costigan is intentionally orphaned: The two men are more alike than either would care to admit. Scorsese’s film trades in the original’s idealism for a darker view of self-preservation and the inescapability of American vengeance. Frank states in his opening monologue that he wants to affect his environment, and not vice versa, but for Scorsese, environment has always trumped personality. From the Scripture-quoting Charlie Cappa through the willfully ignorant Henry Hill, Scorsese’s men have never been able to break the chains of the neighborhood. Costigan may have a badge, but he can’t outrun the mean streets that made him.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Employee of the Month | Grudge 2, The



Comments

I saw the Departed. But I disagree with you on it being better than Infernal Affairs. I still think Infernal Affairs was much better.

Posted by: vik at October 6, 2006 8:55 PM

I'm happy. I wanted this to be good so bad. Think I'm going to see it tomorrow.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at October 6, 2006 9:09 PM

I just loved it, even though in really violent moments I was covering my eyes because I couldn't bear to watch. I thought it was an incredibly tight thriller, and everyone was just amazing. DiCaprio, who was momentarily sidetracked by teen idol status, has found his acting legs again and looks less boyish. I was so taken with Sheen and Wahlberg as well, with their nice cop/foul mouth cop routine. A really great movie with a lot of compelling and shocking moments. I never saw Internal Affairs, so I experienced this one fresh.

Posted by: Laura at October 6, 2006 11:06 PM

I was definitely satisfied with this American retelling, as opposed an American remake with Caucasian faces.

Although I do think it falls inferior with the characterization of Matt Damons part. In the original the cop was portrayed much more sympathetically. Especially towards the latter half where his actions are caused by a desire for redemption as opposed to Matt Damons desire to not get caught.

Posted by: Stephen at October 6, 2006 11:18 PM

Edge of my seat the whole time. When I left the theater I didn't even realize three hours had expired.

Posted by: Joel at October 7, 2006 12:46 AM

This is simply one of the very best things i've seen in a while. not since history of violence have i walked out of theater thinking to myself that i need to call everyone i know and tell them to head straight to the theater. i've seen both versions and this version is by far the superior. the dialogue alone is worth it, but since you put the camerawork and soundtrack on top of that, the film is just that much better. masterpiece. best since Casino by far.

Posted by: mccrank at October 7, 2006 2:08 AM

Thank God. I wanted this to be good soooo badly. I have to say, I used to hate Dicaprio with a passion -- mainly for Titanic-- but he is slowly but surely earning my respect and trust with the way he is molding his career and his disinclination to play up to his pretty boy face. He is evolving into quite a versatile and talented actor. And of course Jack Nicholson is a legend. hmm.. very glad the movie gods have smiled this time around.

Posted by: jlee at October 7, 2006 2:25 AM

Thank God. I wanted this to be good soooo badly. I have to say, I used to hate Dicaprio with a passion -- mainly for Titanic-- but he is slowly but surely earning my respect and trust with the way he is molding his career and his disinclination to play up to his pretty boy face. He is evolving into quite a versatile and talented actor. And of course Jack Nicholson is a legend. hmm.. very glad the movie gods have smiled this time around.

Posted by: jlee at October 7, 2006 2:25 AM

Nicholson doesn't "glide" so much as screech. You are mistaken in thinking he was wasn't over the top. If he had been understated he would have been much more menacing. He was the worst part of the film.

Posted by: chubb_girl at October 7, 2006 2:38 AM

Don't believe the hype! Just saw this bloated snoozer: Infernal Affairs should sue Scorsese for turning a tightly constructed great movie into your typical Hollywood 2 hour plus yawn fest. Good grief: Infernal Affairs clocked in at 1:41. The Departed - OVER 2 hours and one guy above said he thought it went 3 Hours!!! Sorry pal - it only felt that way! Terrible mess with Matt Damon reversing all the good will he built up with me for the Bourne films and an absolutely wooden performance by Vera Farmiga. Dicaprio had some good moments but -- not enough of them thanks to a script that seems to be doing a "Groundhog Day" on him: It was like the same "moment" over and over...
Calling this movie "frenetic" is like calling a manatee sneaky fast: Carlson needs to look up the meaning of that word...
Nicholson...? Been there, done that...
This review and the comments above confirm that you all have your lips firmly pressed to Scorsese's ass. Get over it: There are lots of better films out there: The problem as usual is that we don't get a chance to see them because the theater owners and Hollywood will keep shoveling crap like this down your throats because so many of you don't know better. This is why you guys keep getting a steady diet of movies like Employee of the Month...Have a nice day.

Posted by: Wynn at October 7, 2006 9:47 PM

I've been eagerly awaiting this film. I think Goodfellas is one of the best films of all time, and I have been waiting for Scorsese to give me something as good as Goodfellas for some time. I will be sure to pick a date and go see this!!

Posted by: beka at October 7, 2006 10:07 PM

Brilliant. Amazing supporting cast as well.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at October 7, 2006 11:59 PM

Wynn,
When you ended your comment with "...Have a nice day," you convinced me that The Departed is probably worth seeing.

Try not to cut yourself with that edge you're sporting.

Posted by: skelly at October 8, 2006 12:31 AM

Saw this last night - thought it was absolutely dire. Far too long with many scenes that don't go anywhere with a complete lack of tension between Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio.

The characters were the usual gangsters/police etc that you've seen a thousand times before and none of the actors really seemed to put any effort into it perhaps with the exception of Leo Di Caprio.

Its a poor remake and its a poor film in its own right. Don't bother with this and watch the original ( Infernal Affairs ) instead.

Posted by: Alexander Kaye at October 8, 2006 5:15 AM

So far it seems that fanboys of the original didn't really like the film.

Posted by: Chronix at October 8, 2006 9:44 AM

Hey Skelly: Don't tell me how to write and I won't tell you how to eat your extra large tub of popcorn, two boxes of Goobers whilst text-messaging your good buddy Dan Carlson during the movie...Have a beautiful day!
(Just love how many posters here exhale loudly and then exclaim "He liked it! He really liked it! Now it's safe for me to go!" Good grief folks: Independent thought IS everything it's cracked up to be! Try it sometime!)

Posted by: Wynn at October 8, 2006 11:58 AM

Wynn:

I understand and respect your opinion, but the Employee of the Month comparison is more than a little over the top. Hooray for hyperbole.

Posted by: Rob at October 8, 2006 1:53 PM

My husband and I just saw it. We both thought it was brilliant, classic Scorsese. I was sucked in by the environment and the acting, and I agree that DiCaprio has come full circle as a serious actor. Loved it.

Posted by: Kolby at October 8, 2006 3:51 PM

i like the part where nicholson was telling the brucelee guy how business is conducted in america among other scenes

Posted by: mea at October 8, 2006 6:12 PM

Long time lurker here. I just saw it and loved it, and as someone from Boston, I thought it nailed the city perfectly. I also liked that it was close enough to the Whitey Bulger story without BEING the Bulger story. I also liked that everyone's accents were passable. I knew Damon and Wahlberg could do it, but I was concerned about the others. Well, Sheen's and Baldwins weren't great, but the accent is tough to do.

Posted by: Lizzie at October 8, 2006 6:23 PM

Hey Wynn

I'm guessing most people visit this site because they value the reviewers opinions, and use those opinions when deciding whether to see a movie in the theatre or wait for dvd if at all.

My independant thought is that your a knobend.

Posted by: Larry at October 8, 2006 8:57 PM

Wynn,

My independent thought is that you are quite dramatic and that you read way too much into what I wrote. Your comments were pretty good up until the end. You took it too far with the "Have a nice day" thing. It went from okay, to lame with that last sentence. Also, you really need to get over yourself.

That was my honest opinion. I love Infernal Affairs so I am a little hesitant to see this one in the theaters. I'll probably wait for it to come out on video.

Posted by: skelly at October 9, 2006 1:40 AM

Hey Larry and Skelly:
If you two can do no better than to use one of MY lines as a jumping off point to write your drivel than my work here is done. Why don't the both of you rent Christmas with the Kranks, share some Jiffy Pop and a giggle about what cool guys you are. Seeya'!
Oh and Larry: If you're going to call someone a dick head, just come right and do it, pal. No need for the fancy slang...

Posted by: Wynn at October 9, 2006 11:36 AM

Best movie I've seen in a while. There are some absolutely CLASSIC lines, especially from Alec Baldwin who, regardless of how I feel about him personally, is one of the funniest actors out there. Wahlberg's character was waaaaay over the top, but it worked as a caricature (like many of the lesser parts). In fact, as far as I can remember, Martin's previous movies are filled with generic roles that are brought to life by the story and his habit of working with the best actors. DiCaprio and Damon (not a big fan) were excellent with DiCaprio holding his own in face-to-face scenes with Jack.
However, the woman who played the psychiatrist was awful. And Anthony Anderson?! I didn't recognize him without Anna Faris standing next to him.
This isn't Scorsese's best, but Daniel's right: it's a nice return to form.

Posted by: Kballs at October 9, 2006 11:44 AM

Ok, Wynn - you're a dick head. Happy now?

Posted by: Charles at October 9, 2006 1:34 PM

Freakin awesome movie. Never seen Infernal Affairs - might have to after reading everyone's comments how good it is. Yet another of Marty's masterpieces that he will, undoubtedly be passed up yet again, come Oscar time. Maybe Marty should convert to Judaism - he'd have won an academy award by now, that's for sure.

MyDailyZen.com

Posted by: mydailyzen.com at October 9, 2006 1:50 PM

I've seen both the original and the remake. First of all, let me say that all of you culture snobs should see the original, lest you lose all credibility, and I know how on here credibility is like manna from heaven.
Not to be without tact like Wynn here, but the original is much better. The moral ambiguities are grayer, and the characters, particularly the Andy Lau/Matt Damon one are much more complex. Plus, the focus on the soul, spirit, existentialism and the brilliant bookends (set in the training academy they went to) are great touches sadly missing in the remake. The remake was a fun genre movie, the original was brilliant cinema.

Posted by: Andy Law at October 9, 2006 2:01 PM

It's just good to hear that Scorsese is back in fine form (I just can't fucking NOT watch Casino or Goodfellas when they come on cable again and again) and that this American remake of a foreign genre classic (also a movie that I enjoyed a great deal) for once was not butchered.

Posted by: MaiGirl at October 9, 2006 3:27 PM

I've stopped reading after the first paragraph because I don't want spoilers before I go see it, but I want to chime in with my relief as well. I love Scorsese, but a lot of his recent stuff had left me scratching my head. Good to hear that his latest movie is at least back on track enough to fool one reviewer ;-)

Posted by: Eep at October 9, 2006 6:19 PM

Outstanding film on its own merits. The trouble with doing remakes of foreign films is the inevitable comparison. I look forward to seeing Infernal Affairs and forming my opinion on it's own merits. I enjoy Scorcese but like everyone else, he can produce the occasional clunker (Gangs of New York was rubbish).


Wynn's attempt to insult responders by referring to their movie snack of choice is very amusing, I must use it in my business affairs. But Wynn should know that we all read film critics to justify our own opinions, confirm other people's idiocy, or maybe, just maybe, the critic caught something that I might have missed. Like what, if any, was the symbolism behind Costigan using a black Baretta 7mm AND a silver Walther PPK? Hmmm? If you can stand the copious amounts of red Karo syrup splatters, this fim is well worth the price of admission, and Mr. Carlson has done it justice in his review.

Posted by: Capn Gravy at October 9, 2006 9:16 PM

My husband and I had a double date and saw this movie first (thankfully) and then The Illusionist. Sorry, guys, I know that I am a woman, but I really fail to see what was wonderful about The Departed. Yes, the gore bothered me, but in the end it ws just another "shoot-em-up, look at the bad guys, look at the good guys, can you tell 'em apart?" movie like hundreds beforehand. That's what really bothered me. Why are people thinking this is one of the best movies of the year? What was original or fascinating or gripping about it? Nothing. Did it make me feel any differently when I left, like Brokeback Mountain or even The Aviator? No. It just annoyed me. (I was also even more annoyed at the number of young children in the movie audience. I'm not trying to go all "Tipper Gore" but really, what were these parents thinking? Do they not know how to read?)

Luckily, we saw the Illusionist second. Surely not the best movie in the entire world, but one that had a good story, intrigue, romance, and guess what, everyone didn't get their heads blown off. Give me a movie like that any day, please!

Posted by: suzy at October 9, 2006 10:47 PM

I loved the movie, enough said. I was surprised, however, when I looked at my ticket stub and noticed that it was rated "13 and up." Given the amount of violence, I would have expected at least 16 and up. Then again, there was no nudity!

Posted by: millie at October 10, 2006 10:52 AM

Suzy, a 1950s housewife called. You're missing at the weekly bridge game. Say hi to the grandkids for me.

Posted by: Sarcastro at October 10, 2006 10:57 AM

**SPOILERS (MAYBE)**

Did anybody else pick up on the whole impotency thing? I didn't even think it was THAT subtle, but when I mentioned it in the car afterwards I got total silence. But like when psychiatrist lady says something to Sullivan about "It happens to lots of guys", and then he asks about the baby at the funeral? And Sullivan says something to Frank about all the killing and all the women and still no kid, or something... did I make that up?

Posted by: abbey road at October 10, 2006 3:27 PM

I don't think you were the only one, Abbey, my husband picked up on that and brought it up on the way home....

Posted by: kolby at October 11, 2006 3:42 PM

I've never seen Infernal Affairs, but this movie had WAY too much hype. I admit I was completely enthralled at the very beginning, but some parts of the movie were just a little too ridiculous.

Okay, brainiacs... You're a mob-boss. You know someone in your ranks is a rat. You know the newest person in your gang also trained to be a policeman, and also knew that his parents raised him to despise everything you stand for.

So you trust him.

Okay... Riiiight.

And then the end... Well, I don't want to spoil anything, but let's say everyone's brains on the wall isn't exactly a brilliant way to tie up the loose ends of a movie.

Posted by: mangrilla at October 12, 2006 11:55 PM

Saw it, mostly enjoyed it. However, I might have enjoyed it a lot more if it was done with relatively unknown actors. I kept thinking, "That's Nicholson, that's Damon, that DiCaprio, that's Sheen, that's Baldwin, that's Wahlberg." The characters' names? Uh, let me think... Meanwhile, everyone else in the movie were simply their characters, not famous actors pretending to be their characters.

But this is a gripe I have with most movies featuring well known actors. Few can transcend their fame and totally disappear into the character they're playing.

Posted by: Al Christensen at October 13, 2006 9:32 AM

Sarcastro:
Hey, the misogyny party is over there, at the Wicker Man comments, remember?
Suzy has a valid point. What is with these moron parents bringing children to violent movies? And ten to one, these are the same fuckwits who get all offended should their precious child see a stray tit in a film. Dismembered bodies? Hell yeah! All in one piece but UNCLOTHED bodies? Gasp! Their young minds will be forever warped!
I'd love to speak my mind some more, but the tuna casserole is burning and Hubby's on his way home and he likes to be greeted with the paper and a fresh martini!

Posted by: isabelle at October 13, 2006 3:39 PM

But this is a gripe I have with most movies featuring well known actors. Few can transcend their fame and totally disappear into the character they're playing.

I feel ya, Al. However, I'd venture to say Leo is pretty capable of disappearing into his roles. The others? Not so much. One of the things I appreciate about Leo is that he seems discerning of the roles he picks and isn't interested in being in 6 movies a year or living in the spotlight (though I hear he used to have quite the repuation). I gotta give it up to Nicholson - he gets paid a pretty penny to play himself a lot. How long has he been doing that, anyway?

Posted by: Daphne at October 13, 2006 7:55 PM

Great. Fucking. Movie.

Fastest 150 minutes of my life.

Posted by: Erik at October 20, 2006 12:08 AM

I would really love to see this movie on a double bill with "Mystic River." Okay, class - compare and contrast.

Posted by: frabjous at October 20, 2006 10:21 PM

Brilliant. Just brilliant. The performances were all above top-notch and the directing was all I had hoped for. The dialogue I thought was some of the best I'd seen in any move in, well, certainly (and easily) all of 2006, and probably in years.

What happens in the end shocked me to the bone and I was still talking about it days after seeing the movie..

I never saw Internal Affairs but realize that I really should :/

Posted by: ismax at October 23, 2006 3:38 AM

Saw it. Loved it. Wish it had been 20 minutes shorter.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at October 24, 2006 7:12 PM

A waste of talent, all around.

The unnecessary homophobia and unresolved plot chunks (I hesitate to call 20 minute digressions "threads") were pointless, detracted from the 'plot' (I'm comfortable with the scare quotes), and left totally unresolved. Character development, consistency...give us something to hang to here, Marty.

Total disappointment.

Posted by: K at October 26, 2006 2:36 AM

What did Leo give to the psychiatrist towards the end of the movie in the envelope? Was it something to tip off Marky Mark about the mole?

Really enjoyed the movie. I was very impressed with all the actors. However, I thought the other mole reveal was clunky and the extreme ending was over the top. We were laughing in the audience with all the shots.

Posted by: g3 at October 29, 2006 7:57 PM

What a polarizing movie!

Anyway, I like these reviews a lot better when you hate the movie. ZZZZZZzzzzz.

Posted by: surly suzie at October 30, 2006 9:29 AM

Honestly I think Scorsese is loosing his touch. Story issues aside (some irrelevant characters and weak scenes just to show that there was character development) he pulled some really bad cinematography calls. There were some angles and shots he used that I would call "mistakes." Did anyone notice the scene where he uses an iris-in on to Damons character, and then cuts to the same scene? There were some camera pans that Id associate with Charlies Angels, rather than Scorsese. There were tons of inconsistencies, not to mention the choppy soundtrack. I honestly think Scorsese is making fun of his audience, I think hes trying to prove the point that he can pull obvious mistakes but no one will notice based on his name power.

Dissapointment.

Posted by: JT at November 3, 2006 9:22 PM

I disagree with Daniel that Matt's character was better. Andy Lau's character played the more sympathetic character who lays out a guilt trip on himself halfway through the movie. Matt's character was just, well, uh, a baddie and nothing more. BORINGGGGGGG. Some people felt IA was rushed but what about this movie? 4 months? 2 and half hours of pointless violence, swearing, and jibber jabber makes it better? While the Hong Kong one made the criminals and cops play a cool cat and mouse chase on the same intelligent level, the Departed plays out like a dumb and implausible American flick. The Departed lacked an innovative soundtrack as the above poster said. The original's soundtrack gave emotion to the characters and scenes but in the Departed, Zilch. The Movie also lacked the spirituality, flair and charisma the original had. I said this before and I'll say it again, I have yet to see a good remake that is equal or better than the original and the Departed doesn't even come close. It's better than most remakes but nowhere as good as the original. This movie is nothing more than people buying into Scorsese's name.

Posted by: Terry at November 17, 2006 6:06 PM

Happy New Year Sarcastro! I was not alive in the 50's so really don't know what you're talking about. But why don't you tell us why you think it's OK to have 8 year olds at a movie like this, instead of just being offensive? By the way, I still thought this was a boring, horrible movie.

Posted by: Suzy at January 1, 2007 2:06 AM

Watch out spoilers


I liked the movie, even dubbed into German (so I guess i missed some subtleties), but what was the ending about? WHY did Costigan want Sullivan on the roof? Sure he wanted to finally make an arrest, but I don't think you need hindsight to know that's a really bad idea.


And I really didn't understand why the police went to all the effort to plant people undercover in order to bring Frank in, but when one of them just shot him everyone was celebrating! If it is that easy for cops to just shoot the bad guys why didn't they do it years ago! (Or if they knew he was FBI and they were maintaining the status quo then did they really need so many plants on him?)


And yet another nitpick (though overall I liked it really!) is it really true that undercover cops can be lost so easily? Is it really just a matter of deleting one file which has no backup? If you have only two handlers and one is murdered, do you really send the other one on holiday? Seemed a bit plot devicey.


I also found DiCaprio unrecognisable. In a good way. I never thought I'd enjoy, or even watch, a movie he was in (same for Matt Damon to a lesser extent) and I was really impressed.

Posted by: ChrisD at January 31, 2007 6:29 PM

This movie sucked 6 ways to Sunday. Did they even have an editor?

Posted by: seth at February 25, 2007 1:36 PM

This really isn't my kind of movie. I have seen very few MS films. Nevertheless, I have seen so many positive comments about this one that, given the chance to watch it last night, I did.
Sadly, there was a baby asleep in the next room so we had the volume pretty low, and I missed a lot of dialogue.

I'd like to say I agree with ChrisD's observance of what seemed to be plot holes. I can't understand why Costello was an FBI mole at all-- aren't criminals usually only turned into informants so they can inform on a bigger fish? Who was the bigger fish that Costello was informing on? What did the FBI have to gain?

All in all, though I have to say I think this movie was flawed, DiCaprio blew me away. Though I was in the age range and sex to be swooning over him in his poster boy days, I've always found it a bit hard to like him in any of his roles. This one amazed me, and I can't help but feel he just became a favorite of mine. I first saw him in What's Eating Gilbert Grape with my best friend, and I saw The Departed with her last night, so it feels like he came full circle for us.
I think the movie had breathtaking moments but it had too many others that detracted. It's like a muddy rock shot through with veins of gold.

Posted by: Ari at March 3, 2007 4:36 PM

suzy, suzy, suzy. just because we're women doesn't mean we don't like violence.

and jt, who says you have to do everything the 'right way?' how does anything evolve if you don't experiment or shake things up?

i love this movie. i recognize there are holes and that it isn't 'internal affairs.' but that doesn't mean it isn't effing brilliant. my favorite scenes are when costigan and sullivan are together. and mark whalberg is surprisingly amazing. and as for vera....well, she's family, so she was great :)

Posted by: carrie at March 5, 2007 12:21 AM

best picture of the year???? i don't think so! one could tell it was a skillfully and beautifully made film, but overall--not THAT great. for a movie to be truly GREAT, one should leave the film feeling or thinking differently--and this was just another "shoot-em-up" movie, though excellently acted, nothing more.

Posted by: maxpurr9 at March 23, 2007 12:45 PM

Scorcese is just a man who can't say no.

To: bloated background (Oye, them Southies are toof. And didja know criminals tend to grow up in tough neighbourhoods? Didja?)

Bloated motivation (nothing from the background explains the Damon and DiCaprio characters, and why they turned out differently. Right at the end, it is revealed Nicholson and Damon had a twisted father/son relationship. So why did they never act like that in all the rest of the movie?)

Bloated Jack Nicholson.

A rat. I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw it. How lame can Scorcese be? Oh, wait. He says his favourite leading man is DiCaprio, when he has had the privilege of working with Daniel Day-Lewis. So, yeah. Lame.

Infernal Affairs has all that The Departed has, and more, in a more stylish package. Except for Ray Winstone. Damn, that man is good. Typically, Scorcese forgets about him for three quarters of the film.

Posted by: Janis at March 28, 2007 7:35 AM

Goddamn, that was a long 2.5 hours. I kept waiting for it to be over and thought, "Just get on with it already." Glad this was a free rental.

Anyway, I fail to see why Wahlberg got a freaking Oscar nod for his role. For cursing like a sailor? For brawling? Whatever, Hollywood.

You know who totally stole the movie out from under the main actors that was completely unexpected? Alec Fucking Baldwin. I've heard he's a prick in real life, but damn if he doesn't bring it onscreen. Bravo, Alec.

Damon did a better job than I anticipated, and DiCaprio was good as well. Strangely enough, he looked like crap most of the time, yet I thought he was kinda sexy. People, Leo has never been remotely sexy to me, so I don't know where that came from. Anyway, Damon was the more charismatic character, so I should have felt more drawn to him. I wasn't, though.

I agree with others that, despite solid performances, the writing itself left me cold. There was a lack of complexity to the main characters. DiCaprio did a better job of conveying it through his performance, but that's a tribute to Leo's ability, not the screenwriter or Scorsese's directing.

Posted by: Daphne at March 29, 2007 11:55 PM

The Department was the longest, most boring cell phone commercial I have ever seen.

You want to see who the rat was? Check and see who is fucking text messaging whenever a big deal is going down!

Posted by: subspace at April 16, 2007 11:22 PM

I liked the movie except for one major flaw that bugged me the whole movie and that is damon talking to his dad the entire movie, his folks were dead. I think a smart cop would have noticed, so no smart cops in this movie.

Posted by: cedric at July 31, 2007 12:31 AM