The Departed

Some of you here have mentioned that the film had a few overused cliches. I was wondering if ya'll could name a few here. Are ya'll talking literal, verbal cliches, or are you talking about cinematic cliches?
 
I saw the film for the second time yesterday. The biggest thing that hit me was the jokes. The first time I laughed a lot and it wasn't a problem. Yesterday I caught on to a few jokes I missed, but as for the whole movie, I think there were far too many silly jokes used. Maybe thats how they act in Boston :huh:, but I doubt it.

Another thing I didn't like was the rat that was on the window during the final shot, that was a bit much for me and I doubt Wahlberg's character put it out there, as a friend of mine thought.


While it wasn't as good as his earlier work, Scrosese delivered a great movie. I enjoyed the ending and had no problem with the quick kills. There is no honor when it comes to rats.
 
This film does not deserve all the praise it is getting. Seriously, pretty much all of Scorsese's work has far surpassed this drawn out, over glossy p.o.s, such as Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, After Hours, Mean Streets, Casino, King of Comedy, Kundun, I'd even watch The Big Shave over this.

Where has Scorsese's originality gone with this film, first of all a recycled script from a successful foreign film. I guess it would be too much effort to write something new, so lets just go with more remakes. Scorsese hasnt made anything worth while since Casino, his efforts with Gangs of New York and Aviator were very lackluster.

This film was way two long, I was dissapointed by Thelma Schoonmaker's editing work, the film could have been tightened up and been alot more effective if about 25 minutes of pointless dialog had been excized. What happened to Scorsese's amazing fluid camera movements? this film cuts so fast from closeup to closup, the entire style and beauty of the long take is destroyed.

This is a good example of hollywood shoving a bunch of expensive actors in front of our face, forgetting about the craft of cinema , using a recycled script, cheap sets...back ally's and stereotypical bar and police station of pretty much all 'gangster' films. They must have blew most of the budget on the actors, because they could hardly afford to shoot many establishing master shots, because if they were to pan a little bit to the right you would be able to tell that it wasnt really a real location, but a cheaply constructed set.

I mean come-on the chinese original has more innovative cinematography with a miniscule budget compared. Nicholson tried but is left with a stale script with nothing really meaningful to say. Leo is still way two young to even be considered a hardcore gangster, and Damon was trying so hard to be serious, that I didn't even take him seriously, but rather saw him as an actor not a character.

I mean sure it is the best thing to come out in awhile in the America Cinema's but it is in no part up to par with the history of Scorsese's work. Face it he is past his prime, and hollywood has run dry of creativity and originality, it has become a cashflow business, as far as the producers in hollywood are concerned, the true art form of cinema is dead. This ends with extreme violence where all the character we have just watched for 2hrs and 40 minutes are killed, so after all did we learn or grow in anyway from this glossy overrated excuse for a film. The answer is no.

There are thousands of far better films, do some research and check your shelves at your local video store, dont waste $9.00 on this. :dankk2:
 
while i agree its not nearly as good as Scorsese's masterpieces, i'm not sure i agree with anything else you said. Oh well, to each there own.
 
I will have to agree with the editing comment. There were so many continuity errors that I began to wonder if they were done on purpose.

When Billy is at his mother's funeral and the camera pulls in close to the prayer card signed by F. Costello, there is a cutaway for a second before it goes back to the card. When it does, its a different card. The typeset is way different from the first shot.

When Billy is having his 'valium argument" with the doc and she runs out of her office, she is only wearing her dresshirt and vest, but when seh rounds the corner just steps behind him, she has her suit jacket on. I suppose she could have grabbed it on her way out, but it seems unlikely for someone so flustered and in a hurry.

The cafe/diner scene between Billy and Frank (where the nun and priests are present) are full of chopped continuity.

When Billy is waiting outside the doc's office bldg that night, he stubs out his cigarette as she approaches him. Its a very short scene. When she tells him she cant be a friend to him and walks away, he has a cigarette again that is half smoked down.

They are small things, but things that should not have made it to the final cut in such a movie. And I love the movie despite them all.

I've seen the movie, we'll say more than twice, and its encouraging that no matter if its a weekend night or a Wed early evening...the theater has been packed everytime I've gone. And people are sooo affected by the the story and how it plays out. I am amazed to hear people actually scream. :) Its a good movie that people will remember.

But someone needs to have Mr. French pay Thelma Schoonmaker a little visit. :-BlackEye(DBG
 
still trying to figure out which one i like best. i think the original had cooler locations and better character development. this one was just slw and you got in the head. I love the movie but compare to the other i dunno. still a great film.
 
bosindy said:
I am a Scorsese fan and came into to the film with high hopes. I would give the film a solid B because it was really entertaining. I thought the acting was well done. I take a point off for Sheen's Jack Kennedy imitation. My only problem with the film was the screenplay, I thought the plot development was lazy. There were too many plot devices that seemed forced or irrational to me to move the story and to conceal the identity of the two leads.

SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

The idea that Damon would be able to pull off the final scene between him and Nicholson barely passes the laugh test. Dicaprio is in the warehouse using his cell and they couldn't figure out who it is among the six people there? Damon is from southie, he goes completely unchecked and promoted? Wahlbergs character disappears until the end? (he cared way too much for that as we can tell by his last actions.) The two fall for the same therapist and she goes for coffee after that therapy session? Dicaprio is able to get into the theatre and sit 6 rows behind Damon and nichalson? There are two other undercovers, 1 on each side, that have no affect on the story until the end. Nicholson being a rat himself who was going to give up the two cops he put in place????? I can handle a couple of these, but there is only so much suspension of disbelief.

If you contrast this film with Goodfellas and the story/character development, none of the actions of the characters felt contrived, here IMHO they did including the final executions in an attempt to create twists.

Having said all of that, I enjoyed the ride on the spectacle level. Just one man's opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. And to pile on, a 70 year old mobster who isn't in prison does not use a poo pooing cell phone EVER. The movie was entertaining (I never looked at my watch), but the story was nonsense. I liked the actress in the flick, but you could eliminate her character, have Dignum fill in, and shave 20 minutes.

Among the genre of undercover flicks, I think Donnie Brasco is a more complete flick; among the genre of gangster flicks, this doesn't touch Goodfellas; and Among the genre of dirty cop flicks, I would give the edge to Training Day.

As far as this being a "rip-off," even Shakespeare used source material. What's the difference between adapting a film from a book or a comic or a TV show or a previous film?
 
this was a cool movie. When i compare it to other scorsese movies it is very close to the bottom. Didn't like all the cheezy punchlines. Didn't really seem like a scorsese movie. But some peoples worst is better then some peoples best. I did enjoy it and dont feel i wasted my money.

the first 20 minutes of "Gangs of New York" is better than this entire movie. definitely not one of scorsese best.
 
D_and_G said:
For example, mobsters do use cell phones, and so do terrorists. The thing is, they use 'buy and toss' phones, using them only once ,hence, completely untraceable.
Click to expand...

I watch the Wire, bro. I'm hip.

I still think the script is busy and the characters underdeveloped.

PS - Southies would kick your ass for calling their home a "milieu." :beer:
 
D_and_G said:
I could explain every single plot point, but I'd be here all day :) It was pretty realistic portrayal, IMHO. For example, mobsters do use cell phones, and so do terrorists. The thing is, they use 'buy and toss' phones, using them only once ,hence, completely untraceable.
:beer: :beer: :beer:
Click to expand...

Actually Baldwin name checked the patriot act in the film and a warrant would reside with the individual, not the specific phone, so the 'buy and toss' thing doesn't work.
 
i think the Hong Kong version used the cell phones and story play very sharp and quick and powerful this one had the elements but something just felt different. I dunno.
 
You know, maybe I am slow, but does anyone else think that maybe Sullivan is impotent, or has a problem with that? I think that is why he was so pissed-off in that "morning after" scene with the good doctor Madelyn. And Sullivan was the one who picked the adult movie theater to meet up with Costello and make the pick-up for the envelope with the numbers in it.

Like I said, I can be slow about some things.

But I at least have to believe that it was Costigan's baby....
 
I just saw The Departed and I have to say that was a waste of my time. Just like "Gangs of New York," the film is bloated, incoherent, and slow. Why is it that every character feels the need to insert the word "fu*k" between every other words, even in the middle of a word? It gets to the point where it stops being effective and just gets annoying. It's not even a character trait because every single character does it. Less is more, I'm surprised the screenwriter haven't learn that already.

Tons of expositions are tossed out in a hurry, so much that I felt sleepy within the first 15 minutes. The three friends I brought with me actually fell asleep. I could just see the editor's desperate attempt to keep the dialogue interesting by intercuting scenes every two seconds. But when stuff starts happening I'm STILL asking myself who just got wacked and by whom. Scenes doesn't end as they stop so that the editor can cut to some other scene that stop to cut to another scene etc.

I have no idea why the critics are hailing The Departed as if it just rejuvenated American cinema. I seriously regreted paying $10 to see this film.
 
Bill Monahan and Scorsese didnt set out to make an art house film or a hip hop video. Less would have just been less in the case of the characters' believability in this one. It would have been false dialogue and gelatinous characters. I not only liked the dialogue, I loved it and it solidified aspects of the movie for me as being real.

The exposition didnt bother me at all....not only did I get the background I needed, but I found out who and what Costello was, and his potential for evil and manipulation were set for me at the get-go.

It wouldnt have been the same movie without the intercutting of scenes. It helped to show the spiraling effects of the double lives being lead by these guys.

jade8472 said:
I have no idea why the critics are hailing The Departed as if it just rejuvenated American cinema.
Click to expand...
----because sometimes, critics get it right. :beer:
 
I just saw this yesterday, finally.

Loved it and thought it was one of the better theatre experiences I have had in a while. Very enjoyable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top