criterionforum.org

Vera's accent was horrible. It's practically non existent in the entire film and then she tries to throw in some boston when she's discussing the dessert with Leo, and it didn't fly at all.

Come on, now we're picking on the actors' inconsistent accents? You guys are looking for reasons to hate this movie. Why not complain about the fact that a real Boston Irish gangster would never have Sprint as their wireless provider? I bet the filmmakers of the original would never have made that mistake.

Well, it was a Boston Creme Pie.

And, BTW, a real Boston Irish gangster would never have Sprint as their wireless provider!

I didn't hate the movie.I liked a lot. But Leo storming out of her office immediately reminded me of Tom Cruise in Top Gun.That was pretty funny.

Matt wrote:Come on, now we're picking on the actors' inconsistent accents? You guys are looking for reasons to hate this movie. Why not complain about the fact that a real Boston Irish gangster would never have Sprint as their wireless provider? I bet the filmmakers of the original would never have made that mistake.

1. Not looking for problems, just mentioning something I noticed. she would have been much better off not trying at all. the rest of the actors sounded fine to me throughout the entire picture.

2. What would a real Irish gangster use as their wireless provider?

Barmy wrote:Audience reaction is relevant when the audience doesn't laugh at any of Jack's lines (which try way to hard to be funny/outrageous), but then laughs at the series of "shock" events at the end of the film.

How is this relevant, unless you're unable to have an opinion of your own? Also, how is your argument not completely invalidated when I say the whole audience was roaring at the stuff coming out of the mouth of Whalberg and Jack at the screening I attended? Furthermore, I should point out that in an undergraduate film class, people were laughing at innapropriate moments during Citizen Kane and, believe it or not, Un Chien Andalou. Are these movies now invalidated for you and the rest of the film-loving world? Are the immature reactions of this undergraduate film class now the barometer of taste?

Frankly this is nothing more than a lame attempt to give your opinions weight without having to spend the time making an actual cogent argument. Glad to see you liked some aspects of the movie, but I don't give a damn if the unknowable shadows in your theater made noise or not.

SncDthMnky wrote:2. What would a real Irish gangster use as their wireless provider?

I think it's obvious that they'd choose Verizon.

Audience reaction isn't relevant to the filmgoing experience? I beg to differ.

I saw it with a New York audience, which presumably is of above-average intelligence. I'm sure some people somewhere laughed at Jack. I liked his perf but it still seemed strained. And I thought it was very telling that my audience laughed at the ending sequences. I'm not sure those were intended to be funny, but who knows?

Barmy wrote:Audience reaction isn't relevant to the filmgoing experience? I beg to differ.

I saw it with a New York audience, which presumably is of above-average intelligence. I'm sure some people somewhere laughed at Jack. I liked his perf but it still seemed strained. And I thought it was very telling that my audience laughed at the ending sequences. I'm not sure those were intended to be funny, but who knows?

Of course you beg to differ, but again you do not offer a single argument except the appalling and unproveable assumption that not just the general populace of New York, but the specific New Yorkers in your particular theater at that particular time, are above the average intelligence (whatever that is) of everyone else, and therefore should determine your film opinions. Why even bother?

I don't know whether you misread me or whether you're setting up some kind of straw man argument, but I never said audience reaction is irrelevant to the experience of watching a film. I said it's irrelevant for judging that film's merits.

I find that audience reaction is totally unreliable when dealing with a packed theater audience. People naturally don't want to seem vulnerable on any front, so they will laugh at what is meant to shock or disturb, IE. the ending of the departed. I would be willing to bet that a large portion of the people who laughed would not, when viewing it with a well known friend or relative, or on their own. The perfect example is the Rape scene in Irreversible (please don't deviate the discussion to Irreversible, I'm just using it to make my point). When I watch it by myself, I find it hard to watch, since no one is going to kick me while i'm down, as it were. If I watch it with anyone though, be it an audience of strangers or even my own brother, I laught at it, in a sort of "what the fuck is this!?" way. The darkness of an auditorium tries its hardest to mask the fact that you are watching the film with a room full of people you dont know, so when watching a film with a stranger next to you, The film can't possibly evoke the experiences it is trying to, cause you are subconsciously aware that you are vulnerable to the person near you. On the flip side, if there is a reasonable distance between you and the nearest stranger, the film can work you over, whether it disgusts you or makes you cry. Walter Murch says that the only way he likes to watch films is on a computer with headphones, so the film can have its way with him. I agree with him completely. Comedy on the other hand, is much better with an audience.

Hopefully that made sense in what I meant by the audience reaction being unreliable.

Barmy wrote:"The Island" was more meaningful, beautiful and fun.

This quote makes everything you have or will write meaningless.

jon wrote:

Barmy wrote:"The Island" was more meaningful, beautiful and fun.

This quote makes everything you have or will write meaningless.

I'm with you on the issue...

Just got back from this. One awesome fuckin' film! Fast and frenzied, with a magnificently assembled soundtrack and his dynamic and characteristically unflinching violence. I was never confused, I loved the characters, and every turn caught me by surprise. I was completely inside it the moment it started. Scorsese's direction of such a complicated, fast-paced narrative was overwhelming in orchestration...I look forward to watching the DVD extras to see how he handled some of this.

I also really appreciated all of the more human elements (to just name one of them at the moment...I'm I the only one who loved the elevator and date scene with Matt and Vera? I was so into their characters at that point...their chemistry was right on..."If that thing moves I'm shooting it!").

Leo is excellent, gives my favorite performance in the movie...pretty much from the first moment I saw him here, 'safety' and 'fear' were omnipresent feelings for me. I felt very safe and assured with his presence, but I never once got over fearing how constantly his ass was on the line, particularly toward the end. It may seem obvious or whatever, but probably because I was so with his character throughout, I loved what Vera does with him, because I kind of wanted that for him by that point (of course, what Damon ends up being helped me feel this way, too).

But everybody's wonderful, and the dialogue really struck me as perfect. Just a powerful, uncompromising, edgy, funny, energetic, enormously satisfying film.

I was expecting something more along the lines of the score he did for Copland which I remember being very brass-heavy, and this one has no brass at all I think.

During the scene where DiCaprio finds the "Citizens" envelope, I remember some effective low brass. It was a cool score, but very brief...I'm assuming most of it was edited out of the film and will appear on the score album (ala his "Aviator" score).

Barmy wrote:Audience reaction isn't relevant to the filmgoing experience? I beg to differ.

I saw it with a New York audience, which presumably is of above-average intelligence. I'm sure some people somewhere laughed at Jack. I liked his perf but it still seemed strained. And I thought it was very telling that my audience laughed at the ending sequences. I'm not sure those were intended to be funny, but who knows?

I also saw it with a New York audience (at the packed Lincoln Square on 68th Street) and they loved it.....laughed in all the right places, etc. And I know they were into the film because there was no annoying talking or cell-phone calls during the flick (which is a regular occurrence in any Manhattan theater nowadays).

So I guess we should start a new thread: whose New York audience was smarter, Barmy's or mine?

I'm not too sure how I feel about this one. The last Scorsese I saw was Casino-- yes, I know, that was 10 years ago. This doesn't seem to stack up to that. But I'll say one thing. This is the first time Leonardo DiCrapio impressed me as an actor. He was really great.

Dylan wrote:I look forward to watching the DVD extras to see how he handled some of this.

This was my thought as soon as the credits rolled. I can't wait for it. I hope Scorsese does a commentary solo, and then with whomever he wants. I also hope there are seperate portions involving Nicholson, DiCaprio, Damon, Sheen, Baldwin, and Wahlberg. I would also like to see a long ass feature on Thelma Schoonmaker at work on the Lightworks system... Anyway, I digress...

I didn't have the problems other shave had when I saw The Departed. I had a rollicking good time and its the first time in ages in a cinema where I felt I was getting my money worth and watching a movie as opposed to an insipid telemovie.

The constant criticism here has been that it was so obvious that Leo was the mole as he was the newest member and was the most suspicious. That's fine but how do we know that Jack Nicholson and his mob already knew that anyway and were going to pop him any minute. It just added to the tension not knowing.

marty wrote:I didn't have the problems other shave had when I saw The Departed. I had a rollicking good time and its the first time in ages in a cinema where I felt I was getting my money worth and watching a movie as opposed to an insipid telemovie.

I just have to agree. I know I keep responding in this thread, but I just have to agree. This was the best $9.50 I've spent since maybe Eternal Sunshine or Return of the King...

Mr_sausage wrote:

Barmy wrote:Audience reaction isn't relevant to the filmgoing experience? I beg to differ.

I saw it with a New York audience, which presumably is of above-average intelligence. I'm sure some people somewhere laughed at Jack. I liked his perf but it still seemed strained. And I thought it was very telling that my audience laughed at the ending sequences. I'm not sure those were intended to be funny, but who knows?

Of course you beg to differ, but again you do not offer a single argument except the appalling and unproveable assumption that not just the general populace of New York, but the specific New Yorkers in your particular theater at that particular time, are above the average intelligence (whatever that is) of everyone else, and therefore should determine your film opinions. Why even bother?

I don't know whether you misread me or whether you're setting up some kind of straw man argument, but I never said audience reaction is irrelevant to the experience of watching a film. I said it's irrelevant for judging that film's merits.

At least one of them wasn't.

exte wrote:I just have to agree. I know I keep responding in this thread, but I just have to agree. This was the best $9.50 I've spent since maybe Eternal Sunshine or Return of the King...

exte, I wonder if these same people who are bagging The Departed for implausability and believability also had similar misgivings about the implausability of Lord of the Rings, The Island or Armageddon.

Its the movies, people. Relax and enjoy!

I enjoyed this movie, but I did have a few problems with it. I may have had a sort of 'is it just me?' moment during the ridiculous ending when all the remaining characters killed each other off, but that was one of the few moments when there was collective laughter in the theatre when I saw the movie. Were these people laughing at the ridiculous implausibility, at the narrative extravagence, at the extreme violence (bodies ankle-deep on the floor), or because it was a good comic moment? Was it meant to be, like, elegant, the way they all killed each other? I think better artistic and creative decisions could have been made and the ending would have been better. Ending on such a laugh was not a good way for the movie to end.

Then there is Jack. I think he is usually best playing himself (Cuckoo, The Last Detail). He acted well in Marvin Gardens; and About Schmidt and The Pledge were good; but so often I think I watch his mannerisms as I watch him 'act'. He is even a weakness in Chinatown, doing his 'schtick', his little facial mannerisms. In The Departed he came on and did a 'Jack Turn', standing out like a sore thumb, while the others got on with acting and fitting seamlessly into the narrative.

I also thought the music attracted attention to itself in ways that it shouldn't, being neither bland nor affirmative enough, leaving me distracted by recognizing it, without it being 'there' enough to enjoy it. I look forward to seeing the movie again, and getting the DVD, because it is an enjoyable and generally well-crafted movie, and Leo and Matt were great.

Le Feu Follet wrote: Was it meant to be, like, elegant, the way they all killed each other?

I highly doubt that was Scorsese's intension, considering they are each shot in such a matter-of-fact manner. If anything the deaths are blunt and unemotional, as if the body count just inevitably has to pile up for these people to resolve their conflict. If we compare the mounting deaths in The Departed to those in Goodfellas, the murders in The Departed are more akin to the murder of Stacks Edwards than they are to the steady, almost symphonic, reveal of the bodies while Layla plays. I think the key is not to expect an abundance of visual poetry in The Departed, where everything is solemn. The Departed might be vibrant, but it's also strident, boorish, and crude.

I also saw it with a New York audience (at the packed Lincoln Square on 68th Street) and they loved it.....laughed in all the right places, etc. And I know they were into the film because there was no annoying talking or cell-phone calls during the flick (which is a regular occurrence in any Manhattan theater nowadays).

So I guess we should start a new thread: whose New York audience was smarter, Barmy's or mine?

Ahhh, but I saw it with a downtown audience...

Napoleon wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:

Barmy wrote:Audience reaction isn't relevant to the filmgoing experience? I beg to differ.

I saw it with a New York audience, which presumably is of above-average intelligence. I'm sure some people somewhere laughed at Jack. I liked his perf but it still seemed strained. And I thought it was very telling that my audience laughed at the ending sequences. I'm not sure those were intended to be funny, but who knows?

Of course you beg to differ, but again you do not offer a single argument except the appalling and unproveable assumption that not just the general populace of New York, but the specific New Yorkers in your particular theater at that particular time, are above the average intelligence (whatever that is) of everyone else, and therefore should determine your film opinions. Why even bother?

I don't know whether you misread me or whether you're setting up some kind of straw man argument, but I never said audience reaction is irrelevant to the experience of watching a film. I said it's irrelevant for judging that film's merits.

At least one of them wasn't.

This, sir, made my day.

marty wrote:

exte wrote:

marty wrote:I didn't have the problems other shave had when I saw The Departed. I had a rollicking good time and its the first time in ages in a cinema where I felt I was getting my money worth and watching a movie as opposed to an insipid telemovie.

I just have to agree. I know I keep responding in this thread, but I just have to agree. This was the best $9.50 I've spent since maybe Eternal Sunshine or Return of the King...

exte, I wonder if these same people who are bagging The Departed for implausability and believability also had similar misgivings about the implausability of Lord of the Rings, The Island or Armageddon.

Its the movies, people. Relax and enjoy!

I think that's a really misguided comment. While I'm not surprised that someone with the username "Marty" who also has an avatar of Scorsese, is defending "The Departed" while brushing off other people's opinions, I am a little surprised that you can't see the difference between a film like "The Departed" and "Lord of the Rings." I'm not a fan of any of the 3 films you mentioned, but nevertheless, a film has to conform only to its own logic. The fact that there's a talking tree in Lord of the Rings is, I guess, logical within the framework of the story, but if, say, Frodo or whatever the hell his name is died a gruesome death in one scene and then 2 scenes later is walking around with the rest of the characters as if nothing had happened, and this was never explained, would you say "it doesn't have to make sense because it's a fantasy, and just a movie." "The Departed," which is admittedly over-the-top, nevertheless attempts to conform to a certain amount of verisimilutude. We are meant to accept that these characters are living in our world (specifically Boston), that they could exist alongside us. If a talking tree walked in the bedroom when Leo and the shrink are fucking each other, it would strike anyone as, at best, out-of-place and ridiculous. The film tries to maintain a certain logic not only by letting us believe that the characters would do what anyone in the real world would do, but also by showing us the inner workings of the police, the mafia, whoever. Therefore, when neither Nicholson, anyone in his gang or Matt Damon thinks to suspect DiCaprio, it breaks the illusion of reality. If they do suspect him, why do they never once follow him? The problem is that Nicholson's character, in general, seems to have no compunction about killing anyone, and also will go to great lengths in order to take care of business. So, when he has a, what, 4, 5 person gang whom he's had for years, and suddenly he adds a new member and finds that every new deal he's making is apparently being watched by the police, and has to rely on Damon to call off or mislead the cops so that he can still maintain his crime organization, it seems rather implausible that Costello does little-to-nothing to deal with this situation. This is a complaint that many people here have had, that many people leaving the theatre had (from what I heard walking out), and that many professional critics have. Are we all just cynical assholes who take films too literally or seriously? Is it possible that we have a legitimate quibble with the film? Is it possible that Scorsese could have tightened this part of the story up so that it would have been more believable and ultimately satisfying?