Scorsese fell short.

Rating: 6/10 (8 February 2003)

While the movie itself was historically amazing and the set incomprehensible, Scorsese took some serious shortcuts on this film. I was impressed with the acting performances (especially that of Diaz, who I thought might flop). However, there were several screen shots of extremely poor quality. It was like they inserted unenhanced shots within the other well-done and improved shots for some unknown reason. Every time they did this the lighting of the same shot was too light and the picture incredibly grainy. At other moments in the film, the voice-overs were so poorly inserted over the film that you could hear the actors speaking when their lips weren't even moving.
While I agree that this film was good, it could have been so much better. I felt as if Scorsese might have taken shortcuts and produced a blockbuster, candy and popcorn film instead of a masterful and monumental film. He compromised his professional integrity.