some good performances, but full of problems

Rating: 2/10 (26 January 2007)

I know no one is going to read this, but this move irritated me so much that I have to blow off steam.
I was looking forward to seeing this movie, but I was completely disappointed by the inadequate screenplay, the distracting casting, and Scorsese's weak choices. The story is full of holes. A very few examples: a big deal is made about a letter which is then forgotten, and characters do things that don't make sense (would you warn a known murderer that you're on to him, and then agree to meet him in a deserted warehouse? Why not just go to his superior with all your evidence?).
The character of Madolyn (why the bizarre spelling?) was completely frustrating. As usual for a big American film, there are dozens of featured male characters and only one woman (other than a few minor roles), so she has to serve as the love interest for both of the main actors. Yet nothing comes of this "love triangle", so why include it? Supposedly Madolyn was really happy with Colin, yet she has sex with Billy who, inexplicably, seems to know no other women. Rather than deepening my feelings about the characters, this situation just puzzled me, and made me think that Madolyn was a pretty bad psychologist. Actually, I got the impression Scorsese was hedging his bets with the Madolyn character--she adds so little to the plot that she could easily have been cut.
There are some good performances in the movie, particularly Jack Nicholson's and Martin Sheen's, but I felt that Scorsese cast people he likes and not necessarily actors who were right for the roles. Obviously, Mark Wahlberg's performance has its fans, but he didn't convince me at all as a foul-mouthed tough guy, with his baby-face and floppy hair. Leonardo DiCaprio did a good acting job, but he's too physically slight to be really believable as a gang strongarm. Martin Sheen was the only one who managed to disappear into his part. (Though I didn't believe for a second that a no-nonsense guy like Queenan, as Sheen played him, would have stood for all that lip from Dignam.)
There are some bits that really made me wonder about Scorsese's own beliefs. Both the gang characters and the police make sexist remarks, which they probably would in real life, but the women around them don't get any lines to respond, so the comments are left to stand. Scorsese seems to be on the side of Billy when he beats a guy senseless for saying that his drink is girly, as if that were the only appropriate response to such an insult. Possibly that's not what Scorsese meant at all--he may have just been trying to show how far Billy would go to play his assigned role--but what are we to make of the fact that an Asian man is accidentally killed in the course of the story, and then never mentioned again, as if the murder doesn't "count"? Racism? Or did Scorsese forget about that, the way he forgot about the letter?
I've read a lot on IMDb about how much of the movie was lifted from "Infernal Affairs". I haven't seen that film, but I was appalled to see how Scorsese ripped off a famous scene in "The Third Man". (At the funeral.) He also apparently paid "homage" to Howard Hawks by stealing his use of "X's" from "Scarface". (I didn't notice that myself, but several people on IMDb have mentioned it.) I think someone needs to teach Scorsese the difference between affectionately referencing someone else's work, and just taking from it because you haven't thought of anything as good yourself. I'm really angry at him for making sure that now, whenever I see that powerful scene in "The Third Man", I'm going to think of a movie that I mainly disliked. And what was the deal with that ridiculous last shot of the rat? How could a supposedly great filmmaker give in to such an obvious, heavyhanded choice?
I think Scorsese has it in him to make a better film.