And the audience laughed ...

Rating: 4/10 (28 December 2006)

Well, I went to the cinema yesterday evening to give Marin SCORSESEs new so-called "masterpeiece " a viewing and there are indeed a couple of positive things one can say about this movie: 1.) It could have been a really nice little mean & dirty B-movie (the storyline is indeed great and would have made fantastic B-movie material), but it was not to be. 2.) DiCAPRIO does indeed give an outstanding performance, much better than I had expected. 3.) It's a nice time-killer and certainly watchable 4.) There's one really terrific scene very much at the beginning, when DiCAPRIO beats up two molesters in a small deli. This scene has a raw quality and utterly believable eruption of violence, which is unmatched in the later scenes of the movie.
That said, there are unfortunately so many (needless!) implausibilities, logical impossibilities and story-holes, that the movie as a whole is unfortunately a far cry from the "masterpiece" it has been called by some critics. In fact Scorsese seems to be out of sync with his material fro a few years already and has not achieved any major artistic achievement since the days he has made such great movies as RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS and THE AGE OF INNOCENCE. Personally I consider this a pity and can actually not imagine Scorsese has not himself realized the above mentioned and down below discussed shortcoming, which are:
1.) The major implausibility or even logical impossibility is Mark DAMON walking in some high-$$$ fancy apartment - as a young policeman - and either renting or buying this (I think more renting). He simply could not afford this with the average or below-average income he is supposed to have. Looked at critically by the guy, who would rent it to him, he utters some line that somebody would guarantee for his payments, but at that time of the movie, the only rich person he's connected with is the molester played (over.played, unfortunately) by Nicholson. As the story progresses and the police has realized that they have a traitor in their own lines, all people are checked in detail, but obviously nobody takes any notice of the question, how DAMON can afford this style of living (even now equipped with an average-wage-earner girlfriend). Come one, that's not a minor implausibility, given the fact that everybody's lives are checked so much in detail!! And it's completely useless! There's no need for the story to have DAMON live in such an expensive apartment. he could have easily rented a small affordable one and the following story would have developed the same.
2.) Now I am certainly no moralist, when it comes to foul language, but with foul language you have the same problem as with exceeding violence. With more and more of the same, it does not only get redundant, but it also wears thin, get's implausible and even ridiculous. Already at one of the very first scenes with DAMON he calls other footballs players some (here) unprintable words. He does not call them that once, but he calls them that some 4 or 5 times, speaking as fats as a machine-gun and already after that scene you ask yourself, if the guy is really in control of himself (which he'd certainly need to be, with that story to follow). The whole picture goes on like that, every 10th to 15th word is ****(in), ****(in), **** sucker and whatever else. Everybody (!) seems to talk that way, the low mobsters, the high mobsters, the low and the high policeman, only the few women are an exception. Now, is that believable that really EVERYBODY shouts obscene words in every fitting and unfitting scene? I very much doubt this and less would certainly have been more and more impressive. A needless waste of credibility again. (I do have an explanation for that nevertheless: SCORSESE wants to show us - the audience - how similar the good and the bad guys are ... well, an old story and not the right way to tell us that, I'd say).
3.) NICHOLOSON is usually good when playing a mobster. And that's how he starts. He does look sinister, does some SHINING-faces, does a lot of wise-cracking and the movie strolls on. As time progresses, Nicoloson seems to get out of sync with his role. He does some wisecracking, he makes faces, utters lines here, utters lines there and that how it goes on until a real low-point, when NICHOLSON does some wise-cracking and makes the face of a rat. For the first time people laughed in the audience, but it wasn't the laugh of apprehension, it was that of disbelieve and I'd say SCORSESE would not have cherished theses laughs. As the movie progresses NIOCHOLSON becomes more and more unbelievable in his role as a hard-boiled mobster. Wise-cracking once in a while is fine, but also in this case: (much) less would have been more ... In fact as the movie progresses one starts to wonder if the mobster NICHOLSON plays is really intelligent enough to get a top position in organized crime, to become "the king" as he himself seems it and to hold such an organization alive with wise-cracking and his mimic antics. I VERY MUCH doubt it. I also see the difficulty of even a seasoned director like SCORSESE to say a "no" to NICHOLSONs antics in shooting, but that doesn't change the impression of implausibility that rests with the viewer. A middle-"management" guy in organized crime, yeah, but the top leader in Boston ... no!
Since I am only allowed 1000 words, this is continued at the discussion board!