For The Love of God, please watch 'Infernal Affairs'!!

Rating: 6/10 (9 October 2006)

As an avid fan of what it had based on, Infernal Affairs. I was excited to see how Martin Scorsese would interpreted it. The cast looked promising from the trailers, I thought Scorsese could do no wrong.
Jack Nicolson as Costello, the calculated brutal crime boss with good sense of humour! I was really surprised by his sense of humour, Jack have really made this character his own and I respect that! Leonardo DiCaprio as Costigan,the police's mole. He had played this tortured soul brilliantly. Matt Damon as Sullivan, Costello's mole with a heart of stone.
The Departed had filled in the missing piece of puzzle of IA (violence) but it had compromised with the film's climax to make this Oscar worthy.
The first two thirds of the film was fantastic! It had went further into the characters'past than IA (IA explores the characters in 2nd and 3rd instalment) It had a style that stood on it own. It was very promising, but the ending has undone most of the work @ the beginning. The film tries to branch out into different plots & sub-plots which doesn't materialise- it could've make this film stand out rather just a re-make, as it did with Batman Begins. E.g. the film doesn't explain why would Costello double-crossed the corrupted Chinese government officials by selling fake hi-tech military microchips. Did Costello have another bigger agenda in mind? Why would he keep the real microchips for? (NOTE. the mainland Chinese spoke Cantonese with the worst accent I have ever heard! It was not in Cantonese or Manderin accent &why don't they speak Manderin - their official language?! Even the extras spoke in perfect Cantonese during the scene where Sullivan kills an innocent Chinese!) Scorsese followed the same plot path as IA, but minus the moral dilemma both Sullivan & Costigan face, and this does not justify the actions which both characters carried out at the end of the film. For Sullivan - he had no reason to kill Costello or his new found 'co-mole'. The 'Sullivan' character in IA did this because despite that he work for the bad guys, he really enjoys his respectable visage (perfect home, life, girlfriend)&felt wrong for the choices he made &wishes for another chance to make it right, therefore he trapped 'Costello', killed him & (later) new found co-mole, so 'Sullivan' could break free of his cycle of crime. But Sullivan does not express any signs of moral, simply a psychopath. I could no feel sorry for him &I felt Sullivan's action is unnecessary. He killed Costello only by chance! Scorsese develop Sullivan's character's unfortunate childhood &his Catholic faith is that strong, Sullivan would have an apartment with a view of a Catholic Church - what is the point having all this to support his character?! Why would Sullivan recommended Costigan for Honor at the end of the film when he didn't admire Costigan's courage as IA have explore? I don't understand Costigan's desperation - nothing to live for, he didn't sacrifice very much. Costigan would achieve his present existence if he had not joined the police (as most of his family has done). Sure he want his identity back but why would Costigan enlisted Brown's help (aka dim-sum of Romeo Must Die)over Dignam, who is still alive?? He could've send evidence to Dignam to arrest Sullivan, as Costigan claimed that he doesn't want to be a cop anymore but still confront Sullivan alone? The Departed's climax scene was lack of class. The characters become two dimension &all they could do is to scream at each other with swear words &shoot each other and Scorsese had stripped off all suspension (the most powerful scene of IA - it still haunts me to this day). IA created a high-tension with suspension in the climax scene without violence or raise their voices.
I am surprise by the final official ending of The Departed is almost parallel to the Mainland Chinese edition of IA. I thought Scorsese would be more brave to use the original 'unconventional' ending.
Scorsese did really well on retelling the story in his unique style, changed the dialogue in his own way. But towards the end of the film, you could see the dialogues are practically carbon copy from IA. Did he just gave up? The film started of serious then it fell apart as if it is a parody of the original!
I thought all the actors did really well especially Jack, Leo, Ray (Mr. French) and Matt. Some people though Matt's act was bit wooden, but it is not his fault - the script did not develop further into his character - bias more to Leo's character.
Madolyn - she seems to fall head over heels to cheeky bad boys. She is just attention seeking. I can't believe she's a shrink!
Mr. French's character is what should most of the actors should work towards - subtle but effective. He have created a dark aura & fear in a handful on screen time. He is more fearful than Costello!
I don't understand why many people think this film is Oscar worthy? The story is directly from IA. Why should Scorsese take credit for it? The ending of the film just make all the characters to appear shallow!! Some say that it is based on true event - well this basically based on any city in the world with organised criminal gangs - which make this story believable! Scorsese - why leave your work half done?? Did you run out of time? Did you run out of budget? Or did you simply Lost in Translation? You had all the right ingredients to make this film a masterpiece. Yet, you have left me to go home and watch the superb work of the original Infernal Affairs.
This is a perfect example that money can't buy you style.