A solid cat-and-mouse thriller but a disappointing Scorsese's film ...

Rating: 6/10 (2 March 2011)

Now, this is a film I wanted to love. I have a profound admiration for Scorsese which I consider among the best, and probably the most consistent directors, the one who never failed to surprise me in each of his brilliant movies. But if I liked "The Departed" as a solid cat-and-mouse thriller, I reckon I expected much more from Marty, and the last 10 minutes of the film confirmed my disappointment.

The ending : sure it was one hell of a totally-unexpected climax, sure we already had a first taste of the movie's level of violence, but I had the strange feeling Scorsese let himself go with such 'delightful' visual effects -to create the most gruesome head shots with the most graphic blood splattering- that he forgot the story. It was so repetitive it almost became comical. At one point, I was thinking "Ok, who's next now?" It was just like watching a film set in a big city, and at the end, a big atomic bomb destroys everything and everyone is dead. Okay, I knew, this wasn't the kind of police dramas where the good guys would win  I even knew about the elevator scene, but just because something is unexpected and shocking, doesn't make it acceptable. I felt cheated. What's the point of engaging the viewer if it must end in such an abrupt way. Or is it supposed to show harsh reality, in an almost documentary-like style? Well, I expected more depth from a Scorsese film, maybe more poetry. He's one of the greatest film-makers of all-time, and this film left me cold.

The cast : Jack Nicholson did a good job, but I would have loved to see De Niro playing this part. All through the movie, I couldn't stop thinking, why didn't Marty take Bobby for the part? It would've been perfect. Nicholson was good, but he was Nicholson. DiCaprio did a decent job too, but I guess I'm getting tired of seeing him always playing tough guys and banging sexy girls, and I wasn't that impressed by Matt Damon: he was good, but not 'Scorsese' good. And I didn't really care for the other supporting characters who were just your archetypal "cops and gangsters". The characterization was OK but would you really compare this to "Goodfellas"? Consider the female characters; their presence was a convenient plot device, using their sexy tight skirts as a foil for the whole male dominant cliché. Where are the Boxcar Bertha, Karen Hill, Iris etc.? I even missed the annoying Ginger, that's saying a lot.

The writing : it tries too much, it's too smart, too intricate, too serious, too many characters, too much violence and at the end : no heart, not this emotional extra-push of dutiful sin and tormenting guilt Scorsese used to beautifully depict in his films. This torment I need to find in every Scorsesian character, I found it a bit in Di Caprio, but that made the ending even more depressing because once he died, I didn't care for the rest of the film. This is the kind of originality I hate, just like the Coen brothers thought it would be great to  well, those who've seen "No Country For Old Men" will know. Here, it's like Marty wanted to make the ending impacting in a stylish way, while there was more to do on the emotional level. All style and no substance. And even the style didn't provide this entertaining energy that made his gangster films so dark and flamboyant at the same time. At the end, "The Departed" is just a 'film' with a brilliant premise, and a script so smart every single element is used as a clever plot device: if only 2 persons know about Costigan's mission, wouldn't you guess already that something very bad would happen to them? Anyway ... my criticism wouldn't be so harsh if it hadn't won the Best Picture Oscar.

I hated the ending for the same reasons I love old-school Scorsese who made masterpieces like "Mean Streets" and "Goodfellas", but in "The Departed": the bloodier it got, the cheaper it was. And this film ended like a self-parody, relying on cheap shocking effects instead of real character developments, or maybe it wasn't a character-based film, but just a cat-and-mouse thriller, then again, it didn't deserve all this praise. I was talking of self-parody, because sometimes a great director becomes like a label, you insert his name in any film, and it's supposed to be a masterpiece. I read Ebert's review and of course, he went again about the same "torment/moral/guilt/dilemma" analysis. There I knew he was biased, I know Ebert is Scorsese's number one fan, but sometimes this passion blinds him so much he loses the neutrality I'd expect from a critic. To give you an example, I liked "Casino" a lot, but couldn't help but notice some weaknesses when compared to "Goodfellas", a too similar plot line, too much narration, an annoying repetitive relationship between Ginger and Ace etc. Those points were highlighted by Siskel, but Ebert, as usual, started to analyze the traditional Scorsesian themes, the Catholic influence etc. That's how I started not to be influenced by Ebert's reviews on Scorsese, I don't blame him though for being unbiased, he has a soft spot for Marty, and I understand that. Marty remains one of my favorite directors, but "The Departed" is his weakest film, which won an obvious sympathy Oscar.
So if this film won the Best Picture Award, fine, but then "Donnie Brasco" should have gotten more attention, because not only does the movie deal with (basically) the same subject, but there is a human dimension, a relationship between Lefty and Donnie, that makes it something more than your average gangster film. And this originality, this heart, I didn't find while watching "The Departed".