Violent, pointless junk. Sorry, Marty!

Rating: 2/10 (5 December 2006)

Dear Marty:
Well, you really blew it this time! Who the hell were you trying to please -- the teenagers who loved "Reservoir Dogs?" The infantile sadists who consider "Pulp Fiction" a masterpiece? What's the point in rehashing "Donnie Brasco" or "Prince of the City" and simply adding more violence? In fact, what's the point of the whole movie? That sooner or later we're all going to die, some of us by handguns? No kidding!
"The Departed" is not only one of the most dreary, pointless, and ridiculously violent films ever to shame the silver screen, it represents a new low for one of America's greatest filmmakers -- you, remember?!
What were you thinking? That you needed the paycheck? That you wanted to work with some great actors and your fave of the moment, Leo "he's no Howard Hughes" DiCaprio? Face it, Marty -- whatever you were thinking -- you should have thought harder! This is a cold, calculated, implausible film riddled with plot holes and worse, it has no heart. And what do we gain from it? Is there anyone out there who feels they've somehow benefited from it? If so, I'd like to meet them -- then recommend a good child therapist!
Rather than a fascinating exploration of semi-psychotic behavior -- you know, the great films you used to make -- "The Departed" has nothing remotely interesting to say. It belongs in the cinema of juvenile nihilism carved out by an ex-video store clerk back in the last century (which I thought -- at least HOPED -- audiences had outgrown by now).
Marty, remember when Cassavettes saw "Boxcar Bertha" and told you you'd spent a year of your life on a piece of s**t? Well, if he were alive today and saw "The Departed" he'd tell you the same thing -- and with good reason! "The Departed" isn't a Scorsese picture any more than "Boxcar Bertha" was. It's a sensationalist Tarantino knockoff with echos of "Goodfellas" and more than one Lumet film -- but with none of the humor, intelligence or compassion of any of those pictures.
As far as the high-profile cast goes, Nicholson is no match for Pesci in the psychopathic sadist department, and Damon and DiCaprio, in all their one-note, tough guy splendor, are no match for Liotta or Depp. Sure, they're believable, but they're also deadly dull. Same with Baldwin, Sheen and Wahlberg, whose absurd character seems torn from a comic book. Vera Farmiga as the beautiful girl psychiatrist is sexy enough, but seems to be in a different movie -- one that actually has a connection to reality. The audience wants to connect with her, but since no one cares about any of the other characters (and unlike "Goodfellas," we're never quite sure WHO the main character is) we become as desensitized toward her as everyone else. Did anyone really care when Leo or Matt were killed? Did anyone shed as much as a tear?
We CARED about Henry Hill, we CARED about Travis Bickle. You made us care, Marty -- With your genius, you made us love them! No one gives a rat's ass about Damon and DiCaprio. In fact I'd be willing to bet no one even knew Damon's character's name (Billy, was it?) until the end credits.
Can you imagine, Marty, anyone watching one of your films in the 70s or 80s and not knowing Travis Bickle's name? Rupert Pupkin's? Jake LaMotta's? "The Departed" (and I'm only giving it a rating of 2 because I love you, man -- plus Ballhaus's cinematography was great) shouldn't be grouped with the rest of your films any more than "Bertha," it shouldn't be allowed to tarnish the real Scorsese pictures like "Taxi Driver" or "Mean Streets." To paraphrase one of your earliest efforts: it's just not you, Marty! More like the work of a cold-blooded punk who grew up on exploitation films and comic books (you sure Tarantino didn't ghost direct while you took a vacation?)
Ultimately, it comes down to the script, and William Monahan (whoever he is) is no Paul Schrader, just as last time out, Josh Logan was no Mardik Martin. In order to be at your best, you've got to WORK with the best , right? So what's with all the 30 year-olds who haven't got a clue as to story structure,character development... who haven't a got a clue, PERIOD?!?
All right -- relax and simmer down. It's not all bad news, I promise. And now that you've spent the last year of your life on a piece of s**t, it's time to get back on track, back to the stuff that matters -- like stories and characters people will actually care about (and I don't mean "The Aviator"!)
As Harry Cohn, Jack Warner or any great studio chief might have said back before accountants started greenlighting films: give us characters
we can love, stories we're fascinated by. Leave the comic book gunplay and Mexican standoffs to the 25 year-old Tarantino wannabes. You're too smart to be playing their brain-dead game, Marty! Too far along to stoop to their stupid level. And tell me this: what would John Huston have to say about this picture? What would Robert Aldrich? How about Howard Hawks? Or Stanley Kubrick?? You've
lowered your standards, Marty, THESE are the people you've got to measure up to -- not a bunch of prepubescent Tarantino nerds who spend their lives on the Internet and playing video games!
But don't worry, Marty -- I haven't lost faith. And please don't YOU lose faith, either. And if you have, think of the words of the great Lester Burnham, who in "American Beauty" wisely said something we should all remember:
"It's never too late to get it back."
Love,
a Scorsese fanatic (in spite of it all)