overrated

Rating: 5/10 (28 January 2007)

I've read many of the comments here and reviews of this movie saying its the best movie Scorsese has (ever) done. I'm here to tell you that is absolute nonsense.
Yes, this is a pretty good movie compared to most movies getting made these days. Is it a timeless classic like Means Streets, Raging Bull or Goodfellas? No no no...
We all know the story by now, so I wont bore you with details regarding that. I will tell you about the "components" of the movie and why we are not witnessing whats supposed to be the movie of 2006: Acting: Most of the actors are doing a fine job. Am I the only one thinking Jack is over-acting most of the time? I don't know, the only actor who surprised me was Mark Wahlberg. Very good performance from him.
Directing: Run-of-the-mill style. Very professional of course and he (Scorsese) keeps things exciting but it certainly lacks passion and humour. Not very Scorsese-ish.
Story: Unbelievable and a bit silly for 2006, the story is easily the movies weakest link. Has kind of an 80s feel to it (and yes, in a bad way. the 80s sucked). Source material is VERY overrated.
Music: Sub-par. The Stones are being re-used (this is a Scorsese movie after all) to no good effect. Goodfellas, it ain't.
Perhaps I had too high hopes, its been a while since we had a classic Scorsese flick (Casino, although flawed, is the last one I can think of) and this is not it. Yes, its worth watching but its not the instant classic Scorsese has been known to make in the past. He shouldn't win an Oscar for this film but he should get one for "Lifetime achievement".