A Review I Didn't Write- The Departed

I saw The Departed this weekend. It was a tight enjoyable thriller, that brought about deeper issues of trust, truth, and death to the surface, for us to ponder while watching a fairly complex story unfold. Yes, as you would expect the acting is phenominal, with Damon and Leo playing opposite each other from the moment the film begins. Every performance in this movie is steller, yes Nicholson is great but he's great in everything the does. At this point Nicholson being a great actor is NOT a surprise. Every character is vital to the story, and every actor in the film brings his A game. There is not a flaw in casting or acting in this film.

Another thing I really like about this movie is the "twists and turns" are not forced (a la The Black Daliah), they are genuine. I hope it's not a spoiler that there are twists and turns. Did you expect anything less?

I don't have any issues with the film. I really really really love it. It's likely the best theatrical release this month though I haven't seen Jet Li's Fearless. And though I really liked Little Miss Sunshine and World Trade Center, The Departed is a slightly better movie than those two.

So I was all set. I had just seen a movie I really LOVED with great acting, execellent writing and non-forced twists and turns. What a great day, until I read this... on IMDB.com

Best Scorsese Film. Period., 3 October 2006
10/10
Author: fburke69 from United States

Oh my God.

I can say without overstatement that I just saw the most gripping and entertaining American film to come out in at least the past ten years.

I was lucky enough to get a pass to an advance screening of The Departed this past weekend in Boston. I wasn't sure what to expect and actually planned on being a little disappointed with all the expectations and hype of such an all-star cast.

From the moment the opening credits came up, the movie grabbed me by the neck, ripped me out of my seat and didn't let go until the final scene.

Each performance is more masterful than the next. Damon was a tour de force as the lead, tapping every ounce of his acting reservoir for this role. Nicholson creates another classic role to add to his already sterling resume. His mob boss would almost steal every scene he was in, if it not for every other actor being so fantastic However, the biggest surprise for me personally came from Leonardo DeCaprio.

Having never warmed up to any of his roles or movies, I found myself blown away by him in this. I'm not sure if it was the material he was given, or if DeCaprio has grown this much as an actor, or a combination of both, but he finally won me over with his role in this instant Scorsese classic. Every character is pitch perfect, every scene is right on the money. The plot builds to a crescendo of such dynamic proportions rarely seen on film. I don't want to give too much away, but I'm still shaken from the ride I was taken on.

People go to the movies in the hopes that maybe once in a hundred times you get to experience storytelling so masterful and transcendent that it changes the way you view cinema. This is one of those spectacularly perfect times.

Forget Taxi Driver. Forget Raging Bull. Forget Goodfellas. As much as I LOVE those movies and as much as they have affected me in my lifetime, The Departed will hands down be Martin Scorsese's Master Work.

So I read this and agreed with a lot of it. (the Stuff about leo and all... and about going to the movies trying to feel something like this...) but the issue I'd like to bring up and discuss is, I know my Truth and Spectacle commrades haven't seen the movie yet, but can the world really be ready to call this movie better than Scorsese's best? Isn't that something that we're not fit to answer for many years? We can't just label stuff, for the heck of it. Doesn't it have to prove the test of time? I know winning an Oscar is the first step to creating a classic it's a way to insure that the future will look kindly upon you in years to come. But there are pleanty of movies (Oscar winners and nominees) that fade from our memory just a few weeks and months later. It would be a shame for The Departed to expeirence that, just because it's such a quality movie. However, I'm not savy enough to brand it a cornerstone of Scorsese's career or anything. Maybe fburke69 is more forward thinking than I will ever be. What do you think?

THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!!

First off-- I apologize for the delay in my writing... writing doesn't come naturally for me, thus when I get lazy it takes an effort for me to break my own lazy tendencies and will myself to write...

So I'm trying to "will" myself tonight. I've made a discovery about myself that mildly disturbs me. For a majority of my life, I've claimed that I don't like horror movies. But more accurately, I am not a fan of current horror movies. I don't like watching humans making other humans suffer, which is the trend in horror movies today. (IE The new Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Rob Zombies: House of 1000 Corpses, and Saw, all of which I've seen... and I liked Saw okay, because it went beyond senseless torture of people... but not too much.)-- However, I do enjoy a mediocre 80's or early 90's Slasher Flick because of the camp inherent to these movies.

Yet I do enjoy movies that place the audience in unusual or awkward circumstances, I mean how talented is a filmmaker who takes us to a place we've been a myriad of times? Brilliance is achieved in placing characters in difficult emotional
circumstances and watching them make the "right or wrong" choice. A good example can be taken in virtually any zombie movie ever made, in which a lover watches his or her partner become a zombie, do emotions win out or does the lover have the courage to kill their loved one, to preserve their own life? These are the horror stories that fascinate me. Zombie movies are enjoyable even when executed poorly for that reason. Because it forces you to step outside the actual film, and consider "what would I do in this situation" presuming it is real.

However, two zombie flicks stick out as being better than average, (remember I am dealing with my issues of whether I'm a horror fan of not, thus if I've left out other worthy movies please forgive me) because they are made with attention to detail, and fully fleshed out characters. It's the difference between a film maker who is making a movie because they are passionate with all the fiber of their bodies in making THAT movie, and one that is doing it to receive a pay check first and to make a good movie second; Shaun of the Dead as well as Slither (written and directed by James Gunn.) Remember watching The Lord of the Rings and at some point thinking, "Peter Jackson really loves these books!" James Gunn loves horror movies in the same way Jackson loves LOTR. Gunn makes his movies with an eye for detail, and the passion of a child in love with movies. The best films are made with that type of passion for the subject matter at hand. Shaun of the Dead and Slither are prime examples.


I recently watched A History of Violence, by David Cronenberg. Doing so turned me on to other works of his and I rented and watched The Fly (within the last 2 hours). The Fly (like Slither and Shaun of the Dead) is a Horror/sci-fi film, and a character driven love story. Cronenberg, takes his time, he allows his audience to experience the characters. He sets up the story and makes it as believable as possible, so half way through the movie you're not thinking "where the heck did THAT come from?" He's sets up the audience like a master chess player, slowly but surely you fall into his trap, and then in a "flurry of attacks" (cinema magic) "you're defeated" (on the edge of your seat...) and as quickly as the onslaught starts, it's over and you're left stunned at what a complex "horror/sci-fi" film you just watched. The Fly is a character study, a love story, and as you may have guessed as an audience member you're put into awkward position and forced to choose what you'd do in a similar situation.

So I'm a horror fan, what does this mean? I guess it means I like movies, if they're well told stories with passionate directors at the helm, the label isn't important the execution is. Thus I can truthfully call myself a horror fan, and if I ever became a zombie, I'd hope my wife would know what to do.

The Last Kiss

I adore Zack Braff. He may be the most relatable man in Hollywood. Even more so than Tom Hanks, because let's face it, everyone knows Tom Hanks now has enough money to build his own moonbase if he chose, and that makes him seem a little distant. Braff on the other hand is just hitting his stride as an everyman. His character on NBC's "Scrubs", J.D., is clueless, genuine, a little selfish at times, and hopelessly love-lorn. Just like most of us. By the way if you're not watching "Scrubs" do yourself a favor, and Tivo those reruns currently running on Comedy Central.

"Scrubs" is a great show, but not enough of a ratings juggernaut to make Braff a star. Most people's first real impression of him came from his writing and directing (and acting) film debut, Garden State. It is a completely un-ordinary romantic comedy. Braff shows real promise here as a director and writer, and if you weren't already madly in love with Natalie Portman this pretty much seals the deal. All of that excitement had me jumping to see Braff's new film, The Last Kiss. Ella and I got that chance (accompanied by Mr. Starswick) last Thursday.

I had found out about a week before that the film does not represent Braff's second writing/directing project as Paul Haggis (Crash) and Tony Goldwyn (TV's Law and Order and Grey's Anatomy) fill those respective jobs. Haggis is on (and this is an understatement) a hot streak, winning consecutive Oscars for "Million Dollar Baby" and "Crash." So, this film isn't "Garden State." But you shouldn't hold that against it.

The film is very well acted. Braff, and his two leading ladies, Rachel Bilson and Jacinda Barret are all excellent. The real surprise here is Casey Affleck as Braff's married friend. I've shouted my love for Ben Affleck before, but let me now say that the man crush apparently extends to the whole family. Casey is perfect in the role of young husband and father, drowning in his responsibilities. Drowning, is perhaps a good way to describe the whole film.

This is a film in the vein of Love Actually or more precisely Closer. It's about love, and is often funny, so it would be easy to call it a romantic comedy, but this is no comedy. It's a film about how difficult love is to maintain, and how easy to lose. It's rough, especially for those of us in relationships, but the level of art is high enough to deserve your attention, even if it makes you a little uncomfortable. Overall, it's a fantastic experience that only leaves me more excited to see what Zack Braff does next.

back in black...dahlia

i'm really sorry about that title, folks. i really tried to come up with a better one but nothing came to me.

anyway, i saw the black dahlia tonight (incidently, did you know that dahlia means: any composite plant of the genus Dahlia, native to Mexico and Central America and widely cultivated for its showy, variously colored flower heads; the flower or tuberous root of a dahlia; a pale violet or amethyst color--so, technically "the black dahlia could be interpreted "the black pale violet"--just a bit of useless info for you so that you can be that guy at the party who knows everything about everything...everybody thinks that guy is cool...now you can be cool--man, this is a long parenthetical, i'll get back on track) it was not the movie i thought it was going to be. it went from gruesome, to campy, to outright hillarious, to wtf?

we'll start with the gruesome:

any movie involving a disemboweling is going to lend itself to a bit of gore, and this being a brian de palma film (the man who brought us the phantom of the paradise), even moreso. but it wasn't the quantity that got me it was its placement and timing; i really didn't expect that crow to put its beak in that eye at that moment.

the campy:

let's just say that k.d. lang makes a camio as a lounge singer in a lesbian night club and we'll leave it there.

the outright hillarious:

you need to see this movie for one reason; fiona shaw is absolutely hysterical. there is a scene with josh hartnett (who has his usual serviceable hartnetty performance), shaw with others at a dinner table that is more than worth the price of admission. i don't know that this movie is intended to be funny (having not read the ellroy novel on which it is based, so not knowing if it was humorous) but it will make you laugh out loud.

wtf?:

uh...did i mention k.d. lang is in the movie? did i mention that it was funny? ok, then i guess all that remains is the last 15 minutes of the movie. don't worry, i won't spoil it for you; even if i told you verbatim what happened, you'd be all like, "uh, wtf?" and i'd be like,"yeah, i know." then you'd be like, "really?" and i'd be like, "yeah, you think i could make that crap up?" then you'd be like, "seriously? 'cause that's kinda weird." then i'd be like, "you're telling me. i just finished watching it." then you'd be like, "seriously?" then i'd be like, "dude, just watch the movie, you're kinda getting on my nerves." then you'd be like, "i'm sorry man, i get like that that sometimes." then i'd be like, "it's ok just chill out, ok?" then you'd be like, "ok, sorry." then i would forgive you and walk away quickly.

ok, as far as the acting breakdown is concerned:

it should be noted that this movie was acted in the style of 40s-50s noir; any of these actors could have easily been played by bogart, cagney, or bacall, so it is difficult to evaluate the actors in dahlia based on modern standards...that being said, in the following sentences i shall evaluate the actors based on modern standards.

josh hartnett does what he does best; that being, being josh hartnett. he doesn't hurt the film but he isn't stellar either. scarlett johanssen was good, not lost in translation good, but good; she seems to overplay the "40s girl" a bit. aaron eckhart starts out well but fades as the movie progresses; this is probably the fault of the writers, but we're not evaluating the writers here, but eckhart's character fades into the background of the movie, which is unfortunate because the character is multilayered (like the onion...or parfait)...too bad. the ray of brandy-soaked sunshine in this film is the performance of fiona shaw (aunt petunia of harry potter fame...yes, if you do know her, that's probably where you know her from) she is the reason to see this movie. the rest of the actors do well enough, like i said, the acting is very 40s-ish so it fells different than most of the movies put out nowadays.

final verdict:

see it. i'm not absolutely sure i liked it but i know that i thoroughly enjoyed it...yeah, i know that doesn't make sense, but just wait until you see it, you'll feel the same way. i give it 3 racks of lamb out of 5, but fiona shaw's performance gets 5 of 5 with 2 sides of her choosing; we have mashed taters, steamed veggies, creamed corn, salad (house or caesar), french fries, and baked beans (but i'd stay away from the beans).

ok, folks. that's all i've got for you this week. have a good week or don't whichever you choose, i don't want you to think i'm trying to run your life...because i'm not...just making a suggestion that having a good week might be perferable to not having one...but it's your life, live how you want, just don't blame me when "not having a good week" works out badly for you. anyway, have a week of your choosing, and i'll talk to you later. i'm out.

the hand is quicker than the eye...

...but the illusionist is much, much slower.

now don't get me wrong, the actors in this film are tremendous (edward norton, paul giamatti, and that guy with the really prominent eyelids from a knight's tale) but they were tremendous in other movies. i mean they did all they could with a slow-moving script, artistic camera angles (or more acurately: the same artistic camera angle used over and over and over again...imagine the frodo-looking-at-the-ring-in-the-palm-of-his-hand shot in the lord of the rings trilogy accept that scene last 2 and a half hours. yeah, i know...that's a lot of palm.) and edward norton (God love him) just didn't pull off the austrian accent; he wound up sounding part british, part edward norton, and part generic eastern european. giamatti had a quality accent and he tried really hard to carry this film and he did to some extent. now, i am a giamatti fan, not quite a 'giamaniac,' i find him an accessible and genuine actor, but the script had him doing awkward voiceover narration that did not fit the feel of the film and neil burger (the writer/director) did not allow giamatti's character to develop. jessica beil was good-looking, as always, but she never really seemed to be into the picture.

it makes me really sad that this movie was mot good, because i like every actor in it, even eyelid guy. it had so much potential but developed into a predictable storyline that left me feeling slighted...and a little gassy (that might have been the sonic burger i had before, but i'm blaming it on the movie).

at any rate, i'll go ahead and give the illusionist 2 and a quarter (out of 5) racks of lamb based upon paul giamatti just being in the film and that other guy's eyelids.

'til next time, friends...