[sigma]

Hahaha. Excuse me for the laugh. After all those hype and superlative reviews by the movie reviewers on Rottentomaoes, I at least thought TD would at the very least give its original progenitor, Infernal Affairs, a good run for its money. To paraphrase TD, how “****ing” wrong I was

*Warning: Contains some spoilers in my review below

The Departed is supposedly one of the best ‘works’ by director Martin Scorsese in recent years, if we are to believe those US horsecrap reviews of it. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, and Mark Walhberg, it is in actual fact a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong hit thriller ‘Infernal Affairs’. Heck, Scorsese even followed IA in the casting department by hiring an all star cast for it.

The storyline, a complete rip-off from IA, is basically this: There are 2 undercover agents, one in the police force and the other in the Irish mafia, each feeding tip-offs to their respective bosses. One fine day, after a botched transaction dealing, both sides discovered that they have a mole in their midst. Each then attempts to flush their moles out by appointing the moles on their sides to discover themselves I know, I know, great plot eh?

Being a remake, it’s inevitable that I should be allowed to compare it with the original. And heck, it definitely cannot hold a candle beside IA. For starters, the great plotline and terrific twists were all taken from IA. The only additions that TD have is a pointless love triangle between DiCaprio (the undercover police in the mob) and Damon’s (the mobster mole in the police force) character with the psychiatrist. The other one was again, the meaningless character addition of Sergent Dignam (Walhberg). I really had a tough time trying to take his character seriously, what with his constant laughable stream of invectives.

On to the actors. This film really made me realise how some actor’s abilities in Hollywood can be ‘institutionalised’ by automatically being thought of as ‘good’ in any film he stars in. This situation perfectly describes how I felt about Nicholson’s efforts as the mob boss, Frank Costello. He overacted in this film, to the point of being embarrassing. I think the audience will get it that he’s supposed to be this ‘tough crazy mobster’ without needing to bombard us with his swearing-saturated dialogue or giving us so many sexually-charged hints to try to nudge us into believing he’s also an oversexed old man to boot. Total overkill with Nicholson. In addition, his original character in IA was just supposed to be a good supporting actor. Here, just because he’s Nicholson, Hollywood had to expand his role, so now when compared to the smaller role of his opposite, the police head Queenan (Martin Sheen), they’re no longer evenly-balanced opposite characters.

DiCaprio and Damon were alright, but Andy Lau and Tony Leung was definitely the better duo in terms of their performances. The latter duo could express a lot more of their inner turmoil in a restraint kind of way. Of the former duo, DiCaprio nailed his role better by being suitably angsty. However, I felt that Damon (or Scorsese) had completely misunderstood how his role were originally conceived to be. In IA, Lau’s character was suitably ambiguous in terms of where his allegiance lied. Obviously, in the beginning, he was a bad guy courtesy of being a triad mole in the force, but as he began to rise in the ranks as an ‘good guy’, he begins to question his actions, culminating in ultimately deciding to side with the ‘good guys’ in the end. In TD, Damon’s character did not do that. He was a ‘crook’, and ultimately stayed a ‘crook’ throughout the whole development of his character. So it lacks depth actually. There were many instances where viewers could actually even empathise with Lau’s character, but there was never a moment where I could do that with Damon’s character. I just wanted DiCaprio to beat the crap out of him at all times, full stop.

Typically, Hollywood has decided to to ramp up the violence and sexual material in TD. Again, this is a totally unnecessarily change. Whereas AI looks sleek and uber, TD just looks, well…. ‘Hollywood-ised’?

There were many good, some even iconic scenes from IA that were incorporated into TD. However, most of them did not turn out as well as in IA. Firstly, the terrific feeding of information through modern cellular technology on one side versus through the archaic Morse code on the other by those two moles during a drug transaction in IA was completely omitted in TD. Instead, a boring ‘SMS match up’ was used in its place. The cast-breaking scene lost all of its objectives and unexpected impact in TD. It was just more of senseless, gratuitous violent act in in TD. Lastly, in the scene where Martin Sheen dies totally cannot compare with IA’s original scene in terms of dramatic impact. The failed drug/microprocessor chips (???) transaction scene which was supposed to reveal to both sides that they each had moles among them was also delayed way to long in TD. In fact, the whole film of TD was dragged overly long (an extra 30 mins compared to the original), and in the process, it did not feel as taunt and thrilling as IA.

The cinematography in TD pales in comparison to IA. TD just used regular camera tints and shots, while Christopher Doyle painted IA in shades of subdued blue and dark shades. The symbolism for ’self-reflection’ or ’self-identity’ were also a constant theme in IA, especially in those rooftop scenes with all those reflective buildings around it. TD lacked any of those things.

Lastly, the ending. Being Hollywood, like the Communist China, they cannot stomach anything less that the bad guy getting what he deserves. And this was what happened in TD, through a new scene which was added. In AI, ambiguity remained, where Lau’s character remained unpunished by external forces, but he was slowly punishing himself instead (hence the Chinese meaning of the title). TD took the elevator-shootout ending too, but made it less dramatic though.

Also, TD should have acknowledged that it was a remake to Infernal Affairs at the beginning of the film, like what The Lake House did for 'Il Mare/Siwore'. Instead, it tried passing off as a Hollywood original and only acknowledged IA in tiny print in its credits. Pathetic. Legalised plagiarism anyone?

To cut the story short, TD disappointed me. Scorsese disappointed me. Nicholson annoyed me. And I have lost all respect for US movie critics.

Verdict: 2 stars

[Dragonfish222000]

Originally Posted by sigma

Hahaha. Excuse me for the laugh. After all those hype and superlative reviews by the movie reviewers on Rottentomaoes, I at least thought TD would at the very least give its original progenitor, Infernal Affairs, a good run for its money. To paraphrase TD, how “****ing” wrong I was

*Warning: Contains some spoilers in my review below

The Departed is supposedly one of the best ‘works’ by director Martin Scorsese in recent years, if we are to believe those US horsecrap reviews of it. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, and Mark Walhberg, it is in actual fact a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong hit thriller ‘Infernal Affairs’. Heck, Scorsese even followed IA in the casting department by hiring an all star cast for it.

The storyline, a complete rip-off from IA, is basically this: There are 2 undercover agents, one in the police force and the other in the Irish mafia, each feeding tip-offs to their respective bosses. One fine day, after a botched transaction dealing, both sides discovered that they have a mole in their midst. Each then attempts to flush their moles out by appointing the moles on their sides to discover themselves I know, I know, great plot eh?

Being a remake, it’s inevitable that I should be allowed to compare it with the original. And heck, it definitely cannot hold a candle beside IA. For starters, the great plotline and terrific twists were all taken from IA. The only additions that TD have is a pointless love triangle between DiCaprio (the undercover police in the mob) and Damon’s (the mobster mole in the police force) character with the psychiatrist. The other one was again, the meaningless character addition of Sergent Dignam (Walhberg). I really had a tough time trying to take his character seriously, what with his constant laughable stream of invectives.

On to the actors. This film really made me realise how some actor’s abilities in Hollywood can be ‘institutionalised’ by automatically being thought of as ‘good’ in any film he stars in. This situation perfectly describes how I felt about Nicholson’s efforts as the mob boss, Frank Costello. He overacted in this film, to the point of being embarrassing. I think the audience will get it that he’s supposed to be this ‘tough crazy mobster’ without needing to bombard us with his swearing-saturated dialogue or giving us so many sexually-charged hints to try to nudge us into believing he’s also an oversexed old man to boot. Total overkill with Nicholson. In addition, his original character in AI was just supposed to be a good supporting actor. Here, just because he’s Nicholson, Hollywood had to expand his role, so now when compared to the smaller role of his opposite, the police head Queenan (Martin Sheen), they’re no longer evenly-balanced opposite characters.

DiCaprio and Damon were alright, but Andy Lau and Tony Leung was definitely the better duo in terms of their performances. The latter duo could express a lot more of their inner turmoil in a restraint kind of way. Of the former duo, DiCaprio nailed his role better by being suitably angsty. However, I felt that Damon (or Scorsese) had completely misunderstood how his role were originally conceived to be. In IA, Lau’s character was suitably ambiguous in terms of where his allegiance lied. Obviously, in the beginning, he was a bad guy courtesy of being a triad mole in the force, but as he began to rise in the ranks as an ‘good guy’, he begins to question his actions, culminating in ultimately deciding to side with the ‘good guys’ in the end. In TD, Damon’s character did not do that. He was a ‘crook’, and ultimately stayed a ‘crook’ throughout the whole development of his character. So it lacks depth actually. There were many instances where viewers could actually even empathise with Lau’s character, but there was never a moment where I could do that with Damon’s character. I just wanted DiCaprio to beat the crap out of him at all times, full stop.

Typically, Hollywood has decided to to ramp up the violence and sexual material in TD. Again, this is a totally unnecessarily change. Whereas AI looks sleek and uber, TD just looks, well…. ‘Hollywood-ised’?

There were many good, some even iconic scenes from IA that were incorporated into TD. However, most of them did not turn out as well as in IA. Firstly, the terrific feeding of information through modern cellular technology on one side versus the archaic Morse code on the other and by those two moles during a drug transaction with the Thais in IA was completely omitted in TD. Instead, a boring ‘SMS match up’ was used in its place. The cast-breaking scene lost all of its objectives and unexpected impact in TD. It was just more of senseless, gratuitous violent act in in TD. Lastly, in the scene where Martin Sheen dies totally cannot compare with IA’s original scene in terms of dramatic impact. The failed drug/microprocessor chips (???) transaction scene which was supposed to reveal to both sides that they each had moles among them was also delayed way to long in TD. In fact, the whole film of TD was dragged overly long (an extra 30 mins compared to the original), and in the process, it did not feel as taunt and thrilling as IA.

The cinematography in TD pales in comparison to IA. TD just used regular camera tints and shots, while Christopher Doyle painted IA in shades of subdued blue and dark shades. The symbolism for ’self-reflection’ or ’self-identity’ were also a constant theme in IA, especially in those rooftop scenes with all those reflective buildings around it. TD lacked any of those things.

Lastly, the ending. Being Hollywood, like the Communist China, they cannot stomach anything less that the bad guy getting what he deserves. And this was what happened in TD, through a new scene which was added. In AI, ambiguity remained, where Lau’s character remained unpunished by external forces, but he was slowly punishing himself instead (hence the Chinese meaning of the title). TD took the elevator-shootout ending too, but made it less dramatic though.

Also, TD should have acknowledged that it was a remake to Infernal Affairs at the beginning of the film, like what The Lake House did. Instead, it tried passing off as a Hollywood original and only acknowledged IA in tiny print in its credits. Pathetic. Legalised plagiarism anyone?

To cut the story short, TD disappointed me. Scorsese disappointed me. Nicholson annoyed me. And I have lost all respect for US movie reviewers.

Verdict: 1 star

TD is very different in it's entire setting, characters, and many elements of it's storyline. People are trying to blame it for being btoh too close and too far from IA.

This is a different movie, and judging from the user ratings, and the critics ratings, most people disagree with you.

[RichieF]

Originally Posted by Dragonfish222000

TD is very different in it's entire setting, characters, and many elements of it's storyline. People are trying to blame it for being btoh too close and too far from IA.

This is a different movie, and judging from the user ratings, and the critics ratings, most people disagree with you.

I agree with you.
TD is the best movie of the year!!
The IA people are beating a dead horse with this constant attack on it.

[sigma]

Originally Posted by RichieF

I agree with you.
TD is the best movie of the year!!
The IA people are beating a dead horse with this constant attack on it.

Yeah, indeed. And who actually came up with its terrific plot? Sorry to disappoint you if you think its the great Scorsese, but its actually two chaps named Felix Chong and Alan Mak. And yeap, they were the writers for IA. And yes, TD followed close to 90% of IA. Don't believe me? Just watch IA and I rest my case.

And if you think, so what if Scorsese took AI's plot (and didn't even acknowledge it properly in the film, btw)? He must have improved it beyond recognition and blew the original out of the water right? Wrong again. I was blown away by AI, and I yawned at TD. The cinematography, pacing and acting surpassed's TDs. You call that Nicholson overacting an Oscar performance? Hahaha.

So:

TD's originality = 0
Pacing = way too slow
Cinematography = bland and nothing special
Nicholson = I just wanna shoot his Joker self
DiCaprio = good
Damon = ok, but character went on a different direction to Lau's character in IA. I felt that the latter's direction, where he ultimately switched sides, gave it more pyschological depth

Just because you don't watch anything not produced by Hollywood, doesn't mean that only Hollywood produces great movies. Stop deluding yourself and grow up, will ya?

[sigma]

Originally Posted by RichieF

I agree with you.
TD is the best movie of the year!!
The IA people are beating a dead horse with this constant attack on it.

Yeah, indeed. And who actually came up with its terrific plot? Sorry to disappoint you if you think its the great Scorsese, but its actually two chaps named Felix Chong and Alan Mak. And yeap, they were the writers for IA. And yes, TD followed close to 90% of IA. Don't believe me? Just watch IA and I rest my case.

And if you think, so what if Scorsese took AI's plot (and didn't even acknowledge it properly in the film, btw)? He must have improved it beyond recognition and blew the original out of the water right? Wrong again. I was blown away by AI, and I yawned at TD. The cinematography, pacing and acting surpassed's TDs. You call that Nicholson overacting an Oscar performance? Hahaha.

So:

TD's originality = 0
Pacing = way too slow
Cinematography = bland and nothing special
Nicholson = I just wanna shoot his Joker self
DiCaprio = good
Damon = ok, but character went on a different direction to Lau's character in IA. I felt that the latter's direction, where he ultimately switched sides, gave it more pyschological depth

Just because you don't watch anything not produced by Hollywood, doesn't mean that only Hollywood produces great movies. Stop deluding yourself and grow up, will ya?

[Dragonfish222000]

Originally Posted by sigma

Yeah, indeed. And who actually came up with its terrific plot? Sorry to disappoint you if you think its the great Scorsese, but its actually two chaps named Felix Chong and Alan Mak. And yeap, they were the writers for IA. And yes, TD followed close to 90% of IA. Don't believe me? Just watch IA and I rest my case.

And if you think, so what if Scorsese took AI's plot (and didn't even acknowledge it properly in the film, btw)? He must have improved it beyond recognition and blew the original out of the water right? Wrong again. I was blown away by AI, and I yawned at TD. The cinematography, pacing and acting surpassed's TDs. You call that Nicholson overacting an Oscar performance? Hahaha.

So:

TD's originality = 0
Pacing = way too slow
Cinematography = bland and nothing special
Nicholson = I just wanna shoot his Joker self
DiCaprio = good
Damon = ok, but character went on a different direction to Lau's character in IA. I felt that the latter's direction, where he ultimately switched sides, gave it more pyschological depth

Just because you don't watch anything not produced by Hollywood, doesn't mean that only Hollywood produces great movies. Stop deluding yourself and grow up, will ya?

I don't think all the reviewers mentioned are liars. Most of them have seen IA; you'll see it has a 95% on it's own tomatometer, and is overall rated higher than TD ATM. However, I think TD has earned it's own praise (mostly greater) from the same critics. They're not biased; many of them have bashed Scorsese before. They liked the movie, and judging from many opinions so did many others.

Just because someone liked the movie doens't mean they are inferior to you. I have seen many movies that are NOT of hollywood type (I actually resent the Hollywood type of movie). This is actually a different movie from what you will see spewing out of the movie industries ***; well thought out, well paced, well acted, and overall a good movie IMO.

[paulojcduarte]

Originally Posted by Dragonfish222000

I don't think all the reviewers mentioned are liars. Most of them have seen IA; you'll see it has a 95% on it's own tomatometer, and is overall rated higher than TD ATM. However, I think TD has earned it's own praise (mostly greater) from the same critics. They're not biased; many of them have bashed Scorsese before. They liked the movie, and judging from many opinions so did many others.

Just because someone liked the movie doens't mean they are inferior to you. I have seen many movies that are NOT of hollywood type (I actually resent the Hollywood type of movie). This is actually a different movie from what you will see spewing out of the movie industries ***; well thought out, well paced, well acted, and overall a good movie IMO.

Let's put it like this: I take a good movie, something less known like Casablanca for instance, translate the plot to cantonese, get an all star cast and high budget and turn it into a B-movie with some high profile actor overacting Capt. Renault. Let's say I'm a well known chinese director and I'm getting the chinese critics writing some good reviews on my movie, it has been said it's the best movie coming out of Hong Kong industry this year. Sounds familiar?

Scorcese butchered a great movie, as I'm not american nor chinese TD is as good as this hypotethical Casablanca remake, it's a remake for god sake, only made because americans don't know the world doesn't end at the mexican border and won't go watch a movie with subtitles, and it's a bad remake. Watching the Departed the term "continuous hell" comes vividly into mind.