The Departed (Infernal Affairs remake)

[Mikey B]

Well, that sounds promising. Could be bullshit or it could be a fucking dream of a movie.

[Kal]

In the original trilogy, Infernal Affairs 2 is the prequel that tells the story of how each became good and bad guys. It also stresses more the rivarily between the bad guy (in this case Jack Nicholson) and the chief of police (in the original there is one, but here it can be Martin Sheen or even maybe Baldwin). That prequel was very good in my opinion.

The 3rd one, which is a sequel, wasnt that good. But the main difference is that --- SPOILER --- the bad guy played by matt damon is alive at the end of the original infernal affairs. which makes him alive in the sequel and the plot is around him erasing all the evidence that he was ever a bad guy and at the same time with some people that know trying to get him.

would be interesting to see what Scorsese has planned...

[Alexandro]

I think it's a bad idea for him. It's an open opprtunity for some big disaster. Critics panning it, audiences not being too satisfied...I don't think so...but hey, he's been aple to pull off some strange choices before, so who knows...?

About the oscar. If he doesn't deserve it then I dont know who does. The Departed is as great as it is because of the way it is directed. Good screenplay, but it's his vision what makes it so rewarding as pulp entertainment with class.

The Departed is very elegantly composed. Every choice was efective, including the last shot, which is ther precisely to remind everyone that you're watching a fun crime movie. I don't see what's so bad about that. I have inmense respecto for every filmmaker who can shake the "im an ateur" attitude and make a brilliant commercial movie. That's what I admire so much about Linklater too. Others have tried. Oliver Stone have tried and he has made crap every time he does. It's not so easy to be so flexible. To say Marty is repeating himself is stupid. I agree, The Aviator is a far superior film, and it was a far superior film that year, and he should have won for that. But this going to be another classic.

Nicholson. Is he just playing Jack? Is that even true? No self respecting actor "plays himself". It's not true. And you just watch him in his few last films. Anger Management, Something's Gotta Give, About Schmidt and The Departed, all of them except Schmidt of being "jack playing himself" performances. Just watch them, is not true. Those are different characters and he pays them all different. He's never been a chamaleonlike De Niro, but of course he does his job in a fantastic way. That's why we all admire him so much and that's why he's considered one of the best actors in the world. In any case, acting is not about becomeing someone else but about play make believe and do it as best as possible, and in that regard, he has few oponents even at this point. But hey, some people will keep repeating this bullshit no matter what...

[Gold Trumpet]

The only good thing that can come in doing sequels is that Marty actually may have a box office hit. The Departed has a good chance to become a hit on DVD and that could draw interest for a sequel and thus people will go to see it with huge interest. Basically what The Bourne Identity did for Supremacy.

But, I don't care about De Niro joining the sequels at all. He was already lined up to do Sheen's role in The Departed and that role had no meat at all and I'm not sure what role could be really quality.

Oliver Stone have tried and he has made crap every time he does. It's not so easy to be so flexible. To say Marty is repeating himself is stupid.

When did he try? The only instance I know of is U-Turn and that hardly was a commercial film. He was purposely making a B-movie that played counter to expectations of easy going entertainment. Dialing up films like The Honeymoon Killers and Shock Corridor as influence is not playing into the hands of the mainstream. Marty is flexible, but he is only one among some filmmakers who like making mainstream films as well. When Sam Peckinpah made The Getaway, he did it kicking and screaming. I doubt Stanley Kubrick would have been easy going to do so as well when he had power to pick his projects. The likelihood is that many directors are professionals and many have to look for work to keep going and do projects like these.

Nicholson. Is he just playing Jack? Is that even true? No self respecting actor "plays himself". It's not true. And you just watch him in his few last films. Anger Management, Something's Gotta Give, About Schmidt and The Departed, all of them except Schmidt of being "jack playing himself" performances.

He's not playing 'himself', per say, but he is definitely playing up to his persona. Nicholson has become notorious over the years for playing characters who are named "Jack" and have the hallmarks of all his antics. Good actors who want to be huge stars play personality roles. They always do. McQueen dominated action films of the 60s and 70s and built a credibility for playing a certain type of role as Tom Cruise has done for the last 25 years. These films don't define all of their work (the reason why Nicholson's last roles, as you said, are 'different'), but if you chalk up Nicholson's performance to the roles that made him a huge star over time, they are very similar to the one he gave in The Departed.

[Alexandro]

Something went wrong wit U Turn, but he initially wanted to make a commercial movie, one that, quoting him "would make arnold schwarzenneger proud". Of course he didn't and we're all thankful for that. However, U Turn is widely considered a pice of shit, although i kinda like it. And WTC is a commercial film. And it sucks. I know you don't think so, but I also know I'm not alone on that one.

Yeah Jack plays a persona. Hanks plays a persona. Cruise, James Stewart. I mean a lot of guys do that. But not everyone does it so well, and still, I argue he does his homework and excels. To me, it's very unfair that he keeps getting pointed out for the easy criticism of saying he's just doing the same old thing. He is not. I don't see the resemblance between his performances in One Flew, The Shinning, A Few Good Men, Wolf, and the aforementioned to name a few, aside of course the fact that the he's the actor playing them and some mannerisms may come out the same. Pacino, Dustin Hoffman and other great actors have been accused at some point of the same. But I don't think these accusations understand acting anyway. He's not doing The Joker either. He just isn't, and people just have to watch the movies to see that.

DiCaprio, Scorsese and Damon have said his character is very different from what was on the page. All Im saying is that actors don't approach work as if it's some sort of hobby. Just because he has a screen persona doesn't mean he's a lesser actor, less convincing, or that he doesn't rock the fucking screen everytime he's on it, whatever it is that he's doing, be it a comedy, a drama, a thriller, a horror movie, or etcetera...

De Niro's participation could be exciting if only because Scorsese seems to be capable of extracting better performances from him than any other directors, even in small ones like his role in GoodFellas.

BIG SPOILER

And Sheen's character has no meat, but he actually makes him compelling. I felt heartbroken when he died, and I think is because he suceeded in making him humane and not just "the boss".

[Gold Trumpet]

However, U Turn is widely considered a pice of shit, although i kinda like it. And WTC is a commercial film. And it sucks. I know you don't think so, but I also know I'm not alone on that one.

1.) You admit you like U Turn but use the majority argument so I'm not sure where you stand. Stay away from the majority argument and reason out your opinion.

2.) And in consideration of WTC, just because Stone is less edgy in that film doesn't automatically make it commercial. Last I checked, we were defining commercial in that that the purpose was to be entertainment only. WTC isn't simple entertainment. It is a drama and tries to elicit higher themes and filmmaking ideas. I can't say much against your comment because you and (again) the majority only says it "sucks".

Yeah Jack plays a persona. Hanks plays a persona. Cruise, James Stewart. I mean a lot of guys do that. But not everyone does it so well, and still, I argue he does his homework and excels. To me, it's very unfair that he keeps getting pointed out for the easy criticism of saying he's just doing the same old thing. He is not. I don't see the resemblance between his performances in One Flew, The Shinning, A Few Good Men, Wolf, and the aforementioned to name a few, aside of course the fact that the he's the actor playing them and some mannerisms may come out the same. Pacino, Dustin Hoffman and other great actors have been accused at some point of the same. But I don't think these accusations understand acting anyway. He's not doing The Joker either. He just isn't, and people just have to watch the movies to see that.

Of course no major star will elicit exactly the same performance in every movie, but they will show tendencies and norms with every performance that, when put together, make up the distinct hallmarks of their personality. In consideration of Nicholson in The Departed, one would be his insistence to go over the top with his performance. Numerous scenes in the movie felt like they dragged on too long because his character was not done berating and bullying whoever he was suppose to. Then Nicholson gave speeches that felt like his character wanted to be the most obnoxious one in the room. Compare this to many of his roles in the 70s where he became a star for an over the top style. Nicholson showed charisma in vehicle movies by displaying a chauvanistic and brutal realism where other actors seemed like they were playing their roles straight. Examples would include Five Easy Pieces, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Easy Rider.

See, you're focusing on the fact he never has played a villian gangster before. Yes, but the question is, does his performance signify greater meaning to make it a great performance? I don't believe so. There is no greater thought to his character nor is there a greater emotional complex to explain his actions. Also, he does not have to physically lose his recognizability like he did in About Schmidt and Hoffa. He is very much playing a recognizable side of himself in The Departed, but only doing it to the point that it is layed out as a villian.

When he did the Joker in Batman he encompassed the Joker to lose easy recognition of himself and create a cultural monster that could only be imagined in the heightened reality of comic books. But, if you look at the actions and distinct style of his speech, you do recognize Nicholson. The reason the character works is because the collaboration of the actor and writer are in sync. The Joker is perfectly written to encompass the legendary status he had acquired in comic books and television. Nicholson realizes him in a way that feels like only he could. In The Departed, Nicholson plays a gangster who makes odd references to Irish and New England cultural figures and behaves erratically that seems to have no greater idea of a thought out character. The actions and words of this gangster leader were not recognizable as an authentic gangster leader.

OK, done with saying recognition and every other way of saying it.....

[Alexandro]

However, we can agree that U Turn came out completely uncommercial, despite it's intentions. And please man, WTC is as commercial as you can possibly get. Just because it's a drama supposedly aiming to higher themes doesn't mean is not. It's a multi million dollar production starring Nicolas Cage, which tries pretty much the whole time of inspiring feelings of good vibe, brotherhood, love between heroic people, fighting against the odds, patriotism, and a lot of other very audience friendly feelings...Deliberately, Stone tried to make it less controversial and more commercial, and in my opinion he went too far. As far, in fact, that the movie seems coward in it's use of 9/11 as a starting point to then, not even be about it at all. As I said before, it is so generic you could change the towers for abandoned mines and the firemen for miners, and you could have called it THE MINE, and it would be the exact same movie. Magically, no one in the movie asks the questions everyone was asking that day: "who did this?, why? was it irak? was it terrorism? what was this?". So, the movie becomes bruckheimerish and boring. So, Stone tried, but failed, cause it's not even on his sensibilities. He's already all pumped up to make another one about the same subject, and he will very likely go back to his usual self. He did WTC as a way to get Hollywood execs trust again after Alexander bombed. And that's really all there it is to it.

Scorsese, on the other hand, deliberately makes The Departed as a commercial gangster film. Not GoodFellas or Casino, not even a morality tale. As he said, this is the first one of his films that tried to have a plot. And he suceeded. The film works. The consensus is that is great. Commercial movies should aspire to this kind of quality. This is where, in a sane world, dumbed down films like Superman Returns, Casino Royale, MI3 and all those "entertainment" movies would at least try to be.

Jack Nicholson's performance in The Departed is not one I have throughly analyzed, I've only seen the movie twice, and I take the man and the movie seriously enough to know that subsequent viewings will reveal more layers, as it has happened with the work of both Scorsese and Nicholson before. But it never strucked me at any time during my two viewings that he was unnecesarily extending the scenes. I thought he was supposed to be cracking up, losing his mind, getting more and more paranoid and unstable as a result of the menaces around him and his own phisical decadence. And it's a joy to watch him do it.

But this seems to be another discussion in which you and I can go on forever and never agree. so it's cool.

[Derek]

SPOILER



I think I was affected by Sheen's death because his was the only character who was 'decent' in the movie.

[Derek237]

On a down note: Jack Nicholson was snubbed. I personally loved the performance and am really dissapointed. 

On the brighter side: Departed trilogy?? I'm SO in! 

[MacGuffin]

X marks the spot in The Departed
Source: Miami Harold

It is starting to look like The Departed might be the movie to beat for the Best Picture Oscar come Feb. 25 (although support continues to build for an underdog that could sneak in and steal the big prize).

I'd bet the farm, though, that Scorsese will finally come away with a Best Director Oscar this year - and unlike his last two sentimental nominations, he actually deserves it this time.

The Departed was also my favorite movie of 2006, in part because Scorsese seemed to be having fun again. For example, as an homage to Howard Hawks' classic 1932 Scarface, Scorsese scattered Xs throughout the movie (some more subtle than others), using them as a symbol of impending doom.

I recently went through the film again on DVD to see how many Xs I could find. To avoid even a hint of spoilers, I've arranged the frames out of chronological order. But if you've seen The Departed, you'll get an extra kick out of these. And if you haven't, Warner Bros.is re-releasing it to theaters on Jan. 26, so no excuses.

[Derek]

- and unlike his last two sentimental nominations, he actually deserves it this time.

I love it when people talk about The Departed as if Scorsese is emerging some sort of slump. I don't think he's ever 'coasted' on any of his movies, and could easily have walked away with a deserved Academy Award for either Gangs or Aviator.

[MacGuffin]

The two-disc special edition will include that, along with nine additional scenes with introductions by Martin Scorsese, a Story of the Boston Mob featurette, and a Creating Criminal Cultures featurette.

GIANT FUCKING FACE ARTWORK & OTHERWISE HERE: http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/the-departed.html

Film Geeks,
We hate you! 

Sincerely,
WB

ok, this is what i'm talking about.  2 discs where the only extras are deleted scenes, two featurettes and a trailer?  they couldnt have just had one version and thrown that all on 1 disc?  those scenes had better be like an hour of film.  no commentary, no documentary and it will probably never cost less than $20. you wont be able to get it from a video store or something cause they'll only have the 1 disc version, when best buy has big sales on buy 2 get 1 free stuff it will incl. the 1 disc version. uugh, Warner Bros i'm going to kick you in the balls.  thanks! 

Something not listed in those specs (according to Amazon):

Additional scenes with introductions by Martin Scorsese
Feature-length TCM profile "Scorsese on Scorsese"
The Story of the Boston Mob: the real-life gangster behind Jack Nicholson's character
Crossing Criminal Cultures: how Little Italy's crime and violence influence Scorsese's work

[MacGuffin]

SCRIPTLAND: 'Departed' sequel in the works
Back from the dead, director Martin Scorsese and writer William Monahan puzzling over how to extend francise.
Source: Los Angeles Times

The elegiac title and murderous conclusion of "The Departed" may have signaled a brutal, blood-red finality, but in Hollywood any potential franchise can be revived by a strong enough dose of green.

"The Departed" is by far director Martin Scorsese's biggest hit, with a gross of over $260 million worldwide - a number bound to escalate if the intricate thriller wins an Oscar next month for best picture (one of its five Academy Award nominations). And so sources close to the first film say that Bill Monahan, who also received a nod for his "Departed" screenplay last week, has begun working out a potential take that would extend a connected storyline and involve some of the same characters.

Of course, given the slaughter that terminates "The Departed," there aren't a whole lot of characters left to pursue. This is the same dilemma faced by the creators of "Infernal Affairs," the popular 2002 Hong Kong thriller written by Alan Mak and Felix Chong upon which Monahan's "Departed" script was based. Mak, Chong, and co-director Andrew Lau got around it by making their follow-up a prequel, thus allowing the first film's stars to reprise their roles (Mak, Chong, and Lau made a third in the series, too, that split its story around the events of the first film).

According to the sources, Monahan is not taking the prequel route and is instead developing a wholly original continuation of the story. Best supporting actor nominee Mark Wahlberg recently told MTV that the filmmakers have discussed bringing in Scorsese's classic gangster muse Robert De Niro to play a role.

Though Scorsese has never made a sequel to one of his films (his 1974 drama, "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore," spawned the diner sitcom, "Alice," though he had nothing to do with it), the Oscar-nominated director did make "The Color of Money," a sequel to Robert Rossen's "The Hustler," back in 1986. Monahan, who sources say began thinking of ways to continue the Boston cops-and-gangsters saga back in 2005 when production wrapped, recently tread further into sequel territory with a draft of "Jurassic Park IV."

Warner Bros., which released "The Departed," had no comment.

[Pubrick]

SCRIPTLAND: 'Departed' sequel in the works
Back from the dead, director Martin Scorsese and writer William Monahan puzzling over how to extend francise.

it's easy, mark whalberg moves to portugal and becomes a jesuit priest, there he learns the secret of time-travel and is sent back to the 17th century to convert the japanese, but is promptly driven to apostasy. jack nicholson plays a feudal lord; robert deniro is the model for the jesus illustrations ("fumie") that christians have to stomp on to renounce their faith; matt and leo return to play their own children (born as fraternal twins of their fathers' shared girlfriend, a role the producers can't recast because they forgot who played it in the first film)

now adults in 2037, they work together to find out the truth about the death of their fathers.. and possibly more about their mother's identity -- a subplot which ends in boredom. they follow whalberg's trail and diguised as jesuit priests, jump into the DeLorean. alec baldwin and martin sheen make cameos as car mechanics called in to fix the DeLorean. references to dollar signs are sprinkled throughout the film, most notably in its title: $ilence.

at the film's end, matt and leo have been taught ninja ways by a human sized sage rat. but as they prepare to "depart" back to the future, the rat ninja is overtaken by natural urges and begins gnawing at the circuirtry of the DeLorean. before Matt can get in, Leo takes off and matt is left stuck in the year 1615. franchise is left open for a third installment, following the slapstick comedy pairing of matt and his rat mentor as they travel the countryside in search of cheese. proposed title: Who Parted?

everybody wins.

[cron]

where do you get your information, pubrick. the daily growl? that's not a reputable journal of opinion.