Since Andrea has been updating (and I have so many films backlogged) I thought I might as well start off with something, though not as classy as Momofuku or as great as the Departed, that is near and dear to my heart: the comic book. Ever since I was a kid, I grew up on comics. Sure there were some lulls here and there but after High School it really kicked off again. Within these years, I've read, loved, and memorized the mythologies of dozens of superheroes. Every time I would go into a Barnes & Noble, I would pick up another graphic novel. Either it be Batman, an Alan Moore story, or just about anything really. As long as it wasn't a graphic novel adaptation of a film or a book, I devoured it like a good meal that never ended.
I won't lie and say that I started reading the comics before I saw their screen interpretations. Far from it. Like most people that have gotten into comic books today, it was the film adaptations that inspired me to learn more about these fantastic universes. I ended up catching up on a lot of them far ahead of many recent film adaptations...so I can boast that I've read them before seeing the film adaptations. When I was a kid, after school, I would always manage to watch the new Batman: The Animated Series episodes and, every Saturday, the new Spidey and Tick. Now that I'm an older and wiser man, the stories on Batman: TAS have withstood the test of time. They are marvelously complex, the animation though not consistent in quality from episode to episode was above the standard weekly fare, and the characters are iconic. The same really can't be said about the Marvel shows.
Watching the Marvel shows today, it's a wonder how many kids enjoyed it. The animation was horrible (the lip-synch was always off and the action was incredibly clunky), the dialogue was stilted, and the stories were not as memorable as the ones on Batman. Yeah, Marvel was still the tops with everything but almost everyone can agree that the DC animated shows were by far superior. Today, however, it is a different story. DC suffered with the crummy animated show The Batman for a while and Marvel has been kicking its ass with the new, revamped, and vastly improved Spider-Man show. Where did the DC talent go you may ask? Well, to the animated film division of course.
For six movies so far, the DC animated film division, headed by Bruce Timm the legendary creator of Batman: TAS and all the series that followed until The Batman, has shown how you can make incredible stories with as little time as possible. All of the films clock in less than 75 minutes but they still manage to tell a complete story with surprisingly deep character studies at times. They're also all rated PG-13 so you know you're going to get some hardcore violence and adult situations that couldn't have possibly been shown on Batman back in the day. Sure, the Batman show may have hinted at it, but this medium has allowed Bruce Timm to play with all the colors in the paintset. Overall, the only off-putting thing I will say about these films is the constant shifting around of animation styles and voice actors for the characters. Nevertheless, lets begin our long day's jouney into Dark Knight. I'll start off at the beginning: Superman Doomsday.
Superman Doomsday takes one of the most indelible comic story lines of recent times, the death of Superman, and manages to weed out all of the convoluted plotlines that followed. In the comics, after Superman died, about four different "Supermans" showed up and basically battled it out to be the next Superman until, well, the real Superman showed up and put an end to that mess. In the movie, there's only one Superman clone after Superman dies and it works greatly to the film's advantage. The Superman clone is essentially the dark side of Superman. The "Punisher with the powers of Superman" sort of Superman. Though it does ultimately feel rushed, its flaws can definitely be forgiven since it was the first film they released and they were still playing around with the medium.
Justice League: New Frontier, though not as good as Superman Doomsday, was still a pretty decent film in its own right, though potential future flaws in these films could be seen. Placing the Justice League during the Cold War was a great backdrop for creating a film about the paranoia of the period. It's also interesting how they positioned the characters within this new world. Wonder Woman is a liberator of third world countries, Superman is a pawn of the government, and Batman is a dangerous outlaw. Meanwhile, Hal Jordan becomes the Green Lantern for some reason. It feels like there's so many characters at times that the 75 minute runtime makes the film weigh down under the weight. I have yet to read the source material of this film written by Darwyn Cook. However, I feel like some of the cuts they had to make here would've been even more glaring if I read it beforehand.
A lot of the flaws that I feared would happen in future DC Animated films came true in Batman: Gotham Knight. Yeah, it's got the original voice of Batman in a faux-anime world that may or may not be based off the world Christopher Nolan created for Batman, but it feels off. Mostly I think because it was rushed out to be a tie-in with The Dark Knight so it's comprised of short stories about Batman. The short stories are really hit or miss as the animation on Batman shifts ever so slightly for each installment. Villains that are staples in the Batman universe (Scarecrow, Killer Croc, and Deadshot for starters) all battle with Batman as characters within the film give their wildly different interpretations of Bats. This style has been done before (and better) in the animated series with the episode "Legends of the Dark Knight" except this is slightly darker and bit more gritty (mostly because of the PG-13 rating). However, how fast these stories begin they end just as quickly. It's like a lesser version of the Animatrix but it does have the benefit of, well, not being The Matrix.
After being slightly disappointed with New Frontier and Gotham Knight, popping in Wonder Woman, I felt like the DC Animated Universe had already fallen into a rut so shortly after it had begun. Happily, I was proven wrong. People say the third time's the charm but, seriously, it's the fourth one that really counts. Wonder Woman, though considered one of the big three in the DC Universe, is often given the short shrift when it comes to her own series. She doesn't really have any memorable enemies like Batman or Superman and her own backstory is convoluted and muddled after so many different retellings. When the film began, I feared this would still be the case. Thankfully, this film gives her a definitive origin story, finally. The big bad too, Ares the G-d of War, also stands up on his own as an interesting villain that I could see in the eventual live-action Wonder Woman movie. It's amazing how well the film blended Greek mythology and superheroes so seamlessly. As a feminist, I loved how this film came off at times as the female version of 300. Plus, Nathan Fillion. Come on. You can't beat that.
After seeing Green Lantern's origin in New Frontier, picking up Green Lantern: First Flight, I was expecting a quick cash-in retread. Nope. Not in the least. This is THE definitive DC Animated Universe film that really has set the standard for any film in the future. This film came out of nowhere. I've recently been reading more Green Lantern considering Geoff Johns run on the comic, like his run on the Flash, has completely revolutionized the character. It's sad at times that it's so amazing because no other interpretation can come close to it. This is the closest I've seen so far and if the live-action film is even a quarter good as this, we're going to be in for a helluva ride. I don't want to spoil anything for this film because what makes it is the surprises. Sure, you know Sinestro is the Green Lantern's archnemesis but, in this film, you really get to see how devious he could be. Seeing him and Hal Jordan as green lanterns working together is utterly brilliant. A lot of people have compared this to "Training Day" but I have to say I was reminded sometimes of "The Departed" throughout it...except, well, in space and more epic. In 70 minutes, the film told the perfect origin story of Hal Jordan. A lot of films spindle around 150 minutes and blow it all on big special effect battles and little else (*cough*Spider-Man 3*cough*) This film shows how an economy of time does not necessarily mean dearth of story. By the time it was over, like Wonder Woman, I'm eagerly anticipating more films of this Hal Jordan.
Finally, the latest film, Batman and Superman: Public Enemies. This film fits in an odd place within the DC Animated film totempole. The story isn't as refined as Green Lantern: First Flight or Wonder Woman, but it has the excitement of the latter two titles over the previous three. What makes this film is that it's a reunion of sorts. The original voices of Batman, Superman, and Lex Luthor finally return in a PG-13 movie but with a completely different animation style. Plus, seeing the original voice of Luthor saying "bitch" was pretty mind-blowing. This really feels like the true return of Kevin Conroy (the original voice of Batman) considering Gotham Knight was merely okay. The film is essentially an extended battle as Batman and Superman flee a plethora of a supervillains and superheroes that are trying to collect the billion dollar bounty on Superman's head by President Luthor. The film begins auspiciously with the world plunging into chaos due to a terrible economy (socially relevant much?) and President Luthor comes to power to rectify all of this. Of course, he does, 'cause he's a real smarty but he's also still Lex Luthor. Hilarity and battles ensue. It doesn't have the emotional impact as Green Lantern (I mean, when you're being framed for murdering an android, it doesn't really necessitate the extensive manhunt that ensues) but it's still fun to watch. Something about Batman and Superman fighting an onslaught of all the ice villains in the DC Universe is something endearing.
Well, that was the DC Animated Universe so far. What of the Marvel animated film universe you ask? Well, it sucks mostly. Just like the situation on TV, apparently all of the people working on the 90's Marvel toons ended up on the films. Their quality really reflects the current animated film slate. Seriously, how could they screw up the Avengers movie? Especially after basing it off Mark Millar's incredible run on The Ultimates? It's sad even to think about.
Phew, that was a lot to write in one night. I need to get some sleep though all. The perils of the working world have given me a migraine and the sleeping patterns of a man three times my age. Goodnight one and all! I remain obediently yours, -Brett
Film Scores:
Superman Doomsday: 8 out of 10
Justice League: New Frontier: 7.5 out of 10
Batman: Gotham Knight: 7 out of 10
Wonder Woman: 9 out of 10
Green Lantern: First Flight: 10 out of 10
Superman and Batman: Public Enemies: 8.5 out of 10
Friday, October 30, 2009
Our first restaurant review!
Finally I'm able to post a restaurant review! Pretty sweet, yes?
I think it's perfect that right before I saw The Departed I dined at the exclusive and often raved about Momofuku Ko (not to be mistaken with the noodle bar, they are two different entities).
I have to say when I first heard about this place, I had my doubts. It seemed like the typical "one hit wonder" restaurant if you will, where you hear about them for about a good month when they're a hit and then just fade out of popularity.
I felt that it was going to be super presumptuous. There are only twelve seats in the entire place. Can we say snobbily exclusive anyone? Essentially if you want a reservation, you have to create an account on their website and log in at exactly 10 AM the week before you want to go and hope that you can snag a reservation. Take my sister, for instance. She tried for a good two weeks before getting one. Let's also consider the staggering price for a moment: $125 per meal! Granted, you do have ten courses to get through. You can't order a' la carte and pick and choose what you want in order to lower that price. As soon as you walk into the place, bam, $125 is blown and Chang delivers you his customized menu for that day. An extra $90 per person if you want the alcohol pairings. (Just as a note, I don't think its partner restaurant, the noodle bar, works like this--it is much more affordable and easier to get into).
Now the prices vary according to the season and what food is available on what day. That's a definite plus of this place. The owner and main chef, David Chang, goes to local farms and markets to pick up the freshest produce and meats that he can find. You won't find any fresher, since he does this daily. And he refuses to accommodate vegetarians: if you don't eat meat or fish, too bad, you're out of luck. Ouch. Odd to find (FINALLY) a restaurant in New York that won't deal with these wussy vegetarians.
After spending a good ten minutes looking for this cockamamie place, my sister and I realize it's semi-hidden. Its facade looks like a prison, or more realistically, a closed store. It has all bars in front of its door and store front. We had to use my sister's blackberry to find the exact address in order to find it. Then we saw this tiny window (the only way to see inside the restaurant) and realized we were in the right place.
The food can mostly (not all) be described in two words: unique and delicious. Each flavor delicately accompanies each other to create a balance among foods you would never ever picture together. Some stand out items on the menu were the Spanish mackerel (served practically raw, lightly seared), cornbread (sounds simple, but it was out of this world; was served at the beginning of the meal as a mini-appetizer), a poached egg (served with parsley and a special sauce), and his dessert sampling. For dessert, the cottage cheese cake was fantastic, served alongside squash sorbet. Who would ever imagine that squash could be delicious in a frozen form or dessert! And cottage cheese in a cheese cake?? It sounds so odd, but worked quite nicely together.
I have to admit not all of his dishes made me leap out of my chair and scream how great it was. The octopus was nothing to rave about, the mussel we were served wasn't very good (a bit bland), and the meat was nothing special.
My biggest complaint lies with the alcohol pairing. I may actually say that it was downright awful. DO NOT GET IT IF YOU GO THERE. The waiters and waitresses seemed to not care if you liked the wine or not and weren't very knowledgeable about the choices when I had asked some questions about the vintage. They also had sake pairings with particular entrees. My sister and I both hate sake, but we tried it anyway. It didn't seem to be a good match. Chang buys a "once pasteurized" sake, which I questioned the waitress about to which she bullshitted me this ridiculous explanation, only to have another waiter butt in and answer the question properly. If you don't know the answer, just tell me you're not sure and find someone who does know the answer. Seems simple enough.
If you take a place like Per Se, ranked as the third best restaurant in New York City (and well-deserved), their alcohol pairings are exceptional with their trained sommeliers. They gear it towards your tastes (they ask you questions about what kind of wines you like) and allow you to taste it, ensuring that you like it. If you don't like it (which did happen to my table), you simply send it back and get a different one. So it perfectly goes with your meal and you enjoy what you're drinking! Your glass is also never empty there, they're constantly re-filling it to make sure you're happy. Here at Momofuku Ko they did none of this: the choices were already chosen and some of the wines were just terrible. We had to force it down. One was superb, surprisingly a Californian, for which we asked the name of it and the waitress gave it to us on an index card (good job!). They also didn't let you try the wine beforehand, nor did they care if you liked it or not. And our glasses were constantly empty if you weren't eating anything! They only give you a total of 3-4 glasses of wine for ten courses (the wine disappears really fast). We ordered another bottle of wine, only to be met with rude glances and looks and choose a $65 bottle of Tuscan red wine. The waitress commended us on our choice, saying that Chang prides himself on this wine in particular, since he purchased it while he was in Italy. It was just OK. I've spent a year in Florence, Tuscany, and I've definitely had wayyyyy better. Especially for $65! I take a look at the label, and it was a "vino da tavola" aka a "table wine." Hm.
Final Score: 7.5
Yes, it was great, but you need to be really adventurous. Personally I feel that it's a once in a lifetime experience...intended to be done only once. It's sorta like Moulin Rouge in Paris: you go once to have the experience of being there (and just to say that you did it), you enjoy it, you have some fun, but would you do it again? Nah. I think I'll pass. Unless Veronica is up for trying their lunch.... (WITHOUT THE PAIRINGS)
Go take a peek at their restaurant, located at 163 1st Avenue between 10th and 11th Streets.
I think it's perfect that right before I saw The Departed I dined at the exclusive and often raved about Momofuku Ko (not to be mistaken with the noodle bar, they are two different entities).
I have to say when I first heard about this place, I had my doubts. It seemed like the typical "one hit wonder" restaurant if you will, where you hear about them for about a good month when they're a hit and then just fade out of popularity.
I felt that it was going to be super presumptuous. There are only twelve seats in the entire place. Can we say snobbily exclusive anyone? Essentially if you want a reservation, you have to create an account on their website and log in at exactly 10 AM the week before you want to go and hope that you can snag a reservation. Take my sister, for instance. She tried for a good two weeks before getting one. Let's also consider the staggering price for a moment: $125 per meal! Granted, you do have ten courses to get through. You can't order a' la carte and pick and choose what you want in order to lower that price. As soon as you walk into the place, bam, $125 is blown and Chang delivers you his customized menu for that day. An extra $90 per person if you want the alcohol pairings. (Just as a note, I don't think its partner restaurant, the noodle bar, works like this--it is much more affordable and easier to get into).
Now the prices vary according to the season and what food is available on what day. That's a definite plus of this place. The owner and main chef, David Chang, goes to local farms and markets to pick up the freshest produce and meats that he can find. You won't find any fresher, since he does this daily. And he refuses to accommodate vegetarians: if you don't eat meat or fish, too bad, you're out of luck. Ouch. Odd to find (FINALLY) a restaurant in New York that won't deal with these wussy vegetarians.
After spending a good ten minutes looking for this cockamamie place, my sister and I realize it's semi-hidden. Its facade looks like a prison, or more realistically, a closed store. It has all bars in front of its door and store front. We had to use my sister's blackberry to find the exact address in order to find it. Then we saw this tiny window (the only way to see inside the restaurant) and realized we were in the right place.
The food can mostly (not all) be described in two words: unique and delicious. Each flavor delicately accompanies each other to create a balance among foods you would never ever picture together. Some stand out items on the menu were the Spanish mackerel (served practically raw, lightly seared), cornbread (sounds simple, but it was out of this world; was served at the beginning of the meal as a mini-appetizer), a poached egg (served with parsley and a special sauce), and his dessert sampling. For dessert, the cottage cheese cake was fantastic, served alongside squash sorbet. Who would ever imagine that squash could be delicious in a frozen form or dessert! And cottage cheese in a cheese cake?? It sounds so odd, but worked quite nicely together.
I have to admit not all of his dishes made me leap out of my chair and scream how great it was. The octopus was nothing to rave about, the mussel we were served wasn't very good (a bit bland), and the meat was nothing special.
My biggest complaint lies with the alcohol pairing. I may actually say that it was downright awful. DO NOT GET IT IF YOU GO THERE. The waiters and waitresses seemed to not care if you liked the wine or not and weren't very knowledgeable about the choices when I had asked some questions about the vintage. They also had sake pairings with particular entrees. My sister and I both hate sake, but we tried it anyway. It didn't seem to be a good match. Chang buys a "once pasteurized" sake, which I questioned the waitress about to which she bullshitted me this ridiculous explanation, only to have another waiter butt in and answer the question properly. If you don't know the answer, just tell me you're not sure and find someone who does know the answer. Seems simple enough.
If you take a place like Per Se, ranked as the third best restaurant in New York City (and well-deserved), their alcohol pairings are exceptional with their trained sommeliers. They gear it towards your tastes (they ask you questions about what kind of wines you like) and allow you to taste it, ensuring that you like it. If you don't like it (which did happen to my table), you simply send it back and get a different one. So it perfectly goes with your meal and you enjoy what you're drinking! Your glass is also never empty there, they're constantly re-filling it to make sure you're happy. Here at Momofuku Ko they did none of this: the choices were already chosen and some of the wines were just terrible. We had to force it down. One was superb, surprisingly a Californian, for which we asked the name of it and the waitress gave it to us on an index card (good job!). They also didn't let you try the wine beforehand, nor did they care if you liked it or not. And our glasses were constantly empty if you weren't eating anything! They only give you a total of 3-4 glasses of wine for ten courses (the wine disappears really fast). We ordered another bottle of wine, only to be met with rude glances and looks and choose a $65 bottle of Tuscan red wine. The waitress commended us on our choice, saying that Chang prides himself on this wine in particular, since he purchased it while he was in Italy. It was just OK. I've spent a year in Florence, Tuscany, and I've definitely had wayyyyy better. Especially for $65! I take a look at the label, and it was a "vino da tavola" aka a "table wine." Hm.
Final Score: 7.5
Yes, it was great, but you need to be really adventurous. Personally I feel that it's a once in a lifetime experience...intended to be done only once. It's sorta like Moulin Rouge in Paris: you go once to have the experience of being there (and just to say that you did it), you enjoy it, you have some fun, but would you do it again? Nah. I think I'll pass. Unless Veronica is up for trying their lunch.... (WITHOUT THE PAIRINGS)
Go take a peek at their restaurant, located at 163 1st Avenue between 10th and 11th Streets.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Through all the work and all the turmoil, here I am to post an entry! :). Once again Bretty McBretterson has recommended me another great film, The Departed. And I think that nickname for Brett (among the many I give to him) really suits the flavor of the movie, considering we're delving deep into the secret world of the Irish mafia of Boston...so Mr. McBretterson, here we go!
I'm going to start by saying that Martin Scorsese is one of my favorite film directors, if not my all time favorite. He just so brilliantly captures the human experience on film, especially disappointment, sadness (ah, yes, remember my whole fascination with bleak cinema?), betrayal, and especially desperation. And of course, who could forget his memorable masterpieces depicting mob and gang life? No (Italian)American director understands true Italian cinema like he does, nor does any one else capture it as he does, couched within his American-themed movies. I recall there being a remake of the Italian classic Umberto D with an old man and his cat called Harry and Tonto. Though it was a valiant effort, and he was following a brilliant masterpiece, his own version paled in comparison. And though some people may disagree with me, it lost the magic that Umberto D had. It removed all traces of the neorealist experience and any inherent Italian traits that the movie possessed. If anyone should have re-done that movie, it should have been Mr. Scorsese (where is that man when you need him??). Remember Scorsese's Mean Streets? It reads as a re-make of Fellini's I Vitelloni! He wasn't straight up copying it, nor butchering it, but taking some cinematic elements from Fellini and making them his own. Alas, I digress. I just love gushing about Scorsese and mocking other directors who try to walk in his footsteps. My apologies. On to The Departed!!
There is no doubt in my mind that this was a brilliant film: it kept me hanging until the very last second, it was unpredictable, it was edgy. Let's not forget the tension that was persistently built where I couldn't take my eyes off the screen even for a second. I refused to pause the movie and get up to pee HAHAHA, no joke. You hung on every word to see where the story would go. The twists and turns were remarkable!
Clearly the theme of this movie is betrayal. And it's not just betrayal from one person, but it comes at you from different angles from all the main characters. And I'm not just talking about Sullivan, Costigan, Frank, and the other obvious choices, but there are others too. For instance, let's not forget about Madolyn's steamy affair with Costigan. Bet you guys didn't even THINK of that! Here she is as a psychiatrist trying to help mentally unstable people when she has her own tremendous problems. And, really, there is not one virtuous or 100% trustworthy character in this movie. They all betray, lie, cheat, manipulate, and are self-serving. Oh, the joys of a bleak movie! I LOVE IT!
By the end of the film, the police is depicted as being as just as bad as the mafia. They've been reduced to the same tactics. Keep in mind they're using an undercover man to infiltrate the mafia because they consider Costigan as expendable (Dignam emphasizes this, and though Queenan does not directly say it, I'm sure he's thinking it, since he refuses to get Costigan out of that situation even when he beseeches him to). Not only that, but let's keep in mind that fantastic image of the film: where Dignam finally shoots Sullivan. Now instead of showing up at his apartment saying that he will be brought to justice, he turns to sheer violence. Granted, yes, he IS retired from the police force, but that shouldn't stop him from making a citizen's arrest.
You feel torn in the film. And what do I mean by that? Well, you feel as if you can't side with either Sullivan or Costigan. Who do you root for? Who CAN you root for??? Who's the one we want to achieve his goals? You literally remain suspended throughout the movie: you're not hoping that one or the other succeeds, but merely hoping that neither one gets caught! It is a bit reminiscent of Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers where both sides, the native Algerians and their European French counterparts, are committing injustices (if none of you have seen this classic, please go rent it now so you can understand what I'm talking about). There really is no "good" or "bad" guy. Once again, I feel that Scorsese takes this idea from an Italian classic. I'm sure someone out there can write a paper on it...HINT HINT!
Now here I sit praising the hell out of this film. Of course I loved it, but unfortunately, I found some unsightly flaws. I'll start with the biggest blunder of the entire film that almost destroyed it for me: the rat that crawls on the banister at the ending. HATED HATED HATED this ending. That's the ONE flaw I simply can't get past. It was way too much "in your face" symbolism at the wrong time and turned out to be kind of lame, rather than the chilling effect that Scorsese was going for. I mean, here we have this amazing and gruesome homocide. That should be the final image left in our mind, Sullivan's blood spilled in his own apartment, the bag of donuts tossed onto the floor. Think resonance, that ever important cinematic effect, where in a previous scene Madolyn and Sullivan share a doughnut together in their new house.
Now, if Scorsese really wanted to use an actual 'rat' in the film, I would recommend it in one scene only. It would've been more effective if it had jumped out of the sewers and onto the lifeless body of Frank and started eating his flesh. NOW THAT IS BRILLIANCE! (And damn, I should've been a filmmaker). But as a final image, it was highly ineffective and almost cheapens the previous murder that stuck out so much in my mind. I'm being totally honest here: I actually rolled my eyes at that part. COME ON, SCORSESE, YOU'RE BETTER THAN THAT!!!
Naturally when one flaw arises, there will be others to follow. These are minor, I must say, and I'm willing to look past them. I'll list a couple of them. When sullivan just 'deletes' costigan's police profile, I literally said outloud "Um no?" Honestly, that doesn't (and can't!) happen in real life.....but again! I'm choosing to look past it. After all, it IS just a movie. I will suspend my grip on reality and just let it be. And right before that, I highly doubt that Sullivan would keep the "Citizens" envelope right in plain sight that would pinpoint him immediately as Frank's accomplice, especially since he knows there's an undercover amidst the police squad. Though I will admit, these elements worked quite nicely for the story.
I bet some people wouldn't 'buy' Costigan just running out of Sullivan's office after he discovers Sullivan's the rat, but I did! It keeps in line with character development, since Costigan is hopped up on pills. He certainly isn't thinking straight, can't take the pressure, and probably didn't know what to do. He freaked out. I'm sure people were also annoyed by Costigan answering his phone after Queenan's death when it's coming from that same number (and Costigan knows it's from Queenan's phone). Some may say "OH THAT'S STUPID, HE WOULDN'T HAVE ANSWERED IT SINCE COSTIGAN KNOWS HE DIED"...but, once again, he's not of sound mind. It worked for me.
I will say one other thing concerning the acting. The whole cast is brilliant and worked so well together. Now, first off: Jack Nicholson. The man is a legend. This is why I'm obsessed with him. He just pulls off parts so convincingly and you forget that you're even watching a movie sometimes! And to this day I don't get why people say Leonardo Di Caprio is a bad actor. I think movies like this, especially when he pairs with Scorsese as a director, really make him shine. And his unforgettable performance in What's Eating Gilbert Grape is really a stand-out role. The only complaint I have about Leo is when he slips in and out of accents, but it's really no big deal in my opinion. Hey, accents are hard to pull off! And Marky Mark (har har. aka Mark Wahlberg) really shocked me. That was a fabulous performance, arguably even better than Nicholson. I didn't expect that from him at all.
Final Score: 9.0
I would've give it a 10 had it not been for that damn rat in the ending scene. Damn am I still tempted to go ahead and give it that 10! But I will not, despite my obvious bias towards Scorsese's brilliance.
I'm going to start by saying that Martin Scorsese is one of my favorite film directors, if not my all time favorite. He just so brilliantly captures the human experience on film, especially disappointment, sadness (ah, yes, remember my whole fascination with bleak cinema?), betrayal, and especially desperation. And of course, who could forget his memorable masterpieces depicting mob and gang life? No (Italian)American director understands true Italian cinema like he does, nor does any one else capture it as he does, couched within his American-themed movies. I recall there being a remake of the Italian classic Umberto D with an old man and his cat called Harry and Tonto. Though it was a valiant effort, and he was following a brilliant masterpiece, his own version paled in comparison. And though some people may disagree with me, it lost the magic that Umberto D had. It removed all traces of the neorealist experience and any inherent Italian traits that the movie possessed. If anyone should have re-done that movie, it should have been Mr. Scorsese (where is that man when you need him??). Remember Scorsese's Mean Streets? It reads as a re-make of Fellini's I Vitelloni! He wasn't straight up copying it, nor butchering it, but taking some cinematic elements from Fellini and making them his own. Alas, I digress. I just love gushing about Scorsese and mocking other directors who try to walk in his footsteps. My apologies. On to The Departed!!
There is no doubt in my mind that this was a brilliant film: it kept me hanging until the very last second, it was unpredictable, it was edgy. Let's not forget the tension that was persistently built where I couldn't take my eyes off the screen even for a second. I refused to pause the movie and get up to pee HAHAHA, no joke. You hung on every word to see where the story would go. The twists and turns were remarkable!
Clearly the theme of this movie is betrayal. And it's not just betrayal from one person, but it comes at you from different angles from all the main characters. And I'm not just talking about Sullivan, Costigan, Frank, and the other obvious choices, but there are others too. For instance, let's not forget about Madolyn's steamy affair with Costigan. Bet you guys didn't even THINK of that! Here she is as a psychiatrist trying to help mentally unstable people when she has her own tremendous problems. And, really, there is not one virtuous or 100% trustworthy character in this movie. They all betray, lie, cheat, manipulate, and are self-serving. Oh, the joys of a bleak movie! I LOVE IT!
By the end of the film, the police is depicted as being as just as bad as the mafia. They've been reduced to the same tactics. Keep in mind they're using an undercover man to infiltrate the mafia because they consider Costigan as expendable (Dignam emphasizes this, and though Queenan does not directly say it, I'm sure he's thinking it, since he refuses to get Costigan out of that situation even when he beseeches him to). Not only that, but let's keep in mind that fantastic image of the film: where Dignam finally shoots Sullivan. Now instead of showing up at his apartment saying that he will be brought to justice, he turns to sheer violence. Granted, yes, he IS retired from the police force, but that shouldn't stop him from making a citizen's arrest.
You feel torn in the film. And what do I mean by that? Well, you feel as if you can't side with either Sullivan or Costigan. Who do you root for? Who CAN you root for??? Who's the one we want to achieve his goals? You literally remain suspended throughout the movie: you're not hoping that one or the other succeeds, but merely hoping that neither one gets caught! It is a bit reminiscent of Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers where both sides, the native Algerians and their European French counterparts, are committing injustices (if none of you have seen this classic, please go rent it now so you can understand what I'm talking about). There really is no "good" or "bad" guy. Once again, I feel that Scorsese takes this idea from an Italian classic. I'm sure someone out there can write a paper on it...HINT HINT!
Now here I sit praising the hell out of this film. Of course I loved it, but unfortunately, I found some unsightly flaws. I'll start with the biggest blunder of the entire film that almost destroyed it for me: the rat that crawls on the banister at the ending. HATED HATED HATED this ending. That's the ONE flaw I simply can't get past. It was way too much "in your face" symbolism at the wrong time and turned out to be kind of lame, rather than the chilling effect that Scorsese was going for. I mean, here we have this amazing and gruesome homocide. That should be the final image left in our mind, Sullivan's blood spilled in his own apartment, the bag of donuts tossed onto the floor. Think resonance, that ever important cinematic effect, where in a previous scene Madolyn and Sullivan share a doughnut together in their new house.
Now, if Scorsese really wanted to use an actual 'rat' in the film, I would recommend it in one scene only. It would've been more effective if it had jumped out of the sewers and onto the lifeless body of Frank and started eating his flesh. NOW THAT IS BRILLIANCE! (And damn, I should've been a filmmaker). But as a final image, it was highly ineffective and almost cheapens the previous murder that stuck out so much in my mind. I'm being totally honest here: I actually rolled my eyes at that part. COME ON, SCORSESE, YOU'RE BETTER THAN THAT!!!
Naturally when one flaw arises, there will be others to follow. These are minor, I must say, and I'm willing to look past them. I'll list a couple of them. When sullivan just 'deletes' costigan's police profile, I literally said outloud "Um no?" Honestly, that doesn't (and can't!) happen in real life.....but again! I'm choosing to look past it. After all, it IS just a movie. I will suspend my grip on reality and just let it be. And right before that, I highly doubt that Sullivan would keep the "Citizens" envelope right in plain sight that would pinpoint him immediately as Frank's accomplice, especially since he knows there's an undercover amidst the police squad. Though I will admit, these elements worked quite nicely for the story.
I bet some people wouldn't 'buy' Costigan just running out of Sullivan's office after he discovers Sullivan's the rat, but I did! It keeps in line with character development, since Costigan is hopped up on pills. He certainly isn't thinking straight, can't take the pressure, and probably didn't know what to do. He freaked out. I'm sure people were also annoyed by Costigan answering his phone after Queenan's death when it's coming from that same number (and Costigan knows it's from Queenan's phone). Some may say "OH THAT'S STUPID, HE WOULDN'T HAVE ANSWERED IT SINCE COSTIGAN KNOWS HE DIED"...but, once again, he's not of sound mind. It worked for me.
I will say one other thing concerning the acting. The whole cast is brilliant and worked so well together. Now, first off: Jack Nicholson. The man is a legend. This is why I'm obsessed with him. He just pulls off parts so convincingly and you forget that you're even watching a movie sometimes! And to this day I don't get why people say Leonardo Di Caprio is a bad actor. I think movies like this, especially when he pairs with Scorsese as a director, really make him shine. And his unforgettable performance in What's Eating Gilbert Grape is really a stand-out role. The only complaint I have about Leo is when he slips in and out of accents, but it's really no big deal in my opinion. Hey, accents are hard to pull off! And Marky Mark (har har. aka Mark Wahlberg) really shocked me. That was a fabulous performance, arguably even better than Nicholson. I didn't expect that from him at all.
Final Score: 9.0
I would've give it a 10 had it not been for that damn rat in the ending scene. Damn am I still tempted to go ahead and give it that 10! But I will not, despite my obvious bias towards Scorsese's brilliance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)