The Departed

I went to see The Departed last night with a bunch of folks, and I have to say I'm almost embarassed by how much I liked it. Normally, I'd like to strongly recommend a quirky small film or maybe make a strident case on behalf of some apparent shock or geek-out over a comic book adaptation, but this movie star-laden major studio production from super-famous director Martin Scorsese is, well, really excellent. I have an extremely low tolerance for 150 minute films, but this one managed to move along nicely with the last portion of it flirting with being too much while ultimately justifying itself. Leonardo DiCaprio, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, and (especially) Mark Wahlberg all turn-in absolutely first-rate performances and various cops. Matt Damon's limited acting abilities are very well-deployed to craft a creepy, affectless, soulless monster lurking beneath the skin of a good-looking nice guy.

William Monahan did a fantastic job of adapting Infernal Affairs in a way that brilliantly takes what's really a very Hong Kong-style story and makes it utterly Boston. Genuinly hilarious moments emerge amidst a fundamentally deeply unfunny storyline. The only weakness that really impedes one's enjoyment of the film is that Jack Nicholson really gets to be a bit too much at times, and the final shot of the film is shockingly groan-inducing. When you step back and think about it, I'm not sure the set-up really makes any sense, but it's executed nicely in a way that prevents one from thinking too much about this.

Also, it features the Dropkick Murphys' utterly awesome song, "I'm Shipping up to Boston".

Comments

I really liked Infernal Affairs. I'm glad to hear this version does it justice.

Posted by crack | October 7, 2006 11:56 AM

Also saw it last night and agree "The Departed" is a film that will be remembered. A film that includes the Dropkick Murphys in the soundtrack -- a fun but not mainstream band -- isn't seeking to play it safe. Scorsese should be recognized for achieving this result.

Posted by DC | October 7, 2006 12:04 PM

Word. I loved the Departed. Everybody going crazy with the Baaaston accents, some absolutely hilarious dialogue, and the world record for most guys getting shot point blank in the head. Also, I thought Nicholson's over-the-top-ness was, as usual, delirously entertaining. In a weak-ass Oscar year, why not finally give Marty some bling for a movie that doesn't have the glaring issues of his last few films.

Posted by matthew christman | October 7, 2006 12:57 PM

Just a quick side note: Shipping off to Boston has music by the Murphys, but the lyrics are by Woody Guthie, as was the case for the title song of "Blackout" (it's basically the Irish punk JV version of the Mermaid Ave. ptoject done by Billy Bragg and Wilco). Sounds like I have to see the movie, since the original was so cool.

Posted by jfaberuiuc | October 7, 2006 2:14 PM

There's nothing to be embarrassed about. Scorsese's a master.

Posted by Kevin B. O'Reilly | October 7, 2006 3:49 PM

A particular song being included on the soundtrack is a pretty weak reason to see (or not see) a movie.

That said, it's nice to see a mainstream-Hollywood product that's apparently solid enough to generate an honest, enthusiastic buzz from critics and viewers. I can't even remember the last film for which that happened.

I will go see it.

Posted by Jimbo X | October 7, 2006 4:24 PM

I saw it last night. Loved it. You're right about the last scene perhaps not really making any sense, but the movie itself was so much fun to watch. BTW, did anyone see previews for 300 last night? That looks pretty sweet.

Posted by Matt | October 7, 2006 5:07 PM

I share in the confusion as to why you would be almost embarrassed to have enjoyed a Scorsese movie.

Posted by Petey | October 7, 2006 6:22 PM

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was confused at the end... and not only the very last scene, but much of the last 15 minutes. Still, altogether very good, and reminded me why DiCaprio got a reputation as a good actor. LOVED Wahlberg's deliberately awful haircut.

Posted by cerebrocrat | October 7, 2006 7:59 PM

I saw it this afternoon in Sunnyside. Sunnyside isn't as Irish as it used to be but it's probably the best place outside Boston to see this great film.

Recommendation: Sit toward the front. Mind the brain splatter.

Posted by drew | October 7, 2006 8:01 PM

Saw it last night. Also loved it. Only criticism: after Nicholson's character dies, Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio basically have to carry the movie for its final 20 minutes or so. The result is that I was pretty much bored for the final 20 minutes. When Mark Wahlberg steals every scene from you (as he does to both of those guys), you know you're just not a very strong presence.

Posted by Antid Oto | October 7, 2006 9:32 PM

The movie is close to despair. At the end, there's only vengence, not justice. The machinery of orderly government has failed leaving only vigiltantism.

One could wonder how much the question of paternity and sonship reflects Scorsese's personal history, but the ending is overwhelming political. The rat at the window is set against the gilded dome of the state house. Three cheers for the Patriot Act. All sense of heritage has been lost -- Costello even has to explain Costigan's father and uncle to him, and Costigan seems only vaguely interestd. He has his own understanding which he's put together from fragments of memory and photographs. Sentimental history. Pastiche. Costigan makes a stab for Justice, but in the end there are just too many rats.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 8, 2006 1:02 AM

yes! The Depated is not a materpiece. It's a movie. Remember those? You used to go to the movies and see something decent? A lot of fun. Good laughs. there is a commentary by the by. Matt Damon's hat?? I went to film school. That is not a random decison. And the end shot, I disagree with Matt, very Ocotber 2006. The rats - all the fucking rats - be they repub or dem - are rats and they're bad for the whole damn thing.

Posted by gene | October 8, 2006 2:15 AM

Matt mentions how funny the movie is. I think a persuasive argument could be made that "The Departed" is really a pitch black comedy. Yeah, the film is an endless parade of murder, vengeance, and despair, but things become so hopeless that the only possible reaction is laughter.

Could all those headshots really be anything other than a cynical joke?

Posted by Wendell | October 8, 2006 2:20 AM

Maybe they'll finally give him an Oscar.

Maybe they'll finally give me some genuinely delicious cheese at low, low superstore prices.

Posted by Linus | October 8, 2006 11:14 AM

Only criticism: after Nicholson's character dies, Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio basically have to carry the movie for its final 20 minutes or so.

Thanks a lot asshole.

Posted by Homer | October 8, 2006 11:28 AM

Re: the ending not making sense. I don't get this. Unlike most thrillers, which usually hinge on some arbitrary and implausible chain of events, I thought the ending of The Departed was over-determined: there were multiple ways that any given character could have come to possess any given piece of information. For example (and I'm going to try balance spoiler-freeness with comprehensibility here, and probably fail), the character in the final scene could have been acting on a hunch, could have been a secret co-conspirator, or could have received the information via another character who was known to be in possession of potentially incriminating evidence (the disappearance of said evidence being a much-complained-about "hole" in the plot).

What was really implausible was that any of the characters thought they were going to get away with anything, since it's clear that nobody really had "total information awareness." (It's also implausible that certain incriminating recordings would be made by characters who were not cops and that anybody involved with murder and other violent crimes would operate under the protection of law enforcement (although something like this apparently did really happen and caused something of a scandal in Boston). These implausabilities are minor compared to the norm.)

Posted by Chris Conway | October 8, 2006 1:03 PM

Matt Damon has limited acting ability?

Posted by Dan | October 8, 2006 1:55 PM

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Dignam knew that Sullivan was lying. He didn't need the recordings that Costigan had left with the shrink. So, yes, Sullivan's comeuppance was over-determined if by that you mean that Dignam had many ways to arrive at the decision to shoot him. Dignam's choice to shoot Sullivan is the issue: vigilantism rather than a court action. The huge number of informants, rats, scumballs, and liars drew Dignam to the conclusion that there was no hope to convict Sullivan. Sullivan himself taunts Costigan with the image of arguing Sullivan's guilt before a jury.

As for implausibility, that really isn't an issue. In fiction, actions only need to be possible. Plausibility would force fiction into a statistical strait-jacket. Huck Finn isn't plausible. Hamlet isn't plausible. Etc.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 8, 2006 1:59 PM

Matt, you may want to post a spoiler warning in the heading of this post given some of these comments.

Great movie.

Posted by es | October 9, 2006 1:11 PM

Spolier alert, but really anyone reading this far should have seen the movie already. I didn't have any problem with the last scene. Dignam could have figured it out pretty easily on his own. Also remember that Leo gave the shrink an envelop to open if he got killed, it could have easily said "get this info to Dignam".

As far as the overall premise, hey it was a Hong Kong action movie what do you expect. Compared to most of them Infernal Affairs was restrained in it's preposterousness (sic?) Seen The Killer or any other Chow Yun Fat flicks?

And as far as attempts to Americanize one of them, The Departed is the only one I can think of that works.

Nicholson let "Jack" take over the performance a bit too much in the last half, but all in all one of his more restarined recent efforts.

Posted by Eric K | October 9, 2006 2:40 PM

Shenanigans!

HOW...praytell, HOW did Dignam know that Sullivan was crooked? NEVER ESSPLAINED.

first 90% of movie : A+
last 10% : F- for typical hollywood dumbassery

Posted by Bashir | October 9, 2006 3:32 PM

There was not one wrong move in this movie - the violence heart-stopping but then what do you expect? My husband was equally confused about how Dignam knew.. but ..immediately .. I had little doubt but that the envelope left with the shrink had instructions and that's how Dignam got the info.
I look forward to buying this film and adding it to my collection when available on DVD.

Posted by Rachael | October 9, 2006 4:34 PM

The first two thirds of this movie are stunningly good. The latter bit, where the reversals fly a little too fast, felt a little bit like the film was just trying to get the resolution out of the way. I would have been just as happy to see it end, abruptly, when Costigan rushed out of the office building. It would have emphasized the contingency of his identity and showed the fruit of Sullivan's evil to be a conventional life (buying groceries, sipping office coffee, and so on) in which his identity was socially stable, but totally false; a horrible fate, I would think.

Interesting, also, how the themes of this Boston film (social reputation versus historical reality, esp) overlap with Mystic River.

And also nice/refreshing/realistic to see a protoganist (Costigan) in a very violent film worry so vocally and frequently about how what he's doing is going to get him killed.

But, yeah, terrific film.

Posted by Tim Sullivan | October 9, 2006 4:45 PM

SPOILERS****
To reiterate JR from the Chicago Reader, when the two leads lose their father figure, they lose the person that anchored them to their true selves, and they were then left in the contructed reality. Costigan had no evidence that he was, in fact, a cop and not a thug, and Sullivan had no connection to the mafia when Costello died, so he was stuck being the good cop.

So maybe Costigan was lucky to get out, quick and painless.

But wouldn't the FBI have Costello's tapes? Wouldn't they, or the psychiatrist, give them to IA to investigate Sullivan? What was in the yellow envelope? Was the baby even Sullivans, or was it Costigans?

Hopefully, some deleted scenes.

Posted by chris M | October 9, 2006 5:13 PM

Just saw it, great flick EXCEPT for the use of teh Dropkick Murphys. Absoulutely the worst, overhyped band of the past decade. You're from Boston, WE GET IT. And I hate to break it to you, but every square I know likes them and has for quite a while, so they actually are pretty mainstream. Not Green Day mainstream or anything, but hardly underground.

SPOILER ALERT

So I have the same two questions as others 1) What was in the envelope Costigan gave to Sullivan's girlfriend? I'm pretty sure it was an explanation of everything, but it wasn't made clear. 2) Was the baby Costigans?

Costigan getting shot so abruptly was pretty damn jarring.

Posted by Gerald Young | October 9, 2006 10:10 PM

As to the question of how Dignam could have known, we don't know what was in Costigan's letter to Madolyn, nor what she did with it. Costigan clearly wanted to talk to Dignam at the end. You don't think he didn't throw out the name to her? He told her the conditions under which she should open the letter. He was clearly anticipating the possibilities.

Posted by Florida | October 9, 2006 11:18 PM

** SPOILER ***

Yes, the baby was probably intended to be De Caprio's--Damon's face at the cemetary seemed to showed the audience the pieces falling into place--but was it well handled? Why go to all the trouble of convincing us that Damon is impotent, only for him to think he is a father-to-be?

As interesting as the contents of the envelope De Caprio gave to the psychiatrist is why the envelope was not actually followed up in the closing scenes (regardless of its contents)? (Deleted scene? Perhaps Scorcese felt its contents and implications were over-explanatory.)

Another question is, if Nicholson was feeding info to the FBI, then the FBI knew all along where Damon's allegiances really lay. After Nicholson's death, Damon could only expect his number to be called at any time, so how could he be so cheerful? It might have been nice to see Damon sweat for a while.

Otherwise, great stuff.

Posted by Ant | October 14, 2006 4:49 PM

SPOILER ** THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE TALK TO ME

Posted by Ben Fife | October 15, 2006 12:23 AM

Just saw the film. Massive spoiler alerts:

HOW...praytell, HOW did Dignam know that Sullivan was crooked? NEVER ESSPLAINED.

As others have alluded to above, Costigan communicated from the grave via his letter to the shrink (thus it's possible Sullivan's girlfriend ratted him out in the end). But I think the simplest explanation is that Dignam must have known a lot of info to begin with -- he was, after all, heavily involved with Queenan in searching for the mole they knew they had in their midst. And after his big blow-out with Sullivan and quitting the force (or was it merely a two week forced leave of absence?) -- and no doubt learning from the evening news about the numerous colleagues of his who were getting killed -- it probably wasn't very hard for him to figure out that it had to have been Sullivan. The remaining pieces of the puzzle simply fell into place.

Another question is, if Nicholson was feeding info to the FBI, then the FBI knew all along where Damon's allegiances really lay. After Nicholson's death, Damon could only expect his number to be called at any time, so how could he be so cheerful?

If you recall, Costello assured Damon's character he had not given up his identity to the FBI. This isn't necessarily implausible. Surely a mobster of Costello's ruthlessness wouldn't want to tell everything to the feds -- only what he needed to to gain whatever favors he received in return. The FBI would have been getting dirt from Costello about other mobsters, and various goings-on in the underworld. But it's doubtful they'd be getting the minutiae of Costello's crew's activities and personnel. Indeed, this is all the more plausible when you look at the actual (recent) history of FBI/Irish mob collusion in Boston. Google "Whitey Bulger" and "FBI".

So I have the same two questions as others 1) What was in the envelope Costigan gave to Sullivan's girlfriend? I'm pretty sure it was an explanation of everything, but it wasn't made clear.

What's the great mystery here? Costigan knew he might soon be dead, and he wanted to get the story out.

2) Was the baby Costigans?

This is the most "ambiguous" ambiguity in the film, I'd say. We know Damon's character experienced sexual difficulties. On the other hand, he and the shrink seemed to have eventually attained a normal, "healthy" relationship (would she have moved in with him otherwise?). I can only presume they were consumating their relationship on a regular basis at some point. If not, I doubt she would have revealed her pregancy to Damon. So, maybe the baby was Damon's. And maybe it was DeCaprio's. There is one aspect of Damon and the Shrink's relationship that does approach the level of "plot hole", however. Given his monstrously pychopathic nature, wouldn't Sullivan's expected course of action be to kill his girlfriend, once he was aware of her dbouts about him?

My only complaint about the flick is of a minor aesthetic flaw: the Boston accents were passable. But Damon's girlfriend's was really quite bad, and this was unnecessary: I don't think there's a single hot, blond, 30ish female psychiatrist (or advanced science degree professional of any sort) who speaks with a Boston accent. The percentage of woman under, oh, 50 in Eastern Massachusetts who possess graduate degrees and talk like Cliff Clevan is vanishingly tiny.

One final note: I'm not usually a big fan, but Alec Baldwin was positively hillarious. He should do more comedy.

Posted by P B Almeida | October 16, 2006 4:20 AM

But wouldn't the FBI have Costello's tapes? Wouldn't they, or the psychiatrist, give them to IA to investigate Sullivan?

I thought one of the characters (Costigan?) said that Costello himself made the tapes -- he recorded all his conversations, in other words. He wouldn't have necessarily given all of them to the FBI, though. But what I can't recall is: how did Costigan obtain the tape he mailed to Sullivan (in the package that was intercepted by Sullivan's girlfriend)? Did he take (steal) it from Costello? Or was it given to him by the dying undercover cop? If so I missed it.

Posted by P B Almeida | October 16, 2006 4:37 AM

"How did Costigan obtain the tape he mailed to Sullivan?"

Costello's lawyer gave it to him. He says so in the same breath he invites him to 344 Wash.

"WHY DID DICAPRIO DIE AT THE END?"

On a detail level - Costigan died at the hand of the other man Costello had planted, the one Sullivan and we didn't know about. I've seen this twice now and I can now see that that character isn't as out of the blue as he seems. Little hints are dropped in his dialogue all along.

On a larger level: The film's called The Departed. It does what it says on the tin: these guys were all marked, they were all going to die, it was just a matter of when. We shouldn't have been as surprised as we were.

Posted by BBlake | October 16, 2006 10:30 AM

Costello's lawyer gave it to him. He says so in the same breath he invites him to 344 Wash.

Thanks. Two more questions, if anyone is still reading this:

1) Why did Costello's lawyer give Costigan the tape? As "insurance" in case Costello got arrested?

2) What exactly was Costigan's motive in sending the tape to Sullivan? Why would he have wanted to tip Sullivan off that he was on to him? (I'm sure I'm missing something obvious).

Posted by P.B. Almeida | October 16, 2006 11:15 AM

What exactly was Costigan's motive in sending the tape to Sullivan? Why would he have wanted to tip Sullivan off that he was on to him? (I'm sure I'm missing something obvious).

I think I just answered my own question: Costigan sent the tape to prove to Sullivan that he possessed blackmailable evidence on Sullivan, in order to force him to meet him (for the purpose of forcing Sullivan to restore his identity). OK. Now I'm officially obsessed by the flick.

Posted by P.B. Almeida | October 16, 2006 11:35 AM

How does Sullivan explain all the dead bodies at 344 Wash? He promotes Costigan for a medal, but he just deleted him from the database so nobody knows that he was a cop. Does he label the other rat as the one they were looking for? I missed some of the dialog as he was talking to the investigator about the shootings.

Also, the psych has to be 20 weeks pregnant to determine the sex of the baby, timeline is not clear but how long since she was with DiCaprio?

Posted by MJD | October 28, 2006 9:36 PM

MORE SPOILER ALERT:
The character who killed Castigan: does anyone understand know how he knew to be at 344 Wash?

Posted by jcall66 | December 31, 2006 11:28 AM

good point jcall...hadnt really thought about it untill then!
The end was more brutal than the end of Casino! For me, Sullivan's killing at the end, felt more like vengance for the chief's killing, as Dignam must of found out about Sullivan's part in his death...
A film that definately needs to be more than once, like a lot of Scorsase movies...Best since Casino.

Posted by gerardo | February 6, 2007 9:32 AM

Does anyone know why Leo's character decided to out Damon's character in the method he did? He risked his life unnecessarily it seems. He could have submitted the tape to Digham, Baldwin or somebody else. Why did he feel he had to put himself in harm's way by "arresting" Sullivan?

Posted by GBLJS | February 17, 2007 8:51 PM

Spoiler..Ok I just finished watching this. Is there a book? There is just to many question's I have that are feeding my anxiety. ;)

First of all, I really want to know the details of what was in the envelope. My guess, probably money, microchips (remember, the ones the koreans took were fake), or the truth.

2nd. Was Nicholson the biggest rat of them all? I was very unclear about this before he got shot in the tractor in admitting to Damon about feeding info to the FBI.

This movie was great. I, as well am actually obcessed now...

Posted by Pmpierce79 | February 25, 2007 10:59 PM

To Pmpierce79 the chips that the koreans in the car had were fake but koreans still took the chips. They took them out the back door and left on a boat.
Does anyone know if there are answers in the deleted scenes about what was in the envelope in the deleted scenes? Also what was the importance of matt damons character banging on the door and then leaving? why didn't he just leave? It seems like something is missing right there.

Posted by Your mom | March 20, 2007 3:07 PM

You guys are great. My wife & I just watched the movie for the second time and came away with more questions than we had after seeing it in the theater.. and all of those questions are reasonably answered here. Way to go!

Posted by Grant R | April 10, 2007 8:35 PM

i have a maybe silly question. Why does damon's character send the cops to the place where the drug thing goes on ? He was working against Nicholson's character that way. Has he just then found out that Nicholson works for the FBI then ? i was very confused at that point, because after leo's warning and matt killing him they somehow swiched roles.

Posted by your father | April 15, 2007 7:25 AM