The Departed Review

Click here to read my previous review of the Great Dictator

Number 53 on the top greatest 1000 films of all time is Martin Scorsese's 2006 crime thriller: the Departed.

Set in Boston, the Departed focuses on the lives of two different characters: Billy Costigan (Leonardo Dicaprio) a rookie crop sent deep undercover to infiltrate Frank Costello's (Jack Nicholson) criminal organisation.  However, unknown to the polie, Costello has his own mole in the police force: Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) a rising star whom Costello has groomed from a young age.  When each side discovers that they have a traitor in their midst, both Costigan and Sullivan seek to unmask each other before they are killed.

The Departed provides a raw and brutal perspective into Irish organised crime.  I am writing my dissertation on the Godfather, which I would count as my favourite book/film, so I have a strong interest in Italian American organised crime.  I found it refreshing to watch a film about a different sort of crime.  Similarly, to Goodfellas, Scorsese is unrelenting in his depiction of the viciousness of crime and what this can do to a person.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Leonardo Dicaprio's character, Billy Costigan.  Dicaprio is great in this role.  He portrays the terror that Billy feels upon the stresses of working undercover.  If Billy is discovered, then he will be killed.  The pressures of his role really begin to take their toll, as Billy slowly begins to break down under the strain.

Like any good crime film, the Departed blurs the distinction between hero and villain.  Billy Costigan's superiors Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlburg) effectively blackmail him into going undercover.  In how Colin Sullivan's character is a mole for Costello, he becomes a hero of sorts having to balance his real and fake identities.

Jack Nicholson is terriying as the psychotic mob boss Frank Costllo.  A very far cry from the sage and collected Vito Corleone, Costllo is volent, unrpedictable and despicable.   This is partly due to Nicholson's great portrayal of the character.   Nicholson reportedly made many bizarre suggestions to develop Costello's character.  One of these was showering hookers with cocaine and another is arranging to meet Sullivan in a porn theatre and surprising him with a strap-on.  Nicholson made these suggestions to add to the unpredictability of Costello's character.  This unpredictability made Costello all the more scarier of a villain.  I would argue that Nicholson is better in this villainous role than as Jack Torrence in the Shining or as the Joker in Batman.

One thing I really didn't like were Queenan and Dignam's characters.  For me, they bordered too closely on the good cop/ bad cop stereotype and they didn't seem very well-developed.  I really hated Dignam.  Granted, he is supposed to be an arsehole, but I think that Whalberg overplayed it to the extant that Dignam became a caricature of himself.

The film also isn't the easiest to follow and you do have to pay close attention to it.  This isn't really a problem until the end where four characters die in quick succession.  To quickly summarise, when Costigan finds out that Sullivan is the rat, he lures him to an empty apartment to arrest him, with another cop as backup.  However, before Billy can make the arrest, he and the other detective are shot dead by another police officer who is also one of Costello's moles.  Sullivan rewards this cop for preventing his arrest by killing him.  Upon returning home, Sullivan is then shot dead by Dignam, who has figured out that he was the rat.  Whilst Billy's death was an unexpected and good plot twist, it was slighly undone by how he was killed by such a minor character.  When the other police officer (whose name I still can't remember) walked onto screen, I was left scratching my head over who this character was and why he was so important.  This isn't helped by how he is killed immediately afterwards.

Rating: Awesome.

These shortcomings notwithstanding, the Departed is a powerful film that focuses on the darkest aspects of organised crime.  Similarly, to Goodfellas, the Departed is a crime film of Jurassic proportions.

Infernal Affairs review

 Number 196 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Hong Kong action-thriller 'Infernal Affairs.'

Set in Hong Kong, Infernal Affairs follows undercover cop Chan Wing-Yan (Tony Leung) as he infiltrates the triads to discover the mole that ruthless boss Sam (Eric Tsang) has implanted within the police. Meanwhile, Sam's mole Lau Kin-Ming (Andy Lau) is trying to discover the identity of the under cover cop in the triads. Both men are in a race against time to discover each other's identities.

If this plot sounds familiar, it's because Martin Scorsese remade this film as The Departed. But I definitely preferred Infernal Affairs. There's no doubt that the Departed is a brilliant film, but it's also very American. It's loud, brash and with very little subtlety. 

Infernal Affairs is far more nuanced. Instead of being a grandiose affair with gratuitous explosions and gunfire, it is a stripped-back story of two morally-grey characters who are born questioning their directions in life. Having said that, there was enough unnecessary cheesy slow-motion and grandiose music to make up for the endless gunfights. But I feel that is typical of most Cantonese films I've seen. Always prioritising spectacle over story.

Dicaprio was great as Wing-Yan's counterpart, but Tony Leung really keyed into the anguish that Wing must have been feeling. He was undercover for almost ten years and can slowly feel his old life slipping away.

Similarly, Andy Lau is starting to question his role in the police force, as he starts to identify as more of a cop than a robber. His boss, Sam, continuously piles on the pressure. Sam was the true villain of the film, and he was a scary villain indeed.

Whereas the Departed ends in an over-dramatic fireball explosion, Infernal Affairs is far more understated. *Spoilers* After a drug deal gone wrong, Sam runs like the coward he is, before he is betrayed and killed by his would-be protege Kin-Ming allowing him to have one last confrontation with Wing-yan before one final twist - Sam has more than one mole in the police force, and we see a flashback confirming this. A similar twist occurs in the Departed, but it was better seeded here. It was a lovely, quiet ending to a very good film.

In terms of remake vs original, while the Departed was good, it wasn't nearly as good or as nuanced as Infernal Affairs.

Jurassic Park Review

Click here to read my previous review of the Departed

So next on the list is a film I originally wasn't going to review, as I've already seen it.  However, I recently finished reading the book, so I thought I would watch and review the film adaptation.  Jurassic Park is number 309 on the top 1000 films of all time.

Based on Michael Crichton's 1990 novel of the same name, Jurassic Park is a theme park like no other.  It is run by John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) an eccentric, but kind-hearted billionaire who has funded the creation of genetically altered dinosaurs.  Just as the park is about to be opened to the public, Hammond's investors demand that it receives validation from paleontologist Alan Grant (Sam Neill) paleobotanist Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and mathematician and chaos theorist Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum.) Little do they know that things are about to go terribly wrong when the disgruntled programmer Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight) sabotages the park's computer systems.  Making up the supporting cast are B.D Wong as Chief Geneticist Henry Wu, Samuel L. Jackson as engineer Ray Arnold and Martin Ferroro as the game warden Robert Muldoon.

One reason why I didn't like the novel as much as I thought I would, as I don't think it was paced that well.  I thought that the beginning was bogged down in exposition and character development and I was relieved when the film cut out most of these details.  On IMDB I read that writer David Koepp cut out most of the character exposition, as he couldn't care less about hearing about their lives and he didn't think the audience would care either.  I think this was a smart choice to make and it led to an improvement of the film's pace.

Spielberg did well in balancing the film's science and action scenes.  At no point did it feel like one was dominant over the other.  There was just enough science to provide necessary exposition and it was distributed evenly throughout the film, rather than being concentrated in one place.  The suspsnse built well with lots of small climaxes that helped progress the narrative.  From Genarro to Nedry's deaths to Sattler discovering Arnold's severed arm, the film isn't short on scares.

Another welcome change is John Hammond's character.  In the novel, he is portrayed as ruthless, uncompromising and antagonistic.  However, his film counterpart is much more lovable and sympathetic.  This is partly due to Richard Attenborough's portrayal of him.  He is selfish and unlikeable in the book, but within the film, it is difficult not to feel sorry for him.  In contrast to the text, he isn't motivated by material profit, but rather a desire to leave something behind for others to enjoy.

I also really liked the supporting cast.  Wayne Knight was great as the corrupt weak-minded software programmer, Denis Nedry.  In the novel, he is lazy, greedy and malleable.  From his workstation being a mess to his desktop background being a picture of a half-naked woman, these qualities translated well over into the film.

Samuel L. Jackson was an interesting choice for the role of Ray Arnold.  It was a vast contrast to his more action-based roles in Pulp Fiction and Star Wars. Yet, I think that the role suited him.  He was cool, calm and in control of the scene.  I also loved the close-ups of the cigarette that was continuously hanging out of his mouth.  This was a small, but very effective touch.

One thing I didn't like was how Henry Wu's character was simply reduced to an exposition piece before being written out completely.  In the novel, he becomes a key component in saving the park, yet he is very much marginalised in the film.  As the Chief Geneticist, I feel that he is too important of a character to be brushed aside.

Lastly, God, I hated the kids. Granted they were annoying in the book, but they were insufferable in the film.  From Tim's irritating over-enthusiasm to Lex, there were no two characters I wanted more to be tor apart by the velociraptors.  In fact, I think they should have been killed and better characters like Muldoon or Arnold should have been spared.

Rating: Awesome

A great summer block-buster.  Entertaining, iconic and action thrilled.  You don't need to be a scientist to understand it, but rather have an endelss amount of patience with two annoying children.  Jurassic Park was a great look into the life of the other great creatures who once ruled the Earth.

The Great Dictator Review

Click here to read my previous review of the Silence of the Lambs

At number 52 on top 1000 films of all times, we have the Greate Dictator: arguably one of Charlie Chaplin's most political films.

Released in 1940 and set during the 30's, The Great Dictator is a vicious and biting satire of the rise of Hitler.  Charlie Chaplin plays two roles: Adenoid Hynkel, an obvious parody of Hitler and also an unnamed Jewish barber who becomes an unlikely leader of a resistance movement.  Other famous people parodied are Benzino Napolini, Garbistch and Herring who are all parodies of Mussolini, Goebbels and Goring.

What struck me the most about this film, especially watching it after Modern Times and City Lights, was its increasingly dark tone.  Obviously this is to be expcected in a film concerning Hitler, but it was still a surprise to see it in a Chaplin film, especially since he is regarded as a comic actor.  However I think that Chaplin balanced the dark tone with the comic elements well.  For example, just as the Jewish barber characyer is about to get lynched, he is saved at the last minute by a German officer whom he had fought with in the First World War.  However, the Jewish Barber is suffering from amensia and cannot remember who his saviour is.  The exchange that ensues between them is very funny.

Chaplin is best known for his silent films, but the Great Dictator was his first proper speaking film.  Whilst the physical comedy, which I will discuss later, was great, so too was the vocal comedy.  Chaplin reduces Hitler to a complete farce, by delivering speeches in German-sounding gibberish.  In another hilarious moment, when Stormtroopers demand that the Jewish Barber salutes Hilter, he replies "who?

This farce continues into the physical comedy of the film.  After Hilter gives one of his speeches, he then falls down the stairs.  To ensure that Napolini knows who is in charge, he is given a far smaller chair than Hilter.  Later, Hilter and Napolini aim to resolves their differences by having a food fight.  All of these scenes are ridiculous, but hilarious to watch.  I also really liked Joseph Goebbels' parody Garbistch.  He is strict and severe and a stark contrast to the more irreverent and illogical Hilter.  All credit to Henry Daniell for his great portrayal.

It was also interesting to see Chaplin in a more serious role, compared to hs usual comedic Tramp persona.  I think he did very well in this role. The obvious example of this is the film's standout scene.  I am of course talking about Chaplin's famous speech.  The speech is powerful, evocative and visceral.  Chaplin's delivery is impassioned and striking.  This was a definite departure away from the Tramp character which he is famous for.  The speech is as relevant now, as it was seven decades ago.

If I were to criticise this for something, then it would be its length.  The Great Dictator was two hours long, but I think it would have been much better if it had only been 90 minutes, like City Lights and Modern Times.  I felt that the narrative grew thin in places and Chaplin compensated by drawing out the comedic sequences.

I also didn't like the very end of the film.  After Chaplin delivers his famous speech, the camera then cuts to Hannah (Paulette Goddard,) Chaplin's love interest.  Through voiceover, he addresses her and tells her to look to the light.  The film ends with her gazing thoughtfully into the distance.  I felt that this was disppointing and quite anticlimactic.  I think it would have been much more powerful if the film had ended on Chaplin's famous speech.  The message would have been far stronger and more prominent.

All in all though, I did enjoy this film.  It was dark, but it was also funny.  It had some ridiculous moments but also hilarious ones.  However, the humour did wear a little thin in places.  For this reason, I am giving the Great Dictator a rating of awesome.  Charlie Chaplin might have long since departed our company, but his legacy lives on in films like these. 

Raging Bull review

Number 117 on the top 1000 films of all time is Raging Bull.  This film is considered Martin Scorsesee's Magnum Opus and earnt Robert De Niro the best acting oscar. 

Raging Bull tells the story of the rise and fall of boxer Jake La Motta. (Robert De Niro) Based on the real La Motta's autobiography, it focusses on the relationships he has with his brother and manager Joey (Joe Pesci) wife Vicky (Cathy Moriaty) and mafiosi Salvy Batts (Frank Vincent) and Tommy Como (Nicholas Colasanto.)

This is not the only boxing film I've seen.  I have also seen Rocky, but I much preferred Raging Bull.  This is because Raging bull had less of a focus on boxing and more of a focus on Jake La Motta who is a far more interesting character than Rocky Balboa, although De Niro mumbles just as much as Stallone does.  Raging Bull only has about fifteen minutes of boxing within it.  The rest of the film is dedicated to La Motta's interactions with his friends and family.  And we see how these relationships crumble, as La Motta allows his temper and paranoia to get the better of him.

He is constantly paranoid that his wife is cheating on him, going so far as to accuse her of sleeping with Joey.  This paranoia develops into a full-grown rage, as La Motta beats Joey in front of his family.  La Motta is an anti-hero of sorts who struggles deeply with his demons and seeing these struggles play out made for entertaining watching.  Upon watching, Raging Bull, the real Jake La Motta apologised to his wife for being so bad.  She corrected him, saying he was much worse.

Another way this film differs from Rocky (and this was intentional on Scorsesee's part) is how Raging Bull is in black and white.  He did this to distinguish it from Rocky, but also because the colour of the boxing gloves was throwing off the rest of he film.  And this was a great stylistic choice, adding in character and mood.

And lastly, a few words should go to Cathy Moriaty, Joe Pesci and Frank Vincent.  of course, De Niro, Pesci and Vincent are all in Scorsesee's mob thriller Goodfellas, but Pesci and Vincent are great in their own respective roles.  Pesci was convincing as La Motta's conflicted brother Joey and Vincent was great as mobster Salvy Batts.  Unfortunately, Frank Vincent died recently.  This saddened me particularly, as not only is he in Raging Bull and Goodfellas, but he also had a starring role in the Sopranos.  He is a formidable actor who shouldn't be forgotten.

It is said De Niro relaunched Scorsesee's career by convincing him to direct this film.  Thank God he did.  If he hadn't, he might not have made great films like Goodfellas, The Departed and The Wolf of Wall Street.

After Hours review

 Number 625 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Scorsesee's 1985 black-comedy 'After Hours.'

Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne) is an office worker trying to get home from Manhattan's Soho district. However, a series of misadventures makes this task more difficult than it sounds.

What do you think when you think of a Martin Scorsesee film? Endless swear words? Gangster flicks? Robert De Niro? I bet you wouldn't think of this 1980's black-comedy. Compared to the likes of Raging Bull or Taxi Driver, it's definitely not as explosive or well-known.

It was definitely one of his zaniest, most-off-the-wall films with plenty of off-beat humour to keep the plot running along nicely. The premise is simple enough: an office worker desperate to get home keeps coming up against increasingly outlandish barriers. Yes, the film does stray into the world of absurdist fiction, but you're willing to suspend your disbelief.

It helps that you had Griffin Dunne who gave Paul Hackett an everyman quality, which kept the film grounded. He was in a relatable situation; I'm sure there are many of us have had desperate journeys trying to get home after a late night. I certainly have, although I haven't remained as affable as Paul did, despite everything happening to him.

It certainly might not be as memorable as the Departed, but it might be a nice palette-cleanser after Scorsesee's more violent efforts like Gangs of New York. Either way, this is one of Scorsesee's more overlooked efforts with a great ending that brought everything full-circle.