Pacto criminal

Black Mass serves as a nice redemption for the floundering career of Johnny Depp, who has leaned more on quirky voices and loud makeup than his actual skills in recent years. His portrayal of mob boss Whitey Bulger is a powerhouse performance and easily his best since he first introduced the world to Jack Sparrow. It's too bad the movie as a whole doesn't fair quite as well. Despite a great cast and some interestingly insane source material, somehow a movie about one of America's most infamous criminals feels more like small claims court. Director Cooper focuses his narrative on Bulger's less-than-legal partnership with the FBI. It's a fascinatingly close-knit community we witness (agents, felons, politicians, and families alike) in which loyalty and corruption go hand-in-hand. It's a grimy yet quiet 70's-feel gangster film that engages its audience nearly as much as it reminds them of better films. Therein lies its big problem: What is Black Mass offering that hasn't already been perfected in other gangster films? Unfortunately, instead of a true movie-making vision, it's like a guy watched every crime drama from the last 40 years and just spit out a less-interesting copycat. Not that a counterfeit of something great can't still have its positives: the score is beautiful and the performances from the top-notch cast around Depp are nearly as superb as his, all of whom nail the oft-parodied Bostonian accent with aplomb. But with too many side plots to juggle, not enough cohesion to the storytelling, and an unfortunate lack of auteur vision, Black Mass just can't stand against the great American crime films of yore (Chinatown, Godfather, Goodfellas).

The icy blue eyes of notorious Boston crime boss James "Whitey" Bulger stare out from the screen in Scott Cooper's "Black Mass" like the gaze of some confident jungle predator calmly lying in wait, holding his ground until the moment he moves in for the kill. And that same coolly calculated composure extends to every aspect of how the actor playing Bulger embodies the role, or rather disappears into it. But if Johnny Depp's mesmerizing performance — a bracing return to form for the star after a series of critical and commercial misfires — is the chief selling point of "Black Mass," there is much else to recommend this sober, sprawling, deeply engrossing evocation of Bulger's South Boston fiefdom and his complex relationship with the FBI agent John Connolly, played with equally impressive skill by Joel Edgerton. Something of an anti-"The Departed" (which was partly inspired by the Bulger case), the movie has an intentionally muted, '70s-style look and feel that may limit its appeal to the date-night multiplex crowd, but quality- starved adult moviegoers should flock to one of the fall's first serious, awards-caliber attractions. Not only that but Benedict Cumberbatch (who plays as a Senator and as Whitey's brother) has given a stellar performance. He is truly a talented person who gives his all in every film/show he acts.

BOTTOM LINE: Johnny Depp deserves an Oscar, if not then at least a nomination. Truly worth watching

Despite it's generic approach to it's story, Black Mass is still a great crime drama that's tense, thrilling and chilling. Johnny Depp gives an incredible lead performance and one of the best performances of his career. Joel Edgerton, Benedict Cumberbatch, Kevin Bacon and Corey Stoll all give great supporting performances. Scott Cooper's direction is also great, it's well filmed and extremely well paced. The music by Tom Holkenborg and the soundtrack are both good.

According to Kevin Weeks, a member of Whitey Bulger's Winter Hill Gang, "The only resemblance to Whitey's character was the hairline.... The mannerisms--the way Whitey talked to us--he never swore at us. In all the years I was with that man, he never swore at me once. We never yelled at each other.... The language is all wrong...and Whitey would never have berated Stevie, either. Stevie was a psychopath. Stevie would have killed him...Stevie wasn't all sympathetic, mourning and sorrowful like he is in the movie. Stevie enjoyed murder." Of course, a gang leader who bullies his thugs may not have much future. Why this discrepancy? I suppose Hollywood people assume that gangsters are always menacing. The thought that they are often charming and solicitous would not occur to Hollywood people, who have more experience in offices than on the street. It's more fun and easier to have the bad guy twirl his mustache or dress in black than to create a nuanced, complex character. Leaders lead because their followers have selected them. Still, for people who haven't met many murderers, Johnny Depp's performance is very convincing.

I was very interested in watching this film as a true-crime buff. We all understand that there will be a certain amount of theatrical license taken whenever dealing with such subject matter. I didn't expect it to be too far off base from reality since the Whitey Bulger fiasco has been highly publicized. Johnny Depp was a little odd choice in my opinion by his been known to pull bigger rabbits on the hat (even literally). Good to have Johnny Depp reminders every once in while he's a legitimate actor not just trying to fund additional island property.

The problem in films of this nature tend to be how familiar the general public is with the issues and our opinions of what we believe reality to be. We hold film a little too stringently against reality or at least what the media has presented as reality to most of us. I would like to think that enough due diligence has gone into whatever form of dramaturgy has happened by responsible parties to present a relatively balanced film. But in general we want the grit and grime without regard for legalities or implications.

True, the film focuses on alliances and the levity provided that we have always suspected. And we have seen a ton of films in this genre with such focus and we have fabricated our own concepts of how such organizations work, how such unholy alliances are formed, and therefore have an expectation of what we should see. This past history in turn doesn't really provide a fair shake for any film in the current time frame as we have so much the compare it to.

I believe that the real demystification of this spell (not to say the cast wasn't good or to question the deftness of Depp) is that we seem to have seen this story a lot. We know how it ends, we realize there's very little arc and we'd like to see a twist to the hat trick that we haven't seen before... If it sticks to the reality of the situation, it's simply not gonna happen.

Does it deliver? Yes. Is it a Tarantino yarn? Not remotely. Will you be entertained, to a greater extent? Yes.

I think this year DiCaprio may have Depp on this one.