it's a departure

I think this guy's got it exactly wrong. In the course of a ridiculous article intended mainly, I think, to be needlessly contrarian, he shoehorns in some bassackwards complaints about Jack Nicholson that he really can't substantiate.

I've heard people complain before that it's tough to see Nicholson as a character in a movie, because his off-screen persona looms so large that hampers the suspension of disbelief. It's a fair criticism, but not one, I think, that works for The Departed.

First, the author confuses his own premise by blaming a lot of things he didn't like about the movie on Nicholson. They're scenes that Nicholson is in, yes, but uh, duder? Nicholson didn't write or direct the movie, and unless you can show me some proof that he scripted those scenes, or used some sort of Hollywood muscle to get them in the final cut of the movie you need to shut up about them. They don't make your case.

Second, Nicholson gives a legitimately awesome performance in this movie. I see not a single instance when he uses his "marionette" eyebrows to insinuate a degree of awareness that is supposed to communicate to the audience a level of irony. He uses it when the scene dictates it. You can track his stepped descent into psychosis by his physical movements; this man is fully in command of his instrument, a wholly welcome balance to the wooden Matt Damon. The scene where he confronts Leo about maybe being the rat... then sneaks up behind him can scare the piss out you. (I can't find it on YouTube, but if you've seen it you know the one I'm talking about.)

How did this guy become a film critic. Honestly. What a jerkoff.