twang-2

Anyone expecting an historical chronology along the lines of The Godfather will be disappointed by this. Not that they should be - the sets are superb and the acting mostly first-class (yes, even Di Caprio). The film is set in a period of American history that (to my knowledge, at least) has rarely been used in film before. The whole tale of Five Points (sited where Wall Street is today!) is a fascinating depiction of a country in the making. It might be almost three hours long, but it certainly isn't boring. Perhaps Gangs of New York should be seen as a cinema counterpoint to Sleepy Hollow - that periwigged world between the Georgian colonists of the turn of the century and the frontier Wild West of the 1870s. Eat your heart out, LA gangs - America has never been so lawless... What lets the film down is the parallel plot of the affair between Di Caprio and Diaz which, for me, had too many overtones of Titanic without the water. Not that it's particularly bad, just that it's unneccesary in the context of such a big story. It's a pity, really - when you should be getting The Godfather, you feel you've somehow ended up with West Side Story... Di Caprio is the surprise - it's nice to see the man can act. Cameron Diaz is bewitching as the pickpocket who steals his heart. But it's Daniel Day Lewis who really takes the honours. Overwhelmingly charismatic as Bill the Butcher, this man has power on screen. If he doesn't get an Oscar, I'll eat my stovepipe hat... Gangs of New York is by no means without faults. Don't let any of this put you off, though - this is a powerful film that's worth seeing. And don't worry Mr Scorsese - if it bombs now, it will be seen as a classic in the future.

Most people who watch Croupier will not have the faintest idea what it is like to even visit a casino, let alone work in one. Having done both, I can testify that Paul Mayersburg and Mike Hodges have done a fine job of conveying the atmosphere of a gaming environment, turning a reasonable plotline into a pretty watchable film. Croupier also has a high degree of technical accuracy (although the tech advisor should have pointed out that roulette wheels are never allowed to stop spinning while a table is open for business...)

British casinos are much more low-key in appearance than their American counterparts and their staff are less likely to be interested in the science behind their jobs than they are in each other. While friendships between casino staff may be frowned on by the management, the idea of firing people who form relationships is ludicrous - they are much more likely to be put on opposite shifts. People who work such peculiar hours always socialise together and, when genders mingle, sex is never far away. In fact, the use of the word "incest" was a plum insight of Mayersburg's - that's pretty much how it is.

While the atmosphere is well conveyed, its failing is, unfortunately, the performance of Clive Owen. Looking great and undoubtedly pretty good at the ice-cool & enigmatic stuff (which came first - the Owen or the Kemp...?), he is fantastically useless at conveying even the faintest whiff of emotion. Catch the way he tells Gina McKee "You are everything I desire..." Wooden isn't in it - there would be more life in his girlfriend's corpse than in his own performance at such moments. Nick Reding and Kate Hardie were excellent as Max and Bella - much more a true reflection of typical gaming staff in the UK.

There is a film to be made about British casinos but, credible as it is, this isn't quite it. Paul Mayersburg must at some point have worked in British casinos to get the feel - if he didn't, then I take my hat off to him. Even if means I have to put one on first.

Think my one-liner says it all for me. Thought the scenes in the desert outpost made it - the civilization scenes were a bit corny in appearance. Not a great film, but certainly not a yawn.