Pandillas de Nueva York

You'd think Scorcese has bitten a bit more than he could possibly chew, this time. Well, he didn't. Gangs of new York is not an "epic masterpiece" and it ain't that because I seriously doubt the directors aim was that. It's a great movie in it's own account, but you have to watch it in the right way.

The plot: Tight enough and well paced, with a couple of lows (expected for a three-hour film) but generally it comes out pretty neat. Some may find it disturbing, as it contains extreme violence and it does not portray an America of happy workers, even happier slaves, benevolent rich and just authorities - instead, it portraits the true 1860 society. Definitely not for those who like their films with plenty of sugar on the top.

The epic and the drama: Well, basically the film is the story of two men. Around them things evolve and a brave new world comes forth - but we only get to watch snapshots of that world. Until the last sequence, that is when the whole city "explodes" (in some occasions literally...) and the streets are being covered in blood, and the two aspects (the main story and the events of the era) are being tied together in the same continuum.

At the same time, the director attempts to portrait the whole birth and growth of the United States, in a kind of parabole, but without loosing his focus on the main story and the surrounding. Scorsese dives deeply into the psychology of his heroes, without giving out any explanation of their acts other than the probable - he lets us figure it out ourselves, and that's a God-given gift.

The visuals: The film is disturbing, as it contains extreme violence. There are literally streams of blood, hacking, slashing, crushing - even some action movie fans (hey dude, look, he smashed his head with that thing... cool, man!") might find some parts of the film interesting. The last sequence is visually astounding, and it's by it's own account a reason to watch this film over and over again... if you got the stomach to actually cope with the disturbing images, that is.

The actors: I didn't think it would come a day when I'd say that Leo Di Caprio can act, but ...here I go: The kid can act. And quite good too. Guess he needed a Scorsese to put him in the right path. Same with Cameron Diaz - she has got some potential, seems so. Too bad she wastes it in films like "the sweetest thing" and other throw-ups like that. And... Daniel Day Lewis. Truly, with this performance, they should give him the Academy award. He portrays the vile "Butcher" in a way few would be able of, and he adds depth to a character that could very easily end up "two-dimensional". He is stunningly good.

New York, New York: Scorsese gets involved in something that compares to his previous work the way a fancy little sports car compares to a huge truck: A grandioso film of epic proportions and of great ambition. He does deliver, I believe. But this film shall not be acknowledged universally, because there is too much violence, corruption, lack of the good old white vs black (good vs evil, I mean) concept and does not sweeten the pill in any way. It's disturbing and raw, and it's a great. It's not a political film - in such, the director usually picks a stance, a "true" hero, an opposing view, and builds upon those. In this case, the director is truly endistancemented and keeps that distance, even from his "hero". There are no "good" people in that movie, all are acting like chess pieces in a predetermined way, but at the same time they try to burst out and do their own.

The verdict: A fabulous film, which is going to be recognized for such in some years

Gangs of New York is just perfect entertainment. It is an enthralling, bloody, melodramatic epic that more than justifies its two and one half hour running time. In Gangs director Martin Scorsese spins another tale of the New York underworld but with a twist. Instead of the mid-twentieth century organized crime milieu of Goodfellas, Scorsese ventures back to the 19th century to show us the origin of the modern street gang.

It's the early 1860s and the notorious Five Points slum is ruled by the savage `Bill the Butcher'. The viciously nationalistic Bill terrorizes all the immigrant masses jammed into his slum but seems to harbor a particular hatred for the Irish population. Into this seething cauldron wanders mysterious young Amsterdam Vallon who soon works his way into the trust and affection of Bloody Bill. Amsterdam, however, has a past with the unsuspecting Butcher and sports an agenda not unlike a certain Prince of Denmark. Bloody vengeance and dark betrayal soon come to pass, all played against a backdrop of corruption and unrest that lead to up to the horrors of New York Civil War draft riots.

Daniel Day-Lewis is marvelous as Bill the Butcher. His Bill is both recognizably human and a full bore, moustache-twirling villain. Day-Lewis strides his savage and profane way across the screen and steals the whole of the movie. The only other actor to approach Day-Lewis' level is Jim Broadbent as William 'Boss' Tweed. Broadbent is Tweed's spitting image and he makes the grasping old pirate so winning we find ourselves rooting for Tweed against the gaggle of reformers that infest his domain. Though Leonardo DiCaprio is the nominal lead of the picture he is overshadowed by his co-stars. Large, slope shouldered and vaguely brutish looking, DiCaprio is physically perfect for Amsterdam. While he could have used some of the fire and rage of a young James Cagney, DiCaprio's acting is superior throughout the movie. The problem is that Amsterdam just isn't as flashy a role as Bill or Tweed and, as good as DiCaprio is; Day-Lewis operates on a whole other level. Cameron Diaz as the beautiful pickpocket Jenny, never convinces that she is a product of the slums. Despite having considerable screen time, Diaz fades into the background when compared to her more powerful co-stars.

Just as important as the actors are to Gangs is the period atmosphere that drips off the screen. The amazing old New York set has an air of lived in reality that you could cut with a knife. You can almost smell the vermin. Gangs is entirely free of the embalmed feeling you get from most modern period movies. The cast handles the period argot as if it were their true speech and wear their costumes like lived-in clothing. You come away convinced that this is how the world looked and sounded in 1862.

Scorsese does eschew all nuance and subtlety in Gangs. Instead he tells his tale in wide, bold, exploitive and melodramatic strokes that make the movies two and a half hours fly by. Be warned that if you are waiting to see Gangs on DVD you are making a huge mistake. Gangs has to be seen at the theater. The detail and scope of the film cries out to be viewed in all its wide screen glory. This movie is a fantastic achievement.

In the 1840's New York is a mess of gangs all fighting over small areas of turf. The main rivalry is between the immigrant Irish and those who see themselves as Natives of their New York. A battle rages between them and the leader of the Irish (Priest Vallon) falls to the blade of Bill "The Butcher" Cutting – witnessed by Vallon's young son. Sixteen years later and things are different but no better. Cutting is now the head of the Five Corners and all the gangs answer to him. It is into this situation that an unknown man called Amsterdam returns – none other than the grown son of Priest Vallon. Seeking a fitting revenge for the death of his father, Amsterdam makes sure he catches Cutting's sole eye and gradually is taken into his trust.

Despite lukewarm reviews I decided that any Scorsese film is worth a look and gave GoNY a night of my time. In terms of plotting the film is essentially a revenge drama that sees Vallon trying to get close enough to Cutting to take him out in a fashion befitting the man. You might rightly point out that such a straightforward tale does not require 180 minutes to tell but it does when the film tries to make this much more of a sprawling affair that aims to bridge the cinematic gap between the western and the gangster films while also painting a rich tapestry of characters against a rich background of 19th Century New York. However it fails to do this on several levels and the end result is a film that feels a lot baggier than it really should have done. This is best seen in the characters because none of them really develop beyond the first impressions they give, or a better example is the failure of the film to use Jenny in the critical way that she was clearly intended to be used.

Scorsese may lose his way with the story but it is easy to forgive him because he does so well with the majestic historical sweep he gives to everything else. The sets look great, the costumes look great and the dramatic flair he gives in delivery add so much. It is a real problem that he has not taken the characters and story along for the ride but I found his silver lining to be enjoyable even if his rather OTT approach did further take away from the realism of the people and the story. His approach is matched by the cast, who are mostly enjoyable despite lacking depth. DiCaprio is more than the bland pinup I had feared he would be but he can't do much more than play the "silent revenge" card from start to finish. He is overwhelmed by Day-Lewis who has great fun in a fantastically OTT role that worked much better than I expected him to. Diaz is not that good and I felt she was miscast in an attempt to get "credibility" by working with Scorsese. The support cast is roundly good and features solid turns from Neeson, Reilly, Gleeson and many others fill out a strong cast.

Overall this is an impressive film in terms of sweep and style but not in terms of story and characters – which is a bit of a problem in a film that pretty much lasts three hours. The skill of Scorsese and the presence of so many stars make it worth a look but it is hard to get past the problems in the way that the story is not as well done as it could have been, even if the general historical sweep and spectacle makes it worth taking a look at.

So narrates Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) standing by the boss Bill the Butcher's side (Daniel Day-Lewis) at the height of his hard-boiled reign over New York City in the mid-1800's. Amsterdam saw the Butcher brutally kill his father in a gang-war when he was just a little boy, and he's sworn revenge ever since. But in order to get his vengeance, he must infiltrate the Butcher's gang, and ends up becoming something of a son to him.

That "Gangs of New York" is such a good film is a mystery because it breaks the fundamental rule of good film-making: you have to care for the central character, and DiCaprio's Amsterdam is an unlikeable young man. He is surly and unkind, walking around in a bubble of hesitation and scattered thoughts of revenge. He moodily snarls at the one woman he likes (Cameron Diaz). It is inconceivable how someone as dynamic, likable and strong as the Butcher would ever take this brat in, but that's film for you.

The above is an unfortunate miss; the lead character has to be strong or else the film will weigh him down. Juxtaposing Dicaprio with Day-Lewis has got to be the worst idea that's ever popped into Scorsese's mind because it is evident within minutes of the film that they are of very different acting fibre and the former will look even WORSE when paired with one of the best working actors in the world today. But these are mere casting flaws (but still harmful), so onto the overall direction:

A friend of mine once said that Martin Scorsese is only capable of half a film before it turns into a mess and that stuck with me when I watched "Gangs of New York", because it was true. This is a relatively straightforward story of revenge but it is diluted by detours in Irish traditions – there's singing, dancing, bareknuckled fighting, drinking and debauchery--for 2 and a half hours. These detours may be well sewn-together by a patient Scorsese narrative flow (I'm thinking "Casino") told by Amsterdam, but is unnecessary to go to such lengths to get the Irish-immigrant setting and mood. We already got it, so move on and give us more substance.

However it cannot be denied that many of these detours make the film and setting – they are beautifully illustrated by lush colours that seem to bleed off screen–primary colours to suit primary, instinct-driven and hard-boiled men. The cinematography is just staggering. New York City is gritty, corrupt, bloody and bare-knuckled. I mean, I have seen Tarantino, Stone, Kramer and Cronenberg but this is by far the most violent and gory film I have ever watched. Such poignant, effective fights.

It is a shame the rest of the film is not as poignant, but desperately diluted. What saves it is Day-Lewis' magnificent presence on-screen as the brutal Butcher Bill, the occasional portrayals of gang-culture and the almost all-star ensemble cast that pop up in supporting roles throughout. A good film (just barely), but nothing more. "7" may be too generous, but hey...

7/10

For about three months now, I have (on an almost daily basis) passed a movie theatre not far from my home. On the side of this movie theatre is a huge poster advertising the movie "Gangs of New York". Meanwhile, all I heard about on television was the buzz about the upcoming "Gangs of New York". So, when this highly publicized movie finally opened, I went and saw it.

I went to the theatre, I bought my ticket, I found a seat in a very crowded theatre and I sat. For three hours I sat in that dark theatre and I watched what was one of the most amazing movies I have ever had privilege to see.

It is hard to even begin to explain why this movie was amazing, but it was. The way it was shot is brilliant. The cinematography is spectacular. The story is completely enthralling.

Although the movie was just shy of three hours long, it was not at all boring to watch. The story was captivating and although I knew how it was going to end (because, after all, it is a movie based on a true-ish story), it was incredible to watch how it got that end.

Above all, the movie was beautiful to watch. I have to admit to those who have not yet seen it that "Gangs" is quite violent. However, the violence was well shot and it was fairly necessary to the story.

All of the actors put in extremely good performances. Leonardo DiCaprio really proved that he's not just a pretty face and that he does actually have a great deal of talent (which can also be seen in his other movie of the season, "Catch Me If You Can"). Cameron Diaz' performace also proves that she can do much more than the standard romantic comedy. Also, after hearing reports of Daniel Day Lewis' REALLY getting into his character, I admit that it was completely worth it. His character (William Cutting/Bill the Butcher) is so complex and although you know you hate him, you can't decide why (for there are so many reasons).

In conclusion, if you have not seen this movie yet, go. Go now. See it. This is one of the epic movies of our time. I heard that Scorcese has been conceptualizing this movie for over twenty years; I could tell. The story this movie tells is one that I had never heard and the way in which it was told makes it seem very important for us to know. The message that is conveyed, although not an entirely wholesome one, is an important one to learn and, if considered, is very relevant to our time. However, my only message to you is this: see this movie.