Gangs of New York

"Gangs of New York" mixes real American history with a weak fictional human drama and a thick coat of Hollywoodization resulting in an over wrought behemoth wannabe epic misfire. Scorcese pulls together bits and pieces of the Civil War conscription act, Irish potato famine immigration, Tammany Hall and Tweed corruption, race/slave issues, slum gangs, etc. and creates a milieu which has an off-target post-apocalyptic sort of feel and then tries to cram DiCaprio down our throats as a hero though he does nothing particularly heroic in the context of the film. The flick features blood and guts street riots reminiscent of "Braveheart", a romance which doesn't work, an evil guy over acted by Day-Lewis and little else save a whole bunch of filler to give us a taste of the times and milk the extravagance for all its worth. In spite of all that, "Gangs..." received several Oscar noms and a thumb and a half up from critical corners with so-so approval from the public. Okay for fans of the principals and others into Hollywood blockbusters. Not for the jaded or those looking for substance or sophistication. (B)

Daniel Day-Lewis elevates this film from just "good" to "very good" or even "excellent." He is absolutely riveting, one of the most interesting "villains" I have ever seen on film. I am sorry Day-Lewis didn't win the Academy Award for his performance. He was just outstanding to watch. His facial expressions alone cracked me up!

Day-Lewis played "Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting" he is one nasty dude. However, there are no real "good guys" in this story. The supposed hero, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is a revenge-seeking man with a ton of flaws himself. The rest of the characters are either thieves, gang members, corrupt politicians or corrupt policeman. Ah yes, another family-oriented film from that kindly director Martin Scorcese.

What Scorcese lacks in family values, he comes close to making up for in style. This is another fascinating visual film with great sets, costumes, color and camera-work. Other typical Scorcese touches are in here: Catholic-bashing and brutal language. (I question whether the f-word was used back in the days this film takes place.)

All in all, a tough film that could be too unpleasant to watch but for Lewis' outstanding performance and the spectacular visuals.

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.

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

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