A history of a history that few were aware existed

Rating: 7/10 (16 November 2004)

The nineteenth century was an incongruous time for many peoples. The British empire was losing its worldwide coverage, and the Russian monarchy was but a century or less away from annihilation. Indeed, many films that are set in this era use it as a setting, but very few have depicted it in realistic terms. Gangs Of New York is the first film I have seen, and I have seen many of all varieties, than even makes the attempt. Whether or not they succeeded, I won't say, but they deserve credit for trying.
The New York of the nineteenth century is shown as a decadent, corrupt place where roving gangs regular war with one another. It begins with one such battle, in which migrants fight with a group of men who are all whiter than I am, but claim to be natives. Oh well, if they were born there, I cannot argue with them too much, but it does feel strange when the actual natives of America are nowhere to be seen in this production. Still, this opening battle sequence does give a nice, authentic feel for the story.
Daniel Day-Lewis absolutely shines as Bill The Butcher, a character you want to hate but just cannot because of the elegant human quality he brings to his performance. Although the film tries to show him as little as he is needed, this is his show. He keeps the audience's attention on the screen in spite of the charisma vortex in the rest of the cast. Speaking of a charisma vortex, one has to wonder exactly what they thought when they cast Leo DiCaprio in what is essentially a gangster film. I'm yet to be convinced that he really even grew that facial hair. Cameron Diaz is little better. She is thoroughly unconvincing as a nineteenth-century prostitute. Which should surprise nobody - she has a difficult time convincing anyone that she is a twenty-first century human being.
Some elements of the story are quite hilarious to behold. Whenever I hear someone rabbiting on about how much better we had it in times when the church had greater control of our daily lives or the like, I often kindly request they take a look at things, fictional or no, that say otherwise. The fighting between the fire brigades in this film is one of those things. I'm sure these historical retro-rose-eyeglass wearers would gladly go back to such a time. Then again, when I see the police having to brace themselves against angry citizens breaking into their headquarters instead of the reverse, I guess maybe they have some point, however small.
Acting aside, there are some unfortunate decisions made. Whomever was arranging the music should have told Scorcese (or vice versa) that U2 lost whatever credibility they had long ago. I swear, if I hear Bono Vox repeat that these are the hands that built America one more time, I am going to want to put his head further into his rectum. The editing is also a tad off-centre, with much of the final riot in New York seeming like a montage of clips rather than a coherent whole.
Still, I gave Gangs Of New York a seven out of ten. It was one of the better films of 2002, and that it didn't win a singular Oscar out of the eleven or more that it was nominated for only further destroys the Academy's credibility. See it with a friend or loved one, and marvel at the work done to create the mood.