Scorsese's Mess

Rating: 3/10 (4 January 2005)

Watching a bad film is always a chore. Watching a bad film that runs nearly three hours can test the patience. Yet watching a bad film created by one of our cinematic geniuses is just plain tragedy.
There are elements of Gangs of New York that remind us of Martin Scorsese the master. We remember the blood-drenched rope during Raging Bull, or the violent stabbing of a gangster in Goodfellas. Gangs of New York has plenty of blood, that is for sure, but none of the violence is tethered to anything worthy like in Scorsese's other works.
A violent film for the sake of being violent should be judged on its own merits, not based on the merits of the person creating it. I understand much of what Scorsese was trying to tell in the picture, but it just does not work. The film is set in the backdrop of the Civil War. As the nation is warring with itself to set an identity, so are the people of the five points in New York City.
After his father (Liam Neeson) is murdered sixteen years previous, Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns to the five points and seeks vengeance. The murderer is one Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day Lewis) whose power was considerable then, but has grown to total dominance now. Amsterdam slips into Bill's lair as a young student of violence and mischief.
Along the way we meet Tammany Hall's classic corrupt politician William "Boss" Tweed (Jim Broadbent) as well as the police corruption of "Happy" Jack Mulraney (John C. Reilly). We visit a pickpocket (Cameron Diaz) who is the love interest of Amsterdam and his friend Johnny (Henry Thomas). All of these characters add a certain voyeuristic quality, but we don't care about any of them or their motives throughout the plot. We peek into the wealthy of New York along with the poor. And finally the city explodes when the government enlists a draft primarily on the poor New Yorkers and immigrants, since those with $300 (a fortune then) are able to buy themselves out of war.
Daniel Day Lewis received many awards and critical acclaim for his performance. I felt it was overdone and overwrought. DiCaprio was fine along with some others, but the truest revelation is Cameron Diaz. I have never been as impressed with her as I was here, standing up high against formidable acting opponents. In general the critical consensus was favorable, likely due to Socrsese's previous excellence. That the film more or less tanked at the box office does not surprise me for the reasons listed above.
Given what is wrong with the film (and there is a lot), it is not a total failure. Scorsese has appeared on talk shows praising the "hands that built America" that came from New York during this time. Though I disagree that is what the movie is "about," I did enjoy a critical look at the treatment of immigrants. Those are the "hands" I would refer to as the builders, not these violent gang members fighting over the very worst the nation could offer. For a more detailed and much more entertaining look at this time and these issues watch Ric Burns' "New York: A Documentary Film." A scholar notes that the immigrants (mostly Irish at the time) gave much more to our country than we gave to them. Sad but very true. *.5 out of ****