Over the top.

Rating: Null/10 (20 January 2005)

I normally don't comment on popular films, but I'd heard a lot about this one, so I gave it a whirl on the old DVD player. And I had a hard time coming to terms with what I saw, but saw it I did.
Ho boy.
I have to confess, I'm not a big Scorsese fan, but I've nothing against the man either, and have enjoyed several of his films. Yet this film really makes me wonder what's happened to the cinema going public when a film as predictable and flimsy as this gains artistic recognition. Not only is it predictable, but it's also just over-done on a number of levels.
Scorsese puts such a whopper of a caricature spin on all sides that I found it difficult to buy into the film's reality. I've no doubt the real people upon which the film's characters are based were brutal thugs, but the Satanic equivocation with the antagonist is just too much for me to take. The man is shown to have values, but is also immersed in such an evil dour that one wonders why he's even in the movie at all. Scorsese might as well just stuck a guy holding a pitchfork and wearing horns on his head in the role. Day-Lewis'es character has a political and moral position (however skewed), but it's never fully explored, and is so framed as being evil by Scorsese that one wonders why this character was allowed to express his view at all.
Likewise with DiCaprio's role. Again, another fine actor is placed in a position where he must portray a character whose roots are given a divine essence. As if everything he stands for and values is held in a blessed light. For myself, this smacks of the so-called need to define the "white hats" and "black hats" for the audience. And when you need to do that, then you might as well be writing a children's novel, because the author has just demonstrated his lack of respect for the audiences' ability to come to their own conclusion.
This kind of social commentary and politicking is done without apology. The result is a film that's pretty thin, and again reveals the inner heart of a man, Scorsese, who himself cannot give a good accounting of the riots, because his presentation does not gybe with the hard facts of the genesis and result of the conflict. And when I say facts I mean that which motivated these people to pillage and plunder mid-1800's New York.
Scorsese did his best. My hats off to him. There're few directors who could've tackled such a project, and Scorsese gave it his best shot. But this film, for all its garnished praises, falls far from demonstrating the true hearts of human beings, and gives us cartoon characters from, what George Parker from Orange County, CA called an "Over-wrought melodramatic history-fiction mishmash." I couldn't agree more.
Most of you who have expressed interest in my views on films will probably already have seen this, so it's a moot point for me to recommend it or not in this review. But, on the odd chance that you haven't, and are interested, and are reading my comments, as well as others, don't say we didn't warn you if come away from this film feeling somewhat disappointed.
Corporate art strikes again. Next time Mr. Scorsese please follow your own instincts, or just make a small budgeted indy film with your personal stamp on it.