Brilliantly flawed. A Masterpiece without it's center.

Rating: Null/10 (10 February 2003)

Ten minutes or so into this film I was convinced that it was going to be one of the great cinematic experiences of my life. Ten minutes later, I was not so sure, and a couple of hours after that, I felt profound disappointment.

There are a couple of other movies worth comparison: Sam Mendes' 'Road To Perdition' and Kubrick's 'Eyes Wide Shut'. The first is worthy of comparison as a superb treatment of many of the same themes, and in similar contexts: the father/son relationships, the historical context (in that case the Great Depression in place of the American Civil War), and the stunning cinematography. The second film, Kubrick's last, should be noted as another example of creative overreach.
While Mendes displayed an achingly spare style, stretching an economy of means to its utter limit (and this is reflected by the minimalist performances by the entire cast), Scorcese instead attempted a storyline that seemed to exhort the weak cast (with the notable exception of Daniel Day Lewis) to achievements beyond their abilities. The results were predictably lame.
Furthermore, his attempt to include peripheral characters such as Horace Greeley, PT Barnum and others, merely diluted the film's potential impact rather than contributing to the sense of milieu, which must certainly have been his intent.
It is in this respect that 'Gangs of New York' must be compared to 'Eyes Wide Shut' which I had similarly anticipated prior to its release. I feel that Kubrick wanted a summation of many of his previous themes, but in the broadening of his thematic focus he relinquished the accuracy of his vision.
This movie is similar. There are some breathtaking sequences, but as the movie progresses, it becomes less and less coherent.
All the same, as one reviewer put it, "From a lesser director this film would have been regarded as a triumph..."