Visually impressive, but disappointing overall.

Rating: Null/10 (2 January 2003)

Visually impressive, but disappointing overall.
(Caution - crucial plot elements discussed - do not read if you don't want to know what happens in this movie.)
Other than the authentic scenery and convincing character portrayal (or creation?) by Daniel Day-Lewis, and the educational value (for anyone who hasn't' read a newspaper in the last three months), Gangs was basically "Titanic" set in the slums of New York in the mid 1900's. It had the same beautiful-people leads (DiCaprio \ Diaz), the same predictable romantic arc (though without the class difference), the same poor-boy-with-regal-bearing-and-inscrutable-moral-character-who's-destined-t o-rise-above-the-evil-people-in-power (why can't he SEE that??), the same insipid longing-for-a-simpler-time \ I-can't-believe-this-ship-is-really-going-to-sink \ what-have-I-done-with-my-life flute soundtrack, the same view that anyone in power or of wealth or success or wearing a uniform has to be corrupt and morally reprehensible (not even Abe Lincoln escapes guilt here), and the same this-story-is-larger-than-life and therefore-representing-man's-eternal-struggle-against-man\nature\evil\corrup tion\take-your-pick as is promulgated in James Cameron's "epic" outing.
And WHO could have predicted that there would be a showdown between the two leads in the last battle, and that Day-Lewis would die by DiCaprio's hand, avenging his father's "unfair" death?? Shocker. And, just to let him off the moral hook (he really HATES killing people...), DiCaprio doesn't even strike the mortal wound - that's taken care of by a random Union shell. Of course, he does have to deal the death blow, to complete his mission, but by then it's a fait accompli.
And, though the battle scenes are large and impressive, they're less powerful and gut wrenching than those in "Braveheart", produced by a relatively novice director.
Also, these "epic" period pieces tend to rely on authentic scenery\clothes\language\customs to sweep you up in the story, hoping that your "wow" will let you overlook the clichÃ©d characters or the "good-guy-bad-guy" simplicity or the predictable storyline. "Gangs" is no exception.
Plus, some of the plot points are questionable. We're expected to believe that the Butcher would NOT kill DiCaprio after his assassination attempt? Why? Because that's what the Priest did for the Butcher?? So all he gives DiCaprio is that little scar on his cheek, which heals nicely by the end of the film? THAT'S "horribly disfigured"?? And where's the conflict in DiCaprio's mind? What exactly is his struggle? How long to wait before killing the Butcher?
Cameron Diaz, by the way, is all wrong for her part. (A Golden Globe nomination??) She's trying to be serious here, but it's obvious she's just LONGING to slip in a "Something About Mary"-esque wise-crack.

The glowing reviews received from the majors seem more of an homage to Scorsese's place in the movie business and a tip of the hat to the impressive research and physical effort that went into the mammoth production. And while there are many moments, especially in the last half hour, where the director's skill is evident, there are others where his camera movement seems forced or unnecessary.
And, while "Braveheart" also had a simplistic "good guy \ bad guy" setup, the story didn't feel forced. I was not aware while watching it that, "wow, that scenery looks so real ..." - I got involved in the story. The difference, I think, is that "Braveheart" was not trying to be an "epic". It just was.