A good film, but not anyone in the cast/ crew's best.

Rating: 8/10 (27 December 2002)

Martin Scorsese is the right director for GANGS OF NEW YORK, but his style is wrong. His trademark style is a quickly moving camera, an over-the-top approach, all set to modern music. While this style is very effective for films set in modern day, RAGING BULL for example, they do not translate well to a story that takes place roughly 150 years ago. Take for example, the brutal opening battle sequence between the "natives" and the "foreign hordes." The battle is cut very rapidly (which works), but electric guitars are used to undercut everything. While their jarring notes makes for an effective scene, in hindsight, it is not very appropriate when you consider that this is, above all things, a period piece. A telling of history. The visuals do enough.
The story is concerned with what happened in New York City from 1846, when two gangs went to war, led the Priest Vallon (Liam Nelson) for the Irish immigrants, and William Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis)- dubbed "Bill the Butcher"- for the natives. The film continues on until 1863, the draft riots, which left countless people dead (the film tells us that "we never knew how many New Yorkers lay dead"). Perhaps this is sort of a fault in story telling. I myself did not know much of anything (fine- nothing) of these events, and the film does not give a very good background. Throughout the film, I wasn't very interested in the personal struggle, because I didn't understand the big picture. Maybe if it had started out with some information like Gladiator did, to set the mood and give some background information, I would've been able to focus easier.
The smaller picture is a simple revenge story, the historical aspects of the film are in the background. The main plot is that when the Priest is killed during a battle, his son (played as a grownup by Leonardo DiCaprio) vows revenge on his killer- Bill the butcher (I thought that he was called the butcher because of his brutal fighting style, turns out that he actually is a butcher, and in one scene, shows Leo how to kill a pig). DiCaprio is good in the lighter scenes of the film, such as the playful ones with Cameron Diaz, playing a pick pocket- but he lacks some of the anger needed to make the audience understand his motives. In one scene he saves Bill from an assassin (he is under his wing at this time), because he wants to be the one to kill him I guess. If he had been so bent on revenge that it was clear that nothing would get into his way, even an ally, it would make for a more powerful (and interesting) character.
If I have made the film sound bad, then I have miswritten this review. There are many, many good things in the film- they easily outnumber the bad. Looking at the film is a treat, the sets (all real, none computer generated I'm told) are all perfect, and the photography is beautiful to behold. Howard Shore's score is often fitting, but fellow fans of Lord of the Rings will notice several similar melodies. And the actors give good enough performances that you can easily believe them in their roles (Diaz, while an odd pick for the role, does a good job. And DiCaprio's failures (mentioned above) are few and far between, and not enough to ruin the film's pace.). Daniel Day-Lewis gives such a good performance that he will not doubt be honored come award time, and his performance will earn the honor of being parodied and studied for a long time to come. And I love how there is a flash forward of more than 100 years at the end of the film- and how Scorsese isn't scared to show the World Trade Center in modern New York, indeed, this is one of his themes: the draft riots were a horrible time in NYC's history, but look at what rose out of it. September 11th was another horrible time, imagine what can be created now.
This film has been in Scorsese's head for 20 years... I wonder what aspect of the story appealed to him the most. Probably the historical aspect of it- he, of course, loves New York, this film is a tribute to the city's strength. I'd doubt if he was drawn to the revenge story as much. That part seems unworthy of a film maker such as Scorsese, and the somewhat cliche ending is as well.
The film is long, and the time goes by slowly in some scenes, (though fast in others). The Two Towers is about the same running length as Gangs of New York, but I didn't notice how uncomfortable my seat was until it was over. In this movie, I did.
I'm wondering if I should recomend this film. If you're a fan of Scorsese, or anyone in the cast, you should see it. If you like historical epics, or lavish productions, you will appreciate it. The things that bothered me will probably not bother you. If you think you'll like it, you probably will. But if you don't think you will, you won't. I liked it a lot, but didn't love it. It'll probably be a while before I watch it again. I gave it an 8 out of 10, but that's only because there is no 7.5