Surprisingly moving

Rating: 9/10 (23 December 2002)

I bought into the hype. I'll admit it. The advertising campaign for Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" swayed me. I was already listing it with my favorite movies of the year before I'd ever even seen it. DiCaprio for Best Actor! Day-Lewis for Best Supporting Actor! Scorsese for Best Director! Best Picture!
Well, you know what? After having seen it, I can only say this:
DiCaprio for Best Actor! Day-Lewis for Best Supporting Actor! Scorsese for Best Director! Best Picture! Diaz for Best Supporting Actress! U2 for Best Song!...get the picture?
I expected the film to be excellent, to be sure. I expected to be blown away by the brutality of the battle sequences and the interaction between great actors. The film delivered, and in a way I never expected.
I was almost literally moved to tears. I was one of the last out of the theater today, because I had to keep myself focused on the here-and-now, reassuring myself that there probably never was an Amsterdam Vallon whose father was slain by Bill the Butcher when he was a child. That the film, based around true events, was set a century-and-a-half ago, and that none of the people who were killed would have lived to see today anyway.
Still, though, Scorsese had me. He twisted me around his little finger, making me squirm during the bloodshed, tap my feet to the dance, become wide-eyed at the betrayals, and finally utterly crushed by the ending shot, a beautiful bit of demi-time-lapse photography on the growth of New York. It is in these closing moments that I could feel something rising in my throat. It wasn't a nauseous feeling, unlike some of the battle sequences (which left this usually hard-hearted moviegoer a bit uneasy). It was genuine emotion. I was horrified by what man could do and how quickly he could forget.
Scorsese has always seemed to have his finger on the pulse of the nation. How he could have known when this movie was shooting how close the storyline would be to modern events is beyond me. How he could have known that, on the brink of a war that few want, the youth of the nation (like me) is beginning to find their political voice...
Scorsese, one of the greatest cinematic minds of this or any other time, has once again made a picture that defines its times, intentionally or not. It is doubtful, however, that the film would not have worked without amazing performances by Daniel Day-Lewis, Jim Broadbent (fast becoming my favorite character actor), Henry Thomas, and surprisingly solid performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz (both of whom I had dismissed as "just another pretty face" long ago).
"Gangs of New York" is, without question, the most important movie of 2002. It was not the most entertaining, though it was certainly entertaining. It was not the most fun. It was probably not even the best (I'd wager to put "Road to Perdition" a notch above it). It was, though, the movie that will be remembered nearly thirty years from now, as we remember Scorsese's "Mean Streets" and his other cinema classics. This is the one that will be viewed in film classes for decades to come.
This is, to use a worn-out phrase, a must-see.
Thank you, Mister Scorsese.