Several basic conventions stand out: acting, sets, costumes but the film changes its mind half way though and thus relegates itself to good rather than great.

Rating: 7/10 (13 August 2007)

A lot of people may love Martin Scorsese but I feel the best word to use to describe him would be: consistent. Scorsese is showing no evidence of lacking in his more recent stages as a director, in fact The Departed recently won Best Picture and Gangs of New York is still an enjoyable film, albeit not great, for the best part.
With the film set up superbly thanks to a long and bloody street fight and the main character of Amsterdam Vallon (DiCaprio) established, the film looks like it'll go down that route of revenge but that's the one major thing that sticks out  it changes its mind half way through. Apart from Amsterdam's backstory, returning to New York and rising the ladder in order to get closer to his revenge; the film isn't really about anything. For some reason, Amsterdam isn't in every scene but when revenge is the story's drive, how should be. Instead, we get a few nothing scenes set in an office full of caged birds and just general chat involving the antagonist Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting (Day-Lewis).
Once most of the dross settles down, Gangs of New York evolves into exactly what I thought it would be: A well shot, brilliantly choreographed, well acted film about one man's rise up the male dominated world of gangs and gangsters. Amsterdam gets into fist fights, actually helps out Bill now and again to gain extra trust, has encounters with the loose women that populate that world and just generally hangs out and makes friends. Why the film couldn't remain like this, only the filmmakers will know.
Although it sounds fantastic, there are still one or two things that just stick out. The strangest of which was the feeling I got when I wasn't sure whether or not I was supposed to laugh. There are some scenes that just don't seem to need to be there; the one in particular is the hanging scene: was it meant to be funny? What was the point of it? and Why didn't those 'guilty' put up more of a fight to escape if they'd done nothing? You see, scenes like this and a few others from memory just don't seem to have a purpose  if it was to emphasise Bill's evilness then it was still unnecessary.
These few things aside, Gangs of New York will counteract anything negative with something positive. The scene Amsterdam and Bill share after the orgy is particularly memorable as not only do we find out more about Bill than we already knew but we also get the feeling Amsterdam has won his trust. There's also a scene involving Irish immigrants coming of the boats as soldiers (who probably aren't coming back) go on  fuelling the racist hate the film has simmering throughout it. Two fantastic scenes that contain so much more than meets he eye but why the pointless scenes are included anyway is beyond me. Like I said earlier, the revenge plot line I had hoped for came but unfortunately; then went. Gangs of New York then turns political as a twist involving Amsterdam and Bill occurs and they must now go against one another in the form of words; a sort of 'Cold War' between the hero and the villain if you like. This was different and consequently disappointing although the final payoff is enjoyable and leaves a good feeling of closure.
I labelled Scorsese 'consistent' in my opening but this particular film is 'inconsistent'. It starts out on a revenge path, contains elements of racism but turns political and what with the World Trade Centre involved at the end, it's like the film's trying to give a message that nobody really wants to hear but with brilliant sets and misé-en-scene, Gangs of New York is worth a look.