A Mixed Bag

Rating: 1/10 (6 January 2003)

Most veteran movie-goers should by now be very wary of films with a huge Oscar publicity machine, especially those brimming with "buzz" so long before the movie is anywhere near theatrical release. This is such a movie. I was wary, but I kept an open mind because it was a Scorcese film, and sometimes his directing ability has the uncanny power to avert cynicism from his film.
I call this film a mixed bag for the following reason: It has one really good performance (plus a few others that were okay), good directing, and okay cinematography but a very, very poor script - and that script hurts a lot of the film.
It should be obvious by now that Daniel Day Lewis's performance as William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting is the one I'm referring to - if anyone deserves an Oscar for their acting in this movie, it's him. Everyone else more or less does exactly what the script requires them to do. Liam Neeson did quite well for his brief role as "Priest" Vallon and Brendan Gleeson did a good job as McGuinn, a quiet subdued role for the only character to see through young Vallon's disguise.
The stinker in this movie is the script. First off, what is this movie? Is it a revenge drama? A romance story? A period political piece? It never decides - it cannot. Instead the script meanders through each of these possible threads and picks up and leaves off where it wishes. This lack of focus sometimes lets you stop caring about some of the characters (and I'm not really spoiling anything, but the ending practically forces you to). Also, the backstory of the beginning scene is never given, so I'm still confused as to why the movie ended up where it did. I chalk that up to a bad script that's in a hurry to tell the story.
Scorsese at least has done his job in directing in his usual, reliable way. I forgive him the two very obvious uses of artistic metaphor in visualization: the "blood on the blade" and the bible falling into the water. He deserves an Oscar at some point, but I'm afraid it shouldn't be for "Gangs of New York". He has done better, and will do better in the future.
The last thing I have to nit about is the cinematography. I think it was vastly overrated. Most of the scenery felt confined to one area, like all the action took place just in the actual spot of the five points. Manhattan seems like a much larger place than the one we saw in the movie.