Where was the middle? ANNOYING!

Rating: 6/10 (28 December 2002)

Many historical films, such as "ELIZABETH", "THE CRUCIBLE", "BRAVEHEART" and others, make one desire to know more about the period in which the film takes place. This is not the case with "GANGS OF NEW YORK".

Because of its disjointed, uneven presentation, one wishes to forget that they were even in the theatre. It started and ended wonderfully, but in the meantime, what should have been the meat of the movie, where character development is supposed to build and where we associate with and cheer for the leads, the director, and thusly WE, lost focus.
As another reviewer expressed, expectations are high with such an abundance of publicity. And with the movie making ability of Martin Scorcese you expect an extravaganza, something compelling and even wonderful. "GANGS" certainly had scope and vision and a panoramic view of New York history, but one thing it lacked was...discipline. And not that long movies are a bad thing. "GANDHI" was LONG. "AMADEUS" was LONG. "THE ENGLISH PATIENT" was VERY LONG. But these movies TOLD THE STORY in an interesting and concise way that never left the viewer as if they had been drug through the basement of the theatre. And they won BEST PICTURE Oscars! This movie will NOT. It can't! This movie had promise. It had style. It had bang. BUT THE BANG WENT ON AND ON AND ON!! And whose idea was it for the score? Keith Richards? Holy heck! Like a freight train passing through your brain!
3 out of 10 stars.