Best film of 2002!

Rating: 10/10 (21 December 2002)

I've been admiring Martin Scorsese's films for the last twelve years, ever since I first watched GOODFELLAS. I've saw his new release films on the big screen since then, and loved them (CASINO, CAPE FEAR, AGE OF INNOCENCE, KUNDUN, & BRINGING OUT THE DEAD). I would even see re-releases or special screenings of his classics brought back on the big screen (GOODFELLAS, TAXI DRIVER, LAST WALTZ). In fact it was eariler this year that I watched THE LAST WALTZ for the first time on the big screen, and I noticed the camera shots and techniques that Scorsese used in story films, were also used in a concert film! Scorsese tried nine years ago to tell accurate peorid piece film of a New York that has been long past with AGE OF INNOCENCE. He made a great love story with effective performances, yet the pacing was very slow, coming from a man who speaks 175 words a minute. GANGS OF NEW YORK is the latest film that Scorsese has been put on the "work in progress" list for the last twenty-five years, Scorsese filmed it, it had production nightmares and problems, getting pushed backed several times including the incident of September 11th 2001. Now after all the wait, negative production press reports, and hype, is GANGS OF NEW YORK a TITANIC, or a HEAVEN'S GATE? I'm a very pleased to say that from my anticipation and wait, that GANGS is a extradonary film that has the feeling of a successful epic like TITANIC, and not a laughable failure like HEAVEN'S GATE. GANGS OF NEW YORK has a very simple plot, but so do a lot of other great movies. In 1846, the five points of New York City is being fought by two gangs who wish to control the area, the Dead Rabbits immigrants lead by Priest Vallon (Liam Nesson) and the native Nativists lead by William Cutting (Daniel Day Lewis) is was called Bill the Butcher. After the Nativists defeated the Dead Rabbits, killing Priest Vallon, the priest's son Amsterdam, was taken to a orphanage for sixteen years until he was old enough to take care of himself. Now, the adult Amsterdam (Leonardo Di Capprio) is vowing for the revenge of the death of his father, by killing the man who took his father's life, Bill the Buthcher. Bill takes a liking of Amsterdam by training him the ways of life around the five points. The way the gangs steal, the way to kill a man, the corperation of the courrption of politics, and even the most tender and best parts of carving up a pig. Amsterdam learn all of Bill's traits, but also falls in love with one of Bill's women, Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz). Jenny makes her living by being a prostitue but earns more of a living by becomming a highly successful pickpocket. Amsterdam faces the conflict of either to continue to vow the vengence of his father's death, or to live the lifestyle which is better than anything he has ever lived before, with the most ruthless man known. Some people are expecting GANGS OF NEW YORK to be the epic film that answers everything. Well, it's not a David Lean epic, a Stanely Kubrick epic, or even a Steven Spielberg epic, it's a Martin Scorsese epic. While I was watching GANGS OF NEW YORK, I couldn't get out of my mind that this is the same film directed by the man who did TAXI DRIVER and ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE, and it would have been only those other credits on Scorsese's career, had Scorsese directed GANGS when he wanted to. But there have been several other films since, RAGING BULL, LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, GOODFELLAS, CASINO, AFTER HOURS. etc. And this film is the same visionary mind behind those other films. There are scenes where the Scorsese trademark is shown, the obvious scene is when Scorsese has a excellent track shot that shows immigrants coming off of the boat onto the New York pier, only the men to be taken from the U.S. government by drafting them in Union army with a war that they have no idea where or why they are fighting. A story like that is worthy of a good film alone. And Scorsese does his "Hitchcock cameo" in the film by appearing as the head of a weatlhy family household. But there are other scenes in GANGS that I was amazed to be watching on the screen. There were scenes of astonishing beauty with the creation of the sets of the dilapidated New York and the descriptive lifestyles of a New York resident of the 1860's. The long shot of the fighting match on a river raft showing steamships and sail ships towering over the people and buildings. The detailed costumes of the immigrants, the natives, and the high class ellite. Then there is the acting. DiCapprio does a decent job as Amsterdam, but he wasn't' as enjoyable to watch in this film, as he was in CATCH ME IF YOU CAN (he was much better in that film). Cameron Diaz was good as Jenny, showing that she is a actress trying to break out of the "pretty face" roles of CHARLIE'S ANGELS and SWEETEST THING and taking on complicated roles like GANGS and VANILLA SKY. I also enjoyed the supporting roles of Jim Broadbent as the corrupt politician who associates with the gangs, Henry Thomas as another street gang member who wishes to win the heart of the popular Jenny, John C. Reilly as a corrupt and twisted officer who feels that he has a upper hand of the five points only by being a police officer, Liam Nesson as the heroic and influenal priest, and Brendan Gleason as the man who knows more about the priest's past than Amsterdam knows. But who does the film belong to, who stands out of the entire cast? Daniel Day Lewis gives his best performance of his career in this film, and yes, I'm including his role in MY LEFT FOOT. I haven't seen a villian so twisted, human, and likeable since Henry Fonda's character of Frank in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. Lewis' role of Bill the Butcher isn't as showy as Hannibal Lecture, or over the top like the overrated Denzel Washington role of TRAINING DAY. If Denzel won a Oscar last year for TRAINING DAY, then Daniel Day Lewis should win a Oscar for this role. There have been several good performances this year, Tom Hanks in ROAD TO PERDITION, Adam Sandler in PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, George Clooney in SOLARIS, and Hugh Grant in ABOUT A BOY. But I couldn't believe that all of those performances would be overshadowed by the performance given by Daniel Day Lewis. Lewis' performance as the one eyed butcher shows the audience the early stages of the mafia boss. Where we are use to the modern mobster boss image of Robert DeNiro in UNTOUCHABLES, Marlon Brando in GODFATHER, and James Gandolfini in SOPRANOS, Lewis is along the same class of actors and images of a powerful crime boss. Lewis gives the role of Bill the Butcher more human traits and personality than any villian I have ever seen. Having a fondness of cutting meat, upholding his part of controlling the laws, and ruling his area of the five corners with his iron fist. People need to realize that the character of Bill the Butcher is the early stages of the now known mafia boss, a man who has a lot of power, and supports his people by giving the needy meat or money. Bill's mafia like presence and attitude in shown early when he criticizes Amsterdam by not "presenting" Bill with any valuables or gifts. To me, I say a film characters work if the villian is just as good or more effictive than the hero. The role of Bill is so powerful and effective that it is among the best villians in the history of cinema. Would I like to see Lewis win a Oscar? YEAH! You bet! But I think the character of Bill will be better rewarded as being a memorable character like Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecture, and Forrest Gump (yet those are Oscar winning roles also). From looking at the images, performances, and story of GANGS OF NEW YORK, I can easily say that it is my favorite film of 2002. I've been waiting for this film for the last two years, and I am so relieved to say that it was worth the wait. I watched the film with seven other people who's taste in films are all different than my own. After the lights went up, all of us were applauding and cheering saying how that was one darn well made film! One person commented a flaw that bothered her, the editing. She said that it made the film too "choppy" making things not fully explained. Yet I told her that the film was originaly over three hours and for this being close to three hours, the film seemed like a hour long.
If the Academy is awarding directors who haven't gotten a Oscar yet, like what a lot of people said about Ron Howard last year (although I thought he deserved it), then why not give Scorsese his Oscar. Scorsese should have gotten his oscar twelve years ago when he did GOODFELLAS, but it went to Kevin Costner instead with the overrated DANCES WITH WOLVES. The buzz has been going around for the last several months that Scorsese might get his long awaited Oscar with this film. And I say that I would rather see Scorsese get his Oscar with a amazing film like GANGS OF NEW YORK, than good but not great films like AGE OF INNOCNECE or KUNDUN. How does GANGS on my personal view rank on Scorsese's career? For me, it's not as good as GOODFELLAS or CASINO, but I thought it was better than RAGING BULL and TAXI DRIVER. I know that's a very big bold statement to make, but I stand by that, and ask me again in a year or ten years, and I'll still stand by it. Scorsese put a lot of work and effort into this film, it shows, and he succeeded. Academy Members: Give Mr. Scorsese his Oscar! This is the best film of the year! ***** (out of five)