These streets will one day morph into something great. Watching this you wouldn't have thought so.

Rating: 9/10 (5 April 2012)

Director Martin Scorsese's deep fascination with the underground gangster lifestyle and complex inter-workings of illegal operations has led him to backtrack when gangs blatantly controlled the streets of what would soon become the most active and functioning city in America. Gangs of New York is a wickedly effective film, dark and crisp in most fields, including scenes that could easily be dubbed heartless and dehumanizing. Despite these traits, it makes for a devilishly entertaining film of epic length.
I have mentioned before that Martin Scorsese is one of my favorite filmmakers and is often, what I consider to be, a treasure taken for granted. When we look at his films, many of see a great story, with superb performances, and a very long runtime. We don't see the intricate aspects that make every one of his films surpass all expectations. My personal favorite of his, Casino from 1995, is one of his longest films, and is exquisitely written and directed, but is also shot with so much care and attention to detail. Shots are vibrant, cinematography and atmosphere are evoked in a limitless state, and every scene is electrifying, right up until the final sequences which some have dubbed "visually disturbing." But on with Gangs. It is a wonderful period piece, with more life and enigma that many of its kind. Early scenes show us Lower Manhattan's Five Points in 1846, where the nativists, lead by the notorious and deeply depraved cynic William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting (Lewis), are about to square-off and battle with the Irish gang the "Dead Rabbits" run by Priest Vallon (Neeson). The battle erupts after a long, ominous silence occurs as the two groups find each other in the stone-cold street. When it begins, it rarely lets up. It is brutal, bloody, and downright tantalizing as many men are beaten and stabbed, till dozens of lifeless bodies crowd the street. Vallon is murdered, as his young son Amsterdam witnesses the unforgiving assembly of violence. He is shipped off to an orphanage, never to be seen again.
Until sixteen years later, where he among many other Irish immigrants arrive on a boat where they unload into the bitter streets of New York. Amsterdam is played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who drifts about as far away from the pretty-boy image as one could get, after portraying a passionate romantic in James Cameron's classic just five years prior. Amsterdam's goal is to seek out revenge for his father's death, and is willing to go through great lengths to obtain it. It's a dish best served cold, and he wants it with extra ice.
The performances, like in any other Scorsese picture, are intricate, marvelous, and absolutely engaging. While DiCaprio is sure to please the crowd, the standout is none other than Daniel Day-Lewis as the Butcher. The character is quite possibly the most ruthless and soulless villain the year 2002 had ever seen, and what could've morphed into a one-dimensional, ridiculous antagonist, comes off and bleeds complexity and evil. Pure, unadulterated, fearful evil.
A plethora of secondary characters keep the film going as well. Brendan Gleeson and John C. Reilly have wonderful roles, and Jim Broadbent gets some much-deserved screen time as the corrupt and desperate Boss Tweed, who will go to any length to receive votes in the forthcoming election. Like in any Scorsese film, there is a love story with the main character, this time involving the crafty con-woman Jenny, played by Cameron Diaz. While Diaz is fun to watch and is possibly doing some of her best work, she always seems to be one-upped by Day-Lewis' and DiCaprio's respective characters.
Some have written off Gangs as Scorsese's "messy masterpiece," when it really is an interestingly made epic providing commentary on America's explicit xenophobia at the time. It's 2012, and in a time where the immigration issue immediately turns heads, this film provides the brutally honest retelling of the nativists' reception without being too hokey, biased, or heavy-handed. The film holds off on coating the story with sugar and sweetness because we have been told the soft-side of history for far too long.
And that's why I like the film so much; it's daring and honest. It has a heavy layer of cynicism, that some may find too smothering and too mean-spirited. We can't always be told the mild side of things, when there is a much greater lesson to be taught. Cynicism and pessimism are part of life, and as soon as we can realize that, the sooner we will be far more educated about the world around us.
Gangs of New York tells a story that hasn't been brought up too often, and its result is definitely commendable. Consistent readers will take note that this is the first film by Scorsese that I have not awarded a perfect rating. One of the greatest emotions a film can bring to a person is the feeling of sadness and depression, and I have walked away with that feeling in all of Scorsese's previous pictures, with the notable exception of Hugo. When Gangs ends, it feels like it has ended, and we are just left contemplating the great change New York has endured since 1862. Not much else. Regardless, this is a beautifully made film with enriching cinematography, beyond capable performances from actors of all different statuses, and refuses to sugarcoat history although it is in a great position to do so.
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz, Brendan Gleeson, John C. Reilly, and Liam Neeson. Directed by: Martin Scorsese.