The Gangs of New York.

Martin Scorcese is a great filmmaker. A GREAT filmmaker. So why is "Gangs" such a crappy movie? As an example of the filmmaking art, it is incredible: the period costumes and art direction are perfect, the craft of cinematography is stunning, and the movie successfully conveys the look and feel of 19th century New York City, a veritable battle zone between the so-called "Native Americans" (no, they're not Indians) and the newly immigrated Irish.

But the story? What the heck is this thing about, really? Is it a revenge drama, the story of a young boy (Leonardo DiCaprio) who, after watching his father die in a skirmish at the hands of Bill "The Butcher" (Daniel Day-Lewis), grows up to avenge his father's death? Or is it about the mean times that these folks lived in, and the ethnic tensions that engulf the entire city?

Well, hell, at least there were some fine performances. Liam Neeson played Qui-Gon, er, "Priest", who was Leo's father. I mention his "Star Wars: Phantom Menace" character because it was pretty similar to Priest….ol' Liam is getting pretty good at playing these wonderful father-figures who get killed by the bad guy early in the film. I think he even used the same accent in both films! In the opening scene, he gives young Leo (no, I don't remember his character's name, and you won't either) a lesson about shaving…or was that a lesson about cutting oneself? It's hard to say, because it didn't have any bearing on anything else that happened in the movie. What was the lesson? "Leave the blood on the blade." Right then you knew he wasn't a butcher…or at least you hoped he wasn't.

Daniel Day-Lewis absolutely CRUSHED his character, a murderous butcher who was also the de facto boss of the slum they all shared. In fact, he is the only good thing about the whole movie…he stole every scene he was in, and a few that he wasn't. I hear that Cameron Diaz was in this film, too, but I don't remember seeing…oh wait, was she that mousy, mouthy chick with the tummy scars? Talk about forgettable…I still haven't figured out what her character added to the story, other than give Leo a pseudo-romantic interest, and perhaps another recognizable name on the poster.

My guess is that Scorcese loves his town of New York so much that he even wanted to explore and expose this particularly sad chapter in the history of the city. What he shows us in the movie is rampant crime and corruption, terribly unsanitary living conditions, wretched poverty and unabashed hatred….and the thought that kept running through my mind is that not much has changed since then. I'm pretty sure that was at least one of the points Scorcese was trying to make. My only question is why? Seeing this movie made me want to go out and rent "Age of Innocence", just to console myself with one of his better films. "The Gangs of New York" is cinema as emotional punishment, not enlightenment.

More later…
Paul