A good review (he gave it 3.5 of 4 stars), but his caveats are odd.Tor Thorson wrote:Gangs of New York(2002)
Gangs of New York takes your idea of a period piece, slashes it across the face, knocks it to the ground, and rubs dirt into the wound. Playing like a blood-spattered, grit-caked prequel to the Godfather trilogy, Martin Scorsese's epic chronicles the all-but-forgotten unrest that wracked his beloved metropolis in the mid-19th century. It's a gruesome masterpiece, savage and majestic, unbearable and irresistible all at once.
The year is 1846. Waves of Irish immigrants are arriving in New York City, spurred on by the Great Potato Famine and dreams of a better life. But they aren't welcomed with open arms by the people who were already here, the so-called "native" New Yorkers of English ancestry. Afraid the unwashed masses will take their jobs and bring crime, many natives form armed gangs to assert their dominance.
In the city's Five Points district ? the area bounded by Broadway, Canal Street, and the Bowery ? the leader of the anti-immigrant militia is Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis), a fearsome thug with a glass eye and unparalleled skill with a knife. Opposing him is a band of Irishmen led by "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson), an honorable street brawler whose weapon of choice is a giant club shaped like a Celtic cross.
The two sides clash in a battle reminiscent of The Two Towers, with hundreds of ax- and sword-wielding madmen charging at each other after a speech about ancient warriors' traditions. In the ensuing battle, Bill guts Priest Vallon with a well-placed blade. Vallon's young son escapes, burying the knife that killed his father and swearing revenge on Bill and his nativists.
Fast-forward 16 years. Even with many being drafted to fight in the Civil War as soon as they get off their ships, the Irish outnumber the natives by a significant margin. The only way Bill and his crew keep power is through terror administered by a far-reaching crime network ? one that includes many Irish ? which every cutpurse and pickpocket in the Five Points must pay a percentage of their takings to.
One such thief catches Bill's eye ? a crafty Son of Erin named Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio). Bill takes the charismatic rogue under his wing, giving him access to the dirty world of urban politics via his ally Boss Tweed (Jim Broadbent). Despite his ruthlessness, Bill's kind to his men, offering them free meat (he actually isa butcher) and plenty of booze, whores, and fine clothes. With no son of his own, he takes a special shine to Amsterdam, even going so far as to let the lad bed his former mistress, the skilled Irish pickpocket Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz). He also speaks highly of his fallen nemesis, toasting Priest Vallon on the anniversary of his death.
Only an actor of Day-Lewis' talent could pull off Bill's mixture of tenderness and barbarism ? you feel sympathy for the guy, even when he's pulping a traitor's face with head-butts. Every second Bill's on-screen, Gangs of New Yorkfeels electric, since you don't know if he's going to pat someone on the back or run him through with a spike.
The same can't be said for DiCaprio's Amsterdam, who is, of course, Priest's long-lost son plotting his big payback. His intermittent Irish-American accent is forgivable, since his character is at the crossroads of both cultures, but it doesn't make his omnipresent voice-overs terribly compelling. Despite some poignant dramatic moments, beneath that greasy hair and matted goatee, Leo is still the pretty boy from Titanic. As was the case with his character in The Beach, the role of Amsterdam requires a degree of primal danger and raw physicality that the actor just can't provide.
Diaz fares far better as Jenny, a wily fox whom you'd eagerly let pick your pocket, as does Amsterdam's sidekick Johnny Sirocco (Henry Thomas). The rest of the cast is also first-rate, especially Broadbent as the gleefully corrupt Tweed, John C. Reillyas a dirty cop, and the ever-dependable Brendan Gleeson, who plays the only untainted figure in the crime-plagued borough.
There are plenty of stars off-screen as well. Production designer Dante Ferretti and his crew constructed a near-full-scale re-creation of Five Points outside Rome, and Maria-Teresa Barbasso's art-direction team packs each frame with appropriately filthy period detail. Cinematographer Michael Ballhaus re-teams with Scorsese for the first time since GoodFellas, and the results are wondrous, particularly during the indoor shots bathed in candlelit gold light.
As always, though, the real star of a Martin Scorsese movie is Scorsese himself, who orchestrates cinematic elements like a master conductor does a symphony. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the film's finale, set during the infamous 1863 Draft Riots. Having built up the frustration of New York's oppressed masses for two hours, he lets them loose in an orgy of urban chaos. Through frenetic cutting and dizzying camerawork, the director flies between the impending Amsterdam-Bill showdown and the lower-class mobs storming the homes of those rich enough to buy their way out of the draft. (One complaint: The director does shy away from the riots' racial overtones, only briefly showing the lynchings that were endemic during the bedlam.) All hell breaks loose when the army enters the city, an event that puts a novel ? albeit improbable ? twist on what could've been a very rote denouement.
It's said that when a film takes you to a place you've never been, it's a success. By that logic, Gangs of New Yorkis a triumph. Although loosely based on a small section of Hebert Asbury's expansive book of the same name, Gangs of New York transports the audience to an America that you never read about in high school. A dark story, to be sure, but one that hammers home the cruel reality of street life during the Victorian Era. Watching the Merchant-Ivory crowd trying not to get tea stains on their doilies will never be the same again.
Granted, the criticism of Leo is acceptable, even though I had no problems with him.
But what the hell is he talking about when he says that the army's intervention in the draft riots was 'improbable'?
I wonder if he was watching the same movie that I was, because I didn't think the racist aspect of the riots was underplayed at all.
And he says that "Gangs of New York transports the audience to an America that you never read about in high school..." Maybe that's because he never read in high school. I distinctly recall this portion of the required American History class in 11th grade.
And on a note less related to the movie, why must every instance of dynamic camerawork be referred to as "dizzying"? That shit pisses me off.
In the end, this is yet more evidence that you should never listen to anything a movie critic has to say about a movie. Watch it for yourself.[/quote]