There's over 1000 comments on the film a this point, so I can't say I have anything new to add or any new point to argue. The characters are exceptionally weak, and the screenplay reeks of a vanity project written by committee.
After watching "The Deer Hunter" for the first time a few months back, I was looking through criticism for that film, and recall one critic of the time saying that given too much money and time, it is entirely possible for a filmmaker to become so self-important that he could literally climb up his own ass.
More accurately, in her review of "The Deer Hunter," Pauline Kael spoke thusly: "(It is) a small minded film with greatness in it... with an enraptured view of common life... (but) enraging, because, despite its ambitiousness and scale, it has no more moral intelligence than the Eastwood action pictures." The consensus of that film, released around the same time "Gangs" was conceived, was "Its (The Deer Hunter) greatness is blunted by its length and one-sided point of view, but the film's weaknesses are overpowered by Michael Cimino's sympathetic direction and a series of heartbreaking performances from Robert De Niro, Meryl Streep, and Christopher Walken."
"Gangs of New York" is precisely all of these, except without the great acting performances. Daniel Day-Lewis goes beyond superb and achieves something even greater, but the film around him is so ambling and weak (despite spectacular production-design), that there's still no reason to watch it. A different filmmaker made the far more wise decision of letting Day-Lewis chew scenery as a lead and not as a supporting player, and that entire film was lauded with praise and positive reviews it richly deserved. "Gangs" deserves none of these.
DiCaprio, though still a commanding presence, remains a weak actor without an ear for accents, as in this film he is only occasionally Irish. He feels it is his job to simply arrive on set and glower (or cry), and Scorsese is content to let him. The film is weaker for it, despite grand performances from every supporting actor, including Cameron Diaz. There is no shortage of attractive blondes in Hollywood, but even in 2002 she was aware she'd better put something on screen besides her piercing blue eyes, and shockingly, she does... despite the incredibly meager material. She is charming and damaged all at once, from the first time we see her until about 80 minutes into the film... the instant her character has sex with the hero, she becomes a glorified extra.
The entire film is similarly rambling, with no direction or clear plot. We're vaguely aware our hero wants to kill the man who killed his father, but he is given the chance several times and does nothing. In voice-over, we are told, "You don't kill a King alone in the dark, but in front of the entire Court," but of numerous chances given, some of them are indeed quite public. None are taken, as Amsterdams reasons for not doing so exist only in Scorsese's head, and not anywhere on screen.
Scorsese must have known this was a mess, because he pushed back the films original release date by a year, in order to keep working on it (something unheard of, and a concession that could only be made to a director of his reputation). He's made three more films with DiCaprio since then, and "The Departed" is easily the best of them, though by no means even in the Top Five for Scorsese's once-storied career.
If you're a fan of DiCaprio's strong presence, or weak acting, or his toned abdominal muscles, there are other films from not just Scorsese but other directors as well. If you are a fan of Day-Lewis' chameleonic transformations, there can be no other option but "There Will Be Blood." If you are a fan of violent history lessons, the 21st century has given us The History Channel.
The IMDb trivia section says Scorsese wanted to make this film in the early 1980s, but the failure of Heaven's Gate (Michael Cimino's follow-up to "The Deer Hunter") caused studios to shy away from making big-budget, expensive historical dramas. Miramax should have done the same in the early 2000s, because there's nothing great about this film, and the only reason it got made is not because of any perceived greatness of Scorsese... he got here simply by outlasting all the rest. Maybe he's a little less Amsterdam, and a little more Bill, after all... in which case we should thank him for his past services, and hit him with something heavy if he keeps trying to make any more movies.
5/10, would not recommend to anyone, not even fans of Scorsese's.
After watching "The Deer Hunter" for the first time a few months back, I was looking through criticism for that film, and recall one critic of the time saying that given too much money and time, it is entirely possible for a filmmaker to become so self-important that he could literally climb up his own ass.
More accurately, in her review of "The Deer Hunter," Pauline Kael spoke thusly: "(It is) a small minded film with greatness in it... with an enraptured view of common life... (but) enraging, because, despite its ambitiousness and scale, it has no more moral intelligence than the Eastwood action pictures." The consensus of that film, released around the same time "Gangs" was conceived, was "Its (The Deer Hunter) greatness is blunted by its length and one-sided point of view, but the film's weaknesses are overpowered by Michael Cimino's sympathetic direction and a series of heartbreaking performances from Robert De Niro, Meryl Streep, and Christopher Walken."
"Gangs of New York" is precisely all of these, except without the great acting performances. Daniel Day-Lewis goes beyond superb and achieves something even greater, but the film around him is so ambling and weak (despite spectacular production-design), that there's still no reason to watch it. A different filmmaker made the far more wise decision of letting Day-Lewis chew scenery as a lead and not as a supporting player, and that entire film was lauded with praise and positive reviews it richly deserved. "Gangs" deserves none of these.
DiCaprio, though still a commanding presence, remains a weak actor without an ear for accents, as in this film he is only occasionally Irish. He feels it is his job to simply arrive on set and glower (or cry), and Scorsese is content to let him. The film is weaker for it, despite grand performances from every supporting actor, including Cameron Diaz. There is no shortage of attractive blondes in Hollywood, but even in 2002 she was aware she'd better put something on screen besides her piercing blue eyes, and shockingly, she does... despite the incredibly meager material. She is charming and damaged all at once, from the first time we see her until about 80 minutes into the film... the instant her character has sex with the hero, she becomes a glorified extra.
The entire film is similarly rambling, with no direction or clear plot. We're vaguely aware our hero wants to kill the man who killed his father, but he is given the chance several times and does nothing. In voice-over, we are told, "You don't kill a King alone in the dark, but in front of the entire Court," but of numerous chances given, some of them are indeed quite public. None are taken, as Amsterdams reasons for not doing so exist only in Scorsese's head, and not anywhere on screen.
Scorsese must have known this was a mess, because he pushed back the films original release date by a year, in order to keep working on it (something unheard of, and a concession that could only be made to a director of his reputation). He's made three more films with DiCaprio since then, and "The Departed" is easily the best of them, though by no means even in the Top Five for Scorsese's once-storied career.
If you're a fan of DiCaprio's strong presence, or weak acting, or his toned abdominal muscles, there are other films from not just Scorsese but other directors as well. If you are a fan of Day-Lewis' chameleonic transformations, there can be no other option but "There Will Be Blood." If you are a fan of violent history lessons, the 21st century has given us The History Channel.
The IMDb trivia section says Scorsese wanted to make this film in the early 1980s, but the failure of Heaven's Gate (Michael Cimino's follow-up to "The Deer Hunter") caused studios to shy away from making big-budget, expensive historical dramas. Miramax should have done the same in the early 2000s, because there's nothing great about this film, and the only reason it got made is not because of any perceived greatness of Scorsese... he got here simply by outlasting all the rest. Maybe he's a little less Amsterdam, and a little more Bill, after all... in which case we should thank him for his past services, and hit him with something heavy if he keeps trying to make any more movies.
5/10, would not recommend to anyone, not even fans of Scorsese's.