 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Gangs Of New York- 12/20/02 - R - 168m
Leonardo DiCaprio
- Amsterdam Vallon
Daniel Day-Lewis - William "The Butcher" Cutting
Cameron Diaz - Jennie Everdeane
Director: Martin Scorsese
JEF
I don’t get what the
big deal is about this movie. Its getting rave reviews from other critics,
and I just have to say, “Why”?
Warning… this is a long review. You might
want to grab a cup of coffee for this one...
Storyline: Warning Minor Spoilers!
The movie opens with a terrific sequence of events leading up to a battle
between to “gangs” in New York city fighting over turf, in
particular called “Five points” where five streets come together.
The two gangs are the “Dead Rabbits” a band of Irishmen, and
the “Natives” who represent the Americans who were “born”
in America. (Not to be confused with the American Indians). The Dead Rabbits
are lead by a priest (Liam Neeson), and the Natives are lead by “Bill
the Butcher” (Daniel Day-Lewis). The Priest brings his son out to
watch the battle and of course his father is killed in the battle.
The boy is taken away to an orphanage for some 16 years, and the movie
picks up with the release of the boy (now a young man), on his way back
to his town to seek revenge for his father’s death. The boy calls
himself “Amsterdam” and is played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Amsterdam
then attempts to infiltrate “Bill the Butcher’s” gang
to seek revenge and kill him at a moment when Amsterdam sees befitting.
Amsterdam runs into an old childhood “friend” who sort of
brings him up to speed on what’s been happening in the last 16 years.
Along the way, Amsterdam falls for a “pick-pocket” known as
Jennie (Cameron Diaz). Mixed in with this storyline are some attempts
to teach the viewer about Early NY, and the civil war. The time period
for the movie is 1846.
First I’ll start with the positives of the Film… Daniel Day-Lewis
does an outstanding job! His character of William Cutting a.k.a. “Bill
the Butcher” was both horrifyingly brutal, and yet noble, and at
other times a devious cutthroat. Day-Lewis brought this character to life.
It was almost worth the price of admission to see his acting. I also think
the grand scale of the movie was great. The use of hundreds of movie extras
really brought the town alive. The costumes were very well done. From
period pieces with an additional artistic flair added. The cityscapes
were well done. Bringing the viewer back to the time of the mid 1800’s
and showing the harsh realities, and tough lifestyle was quite the accomplishment.
The dirt and squalor that many of the immigrants had to live in was horrible.
Now those things being said, I didn’t like this movie. DiCaprio’s
acting was so-so. He had no range in the movie except anger, resent, and
cunning. He spent most of the 3 hours being pissed off, and fighting.
There were the occasional love interests thrown in with Cameron Diaz,
but even those scenes were still DiCaprio playing anger. It just got to
be tiring. I generally enjoy DiCaprio’s work. I think he’s
a passionate actor. But three hours of his being angry was too much.
This leads us onto my next complaint… the time. I didn’t know
it was a three-hour movie. This movie could have easily been cut down
to 2 hours or so.
Cameron Diaz’s performance was nothing to write home about either.
As Lyn said going into this movie, “go ahead, name one role in where
Cameron Diaz plays a serious dramatic role”. And no, Charlie’s
Angel’s doesn’t count. She was supposed to be this tough orphaned
street girl, who was living a life of crime as a pickpocket, but yet she
always had this sort of “cutesy” attitude. There didn’t
seem to be any pain or emotion in her character.
My overall biggest complaint about the movie was that the characters didn’t
make any sense. Here you have a kid around 10 years old, who saw his father
killed in battle. He harbors this sense of revenge for some 16 years!
Then when he comes back home, he falls in as one of “Bill’s”
students, and starts to form a bond with him. Ok, which one is it? Is
he consumed with revenge? Is he confused and starts to see that his feelings
of revenge are unfounded especially after 16 years? Then he slips back
into feeling revenge. DiCaprio’s character also flip-flops with
religion. We’re shown him leaving the orphanage and throwing the
Bible into a river. At one point he tells a priest to “go to Hell”.
Then, all of a sudden he starts praying. He’s living in a church.
He takes over the renovation of the church. What? What brought this on?
Why did he go from a blasphemous character to one of an almost religious
fanatic? The role of Johnny who betrays Amsterdam’s was so cliché.
The role of Bill the Butcher was confusing. On one hand he’s portrayed
as a murderous cutthroat, and at other times he’s shown as being
the most noble of characters in the movie. I didn’t know if I was
supposed to despise him, or see him as being the only morally good character
in the film. A smaller role was one of “Monk” (Brendan Gleeson).
In the beginning of the movie he’s shown a mercenary. A man who’s
only in the battle to earn money for every head bashed. Then later in
the movie his character flip-flops and he’s supposed to be the man
that still cares after all these years, and is voted into office to be
sheriff. I just got tired of seeing all the characters flip-flop in their
beliefs.
I also tried to find redeeming qualities in this movie in regards to the
history I might learn. I will admit I’m not a history buff. I slept
through most of my history classes in high school. It’s only been
in recent years that I’ve come to appreciate history, and have tried
to teach myself some of America’s early history. That being said,
I was confused about many of the points in this movie. They tried to introduce
ideas of the politics in the movie. All the politicians shown were corrupt.
Down to the actual voting process. At one point a clerk comes in and says’
“We ran out of Ballots”, and the politician say’s “It’s
not the ballots that count… it’s the counters, Tell ‘em
to keep counting”. They tried to introduce ideas relating to the
civil war. For example immigrants arriving off the boat, were asked to
sign one paper claiming their American citizenship, then the next paper
drafting them into the war, and they were outfitted, and armed, and put
right back on the boat to be shipped off to war. An interesting point,
but wouldn’t most of these immigrants speak a language other than
English? How could they serve a position in the military if they didn’t
understand the English orders? The use of the African American’s
in this movie was almost shameful. The movie throws the “N-word”
around quite a bit, and that was hard to listen to. The words “token
black” came to mind. When a movie or TV show enlists all caucasian
actors, only to use one “token black” to keep from being called
racist. I can think of two African American characters in the movie…
One was a prostitute who offered drugs; the other was a non-speaking part
where he was shown as being part of the Irish gang. Was he supposed to
be Irish? There were other parts scattered about to show the slaves as
extras but that was about it. The movie I think was trying to say something
about the issues of the use of slavery, but it wasn’t very clear
on the message it wanted to say. The ending of the movie was confusing
as well. For some 2.5 hours we’re seen the tensions between the
“Dead rabbits” and the “Natives” rising, only
to be shown how Amsterdam somehow rallies the entire Irish population
of NY, to run rampant through-out the city. Why? I thought this was an
issue about the original five-points, not the entire city of New York.
(I’ve since found out that these were a separate issue known as
the “draft riots” that happened to be going on at the same
time. I didn’t get that from the movie.)
And finally I had to question the logic of the people cast for these roles.
You have Leonardo DiCaprio, who is of Italian descent, playing the Irish
lead. You have Daniel Day-Lewis who is nothing but Irish descent, playing
the role of the “Native American”, Cameron Diaz who is Cuban
playing the part of the Irish pickpocket.
Ok, one more thing… This movie started with a lesson from the father
to his son. He intentionally cuts himself with a straight razor while
shaving, and then hands the blade to his son. The boy starts to wipe the
blood from the razor, and his father corrects him, and say’s something
like “the blood should always remain on a blade”. Huh? Could
someone explain this line to me? (email
me if you know). It was brought up again at the end of the movie,
so it must have been important, but I don’t get it. It was a straight
razor used for shaving. It wasn’t one of the many knives in the
movie used to kill someone. It was a personal shaving device kept in a
nice little velour pouch. It was supposed to be used to shave with. Of
course you want to keep this blade clean, otherwise you’ll give
yourself hepatitis, or some other disease.
Well, if you’re a glutton for punishment, you’ll go see this
three-hour movie. My advice is to bring a Walkman or something, and when
Daniel Day-Lewis isn’t on screen, listen to one of your favorite
cds.
Jef