I haven’t seen this in a since it first came out so I decided to re-watched it last night. It’s strange because people say it’s Scorsese’s weakest and there are certain flaws with the movie, but for the most part, I found it very enjoyable.

The main criticism I always hear is about how Scorsese’s films are in this later part of his career is how his films aren’t the character driven Cassavetes/Kazan/Godard influenced films they once were. There a whole other beast now. I think he’s reached a point where I feel he closely identifies with the films of Samuel Fuller more than anything else. Like Samuel Fuller, his new films are very over-the-top with crazed performances, ideas that hit you in the cut and a very dark (almost morbid) sense of humor. I can’t see why Scorsese isn’t allowed to do this in the eyes of most cineastes. Any good artist changes throughout life. If they kept repeating what they were doing twenty years ago, they wouldn’t be a very good filmmaker. Some change for the better, some for the worst, but Scorsese’s is neither. The films maybe less personal, but does a man his age feel the way he did when he quit cocaine and made Raging Bull? He’s a different man twenty (at the time this movie was made, now it’s almost thirty) years later. It’s a definitely more inline with classic Hollywood, but certainly much better than most of the crap that hits cineplexes today.

My complaints laid mostly in the cheesy soundtrack which was just too far distracting for my tastes (A much better and I’d say “classic Hollywood” soundtrack was written by the late Elmer Bernstein, but was rejected by the producers, NOT Scorsese. You can hear it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X14YEg_f7k0). The traditional folk music, drum pieces and marches were fine, but the Howard Shore soundtrack is actually downright awful. There’s also plenty of historical accuracies, but then again it’s a movie; it’s expected to not be completely accurate. If you wanted an accurate representation of what New York was like in the 1860’s, I’d suggest reading a book, not viewing a movie. I’m certain Scorsese is aware of the inaccuracies, and knows it’s not meant to be accurate. You can mold history, time and people with cinema and get away with things like that in order to serve the purpose of telling the film’s story. The plotline between Cameron Diaz and DiCaprio wasn’t very strong either, but the films short comings were made up excellent with great performances from an array of character actors and Daniel Day Lewis.

In the end, it’s certainly not the greatest Scorsese, but not great Scorsese is still many times better than the films of other directors.