I tend to agree. There are two great things about Gangs of New York – the set design/atmosphere of the film and a huge wonderful performance by Daniel Day Lewis. Unfortunately, DiCaprio cannot seem to hold his own in his role and Diaz is just miscast. It contains many memorable scenes I’m glad we had a chance to see, but it just doesn’t come together as a whole.
I really wanted to love this film, but it is difficult.
I absolutely loved the first ten minutes when Liam Neeson and his gang faced off against Day Lewis’ s – the conflict between between those two raised the bar which DiCaprio/Day Lewis had no hope of matching, particularly in the bedroom sequence where Day-Lewis explains how he lost his eye; if only more of the film had been dedicated to Neeson and his first skirmishes with Bill.
What also did not help was the rivalry through politics – DiCaprio electing a sheriff did not cut it for me and it was a red herring anyway given how the aftermath of the election turned out. And do not get me started on the draft riots – I know that the point of the battle was to show how irrelevant Day-Lewis and DiCaprio became in the sweep of history, but merging those stories together made it feel cluttered, incoherent and confused.
Still, I would rather watch this a thousand times over than see the Aviator again (although DiCaprio gave a much better performance in that film).
much better than “the aviator”, thats for sure. when i first saw “gangs” i was completely caught up in day-lewis’ performance. he made me tense in a way few movie villains have. i havent seen the film a second time, and i dont really have an interest in doing so. so that means for me, it wasnt much more than a popcorn movie. maybe good, but hard to call great.
I really wish he’d just done a remake of TAXI DRIVER set in the olden days…HANSOM DRIVER!
Anyone know how long ago the script was first developed? I know he had the project in mind for years. I am wondering because I suspect that if he had made this film back when he originally wanted to the Diaz character would not even be in the story much, if at all. That entire storyline seemed contrived to cover all the markets rather than move the drama along.
I find it very enjoyable too. Certainly not one of his best films, but very entertaining. Day Lewis’s performances is very good. The editing is kind of cluttered at the end and it’s said that Harvey Weinstein re-edited part of the picture. The editor on the film though was Scorsese’s long time collaborator Thelma Schoonmacher.
@Mike Spence I believe Scorsese had this planned from the late 70’s/early 80’s. He always had to put it on the backburner, doing other films instead. I think Jay Cocks was involved in that time period as well in the time that it was actually made. Jay Cocks at that time was a film critic for I believe Time magazine.
Nick Kostopoulos
Arguably, “Gangs of New York” is a deeply flawed movie. It doesn’t help when your film has holes (whether created by cutting out an hour or not), or when Daniel Day Lewis’ performance is the best AND worst thing about your film. (He runs away with the film, right under the noses of Diaz and DiCaprio.)
And yet….
I know saying “An ‘A’ for effort” is cloying, but just because Scorsese fails to live up to the scope he set for himself doesn’t mean the film should be writen off entirely. Case in point, this anecdote:
“When George Lucas visited the massive set, he reportedly turned to Martin Scorsese and said that sets like that can be done with computers now.”
In short, Scorsese made a tough film. A tough film to watch, a tough film to accept; a film not of its own time and era. It’s commendable to travel the road not taken, which is what he does. Any film that can be so divisive, deserves to be discussed.
It’s been written off, but it’s a challenging film; a film almost as much at war with ITSELF as it is with its own time.
Sure, it’s far from a masterpiece, but it’s a deeply personal picture that dares to be something so few films are; and for me, that’s good too.