Gangs of New York

Last week I saw Gangs of New York.

Sometimes, I see a movie and I can't decide what I think of it. About 2/3rds of the time, this means I didn't like it. About a third of the time, I decide that I liked it. Occasionally, it turns out I liked it a lot.

I didn't like Gangs of New York.

Daniel Day-Lewis was very good. Oscar-worthy. But beyond that: eeennnh.

I am not in the Leonardo DiCaprio haters club. I think he is a highly talented actor, and I thought Scorsese would have been able to pull the best out of him. It didn't happen. I never liked the character, nor sympathized with him, nor even felt compelled by him. I was, mostly, vaguely annoyed with him.

I also like Cameron Diaz. She clearly tried hard to give a great dramatic performance. Somehow, it didn't gel.

That mostly was describes my whole opinion of the movie. I wanted to like almost everything about this movie, and wound up liking very little.

I found myself not caring what happened to either the hero or heroine. When it came to the good guys' cause vs. the bad guys' cause, I found myself sympathizing with neither. It was like watching Idi Amin in a cage match with Fidel Castro. You're going to cheer for... who? (In fairness, Scorsese may have been going for just that. But if so, he did a bit too good a job of it.)

The special effects and the scenery were compelling. The subject matter was also promising. Indeed, 19th century urban America is a tremendously interesting subject, with tons of potential for great movies. With any luck, Gangs of New York will inspire others to explore this as a genre.

But what you've got here is basically just a bunch of gritty, dirty, not particularly likeable people doing nasty, unpleasant stuff for causes it's hard to care much about. And you get a generous three hours worth of it, too.

Article Author: Dean Esmay

Visit Dean Esmay's author page — Dean Esmay's Blog