return to top

Review by Richard Dennis

Gangs of New York is a sprawling, ambitious, sometimes sloppy mess of a movie that succeeds in making you wonder what might have been just as much as appreciating what you got. The word around town is that Martin Scorsese had been kicking around the idea for this film for over thirty years, ever since his career first kicked into high gear in the early 70's.

The film centers around New York circa the 1800's and, more specifically, the gangs that were feuding for control over the Five Points area of the city. Scorsese succeeds in letting us in on every detail of the crime-filled streets during this period, from the pickpockets right down to the men dressing as prostitutes in order to rob their customers.

First the good: Daniel Day-Lewis.
As the ringleader and basic street ruler of the Five Points, Day-Lewis' Bill the Butcher is a scorching creation brought to life. Every time Day-Lewis is on screen, the film literally jumps out at you. It's as good as acting gets, and you'll be completely mesmerized by what Bill the Butcher is capable of. You literally don't know what you're going to get from this character, and it gives the film its driving force.

The period creations are also quite startling in their own right. From the Five Points sets down to the costumes, Scorsese knows how to make his world believable. You can almost smell the blood and grime coming off of the streets of New York in the story. If nothing else, Gangs should be remembered at Oscar time for it's set design.

DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, while nowhere near on Day-Lewis' level, are also quite good in their roles. Admittedly though, DiCaprio isn't given much to do in the film except look angry (his performance in Catch Me If You Can is far more accomplished.)

Now the bad: The story.
Gangs of New York is essentially a revenge tale. Without giving away too much, you literally know from the first five minutes what the film has in store for you. It is about retribution. The problem is that Scorsese also wants to give us something more. The film has scenes underscoring the Irish immigrants and their initial involvement in the Civil War as well as the political struggles of New York during this period.

Don't get me wrong. Layers in a film are what make it great. The problem is, that in Gangs theses subplots simply distract us from the main focus of the story. In setting his film up as a tale of revenge, Scorsese has given us a promise of what's to come. The more these subplots take up the screen time, the more they take away from the impact of what we are waiting for. Even more disappointing, when the climax does come, it is literally halted by the distractions that came before it. You'll know it when it happens.

By the time the end credits (which are quite strange in themselves) roll, we are literally already begging for a Director's Cut DVD. Perhaps a longer cut of the film would repair the narrative and provide all the subplot elements of the film with a satisfying flow. As it stands though, they simply serve as forks in the road.

Gangs of New York is always good, but it is seldom great. With films like The Two Towers, Catch Me If You Can, and Chicago vying for your cinema dollars, Gangs of New York merges as something akin to its subplots: a minor distraction.

Richard Dennis