"Gangs of New York" was a story that had tremendous potential. The backdrop of ethnic gang war in this era, place and setting was so interesting, it really could have been the movie of the year. "Gangs of New York" tells the story of 'Amsterdam' (Leonardo DiCaprio), a young man who, as a boy, witnessed his father's gory death at the hands of 'Bill the Butcher' (Daniel Day Lewis) in the course of a bloody Irish gang street war in one of the most violent places of the mid-19th century. As an adult, Amsterdam finds himself seeking to get close the the man who killed his father in order to exact revenge, while falling for a dangerous and enchanting woman (Cameron Diaz) who becomes the missing link between Amsterdam and Bill the Butcher. It all culminates in another, more grandiose street war. The very premise of the movie was fascinating enough to place it on the must-see list of millions of people.
Unfortunately, under Scorsese's directorship, the movie is little more than an overblown blood and gore fetish film starring mostly talented, but incredibly miscast actors (namely Cameron Diaz, but nearly everyone with the exception of Daniel Day Lewis).
Appropriate use of bloodshed and violence in a movie has certain characteristics. First, it should not be excessive and gratuitous. "Gangs of New York" was both, and rather than adding to the film, the violence and gore seriously detracted from it. Second, it should be necessary to the movie. Although this was a movie about street gang warfare, this was no "Saving Private Ryan". More than half of the violence and bloodshed in the movie does not take place during a street war. Nor is it used to portray the futility and horror of violence and war. Honestly, I'm surprised Scorsese didn't have Daniel Day Lewis kick a puppy to death while the sky rained blood.
"Les Miserables", while not a perfect adaptation of Victor Hugo's work of art, was a far more effective portrayal of street war and rebellion.
"Gangs of New York" received credit where credit was not due. A truly good director can make an excellent film without relying on blood and gore shock value and name recognition of the leads. Scorsese shows his true, very ugly, colors here. Teenaged boys and adults with strong stomachs may enjoy this film; others will be disgusted and disappointed.
Unfortunately, under Scorsese's directorship, the movie is little more than an overblown blood and gore fetish film starring mostly talented, but incredibly miscast actors (namely Cameron Diaz, but nearly everyone with the exception of Daniel Day Lewis).
Appropriate use of bloodshed and violence in a movie has certain characteristics. First, it should not be excessive and gratuitous. "Gangs of New York" was both, and rather than adding to the film, the violence and gore seriously detracted from it. Second, it should be necessary to the movie. Although this was a movie about street gang warfare, this was no "Saving Private Ryan". More than half of the violence and bloodshed in the movie does not take place during a street war. Nor is it used to portray the futility and horror of violence and war. Honestly, I'm surprised Scorsese didn't have Daniel Day Lewis kick a puppy to death while the sky rained blood.
"Les Miserables", while not a perfect adaptation of Victor Hugo's work of art, was a far more effective portrayal of street war and rebellion.
"Gangs of New York" received credit where credit was not due. A truly good director can make an excellent film without relying on blood and gore shock value and name recognition of the leads. Scorsese shows his true, very ugly, colors here. Teenaged boys and adults with strong stomachs may enjoy this film; others will be disgusted and disappointed.
Tell Your Friends