← Back to Reviews
in
Gangs of New York, 2002
As a child, Amsterdam Vallen (Leonardo DiCaprio) sees his father killed in a street gang fight by rival gang leader Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis). Returning to New York City 15 years later as an adult, Amsterdam ends up tangled in Bill's many different schemes across the city. He also begins to form an attachment with Jenny (Cameron Diaz), a brash pickpocket who has her own complicated relationship with Bill. Against the backdrop of the Civil War and tensions over mass Irish immigration, Amsterdam begins the dangerous task of vying for power.
I remember the divisive reception that this film got on its release, and it was one of those movies that just didn't quite capture my interest enough to check out.
Overall, this film just didn't totally work for me. And it was only in the final hour that I was really able to put my finger on why. I think it's because the film seems to be trying to tell a sweeping, epic story about a changing city while at the same time telling a compelling story of revenge. And ultimately, neither aspect of the film was entirely satisfying to me.
On the positive side, the acting is strong. I remember people saying some pretty nasty things about Cameron Diaz's performance, but I thought that she was fine. If anything, I felt that there were several times that the writing let the characters down. DiCaprio and Day-Lewis are also (predictably) solid. The supporting cast includes Jim Broadbent, John C Reilly, and Brendan Gleeson, and they are all good in their roles.
I also admired the costuming, even if it feels a little too "costumey" in the sense that the brightness of the color scheme seems a bit too amplified for the setting. Still, the film tells a good amount of the story through the clothing, and that was neat.
On the negative side, the story itself felt a bit average. Too many of the beats were predictable, and the romance between Jenny and Amsterdam is by far the worst. They fight, the flirt, he pushes her up against a wall, she hates him, no, she loves him, they have sex. Yawn. And while the story arc between Amsterdam and Bill is more complex (and more of the focus of the nearly 3 hours of storytelling), there were also few surprises to be found there. Amsterdam is out for revenge--something that drives the plot from the first ten minutes--but his understanding of his place in the city and his decision to unite the Irish as a power move never felt more than superficial.
From a style point, there were also several choices that I found baffling. The opening street fight is set to . . . rock music? There are several moments where historical documents are flashed on screen, which is just strange as these momentary "real history!" interludes come at seemingly random times. And then there are a bunch of times where they do that thing where someone is talking then suddenly they are in slight slow-motion while a voice over continues over them. And I just didn't understand how these choices--which repeatedly remind you that you are watching a movie--were meant to elevate what was on screen.
I don't regret watching it or anything, but it never really got a purchase with me. I felt largely detached from the events on the screen.
Gangs of New York, 2002
As a child, Amsterdam Vallen (Leonardo DiCaprio) sees his father killed in a street gang fight by rival gang leader Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis). Returning to New York City 15 years later as an adult, Amsterdam ends up tangled in Bill's many different schemes across the city. He also begins to form an attachment with Jenny (Cameron Diaz), a brash pickpocket who has her own complicated relationship with Bill. Against the backdrop of the Civil War and tensions over mass Irish immigration, Amsterdam begins the dangerous task of vying for power.
I remember the divisive reception that this film got on its release, and it was one of those movies that just didn't quite capture my interest enough to check out.
Overall, this film just didn't totally work for me. And it was only in the final hour that I was really able to put my finger on why. I think it's because the film seems to be trying to tell a sweeping, epic story about a changing city while at the same time telling a compelling story of revenge. And ultimately, neither aspect of the film was entirely satisfying to me.
On the positive side, the acting is strong. I remember people saying some pretty nasty things about Cameron Diaz's performance, but I thought that she was fine. If anything, I felt that there were several times that the writing let the characters down. DiCaprio and Day-Lewis are also (predictably) solid. The supporting cast includes Jim Broadbent, John C Reilly, and Brendan Gleeson, and they are all good in their roles.
I also admired the costuming, even if it feels a little too "costumey" in the sense that the brightness of the color scheme seems a bit too amplified for the setting. Still, the film tells a good amount of the story through the clothing, and that was neat.
On the negative side, the story itself felt a bit average. Too many of the beats were predictable, and the romance between Jenny and Amsterdam is by far the worst. They fight, the flirt, he pushes her up against a wall, she hates him, no, she loves him, they have sex. Yawn. And while the story arc between Amsterdam and Bill is more complex (and more of the focus of the nearly 3 hours of storytelling), there were also few surprises to be found there. Amsterdam is out for revenge--something that drives the plot from the first ten minutes--but his understanding of his place in the city and his decision to unite the Irish as a power move never felt more than superficial.
From a style point, there were also several choices that I found baffling. The opening street fight is set to . . . rock music? There are several moments where historical documents are flashed on screen, which is just strange as these momentary "real history!" interludes come at seemingly random times. And then there are a bunch of times where they do that thing where someone is talking then suddenly they are in slight slow-motion while a voice over continues over them. And I just didn't understand how these choices--which repeatedly remind you that you are watching a movie--were meant to elevate what was on screen.
I don't regret watching it or anything, but it never really got a purchase with me. I felt largely detached from the events on the screen.