Today’s quick review: Gangs of New York. In 1862, Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns to his childhood home of Five Points, New York, and works his way back into the gangs who run the neighborhood. In the process, he becomes a trusted friend of Bill Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), the nativist gang leader who killed his father sixteen years ago. As Amsterdam contemplates revenge, he risks throwing away the new life he has built.
Gangs of New York is a historical crime drama about the son of an Irish immigrant and his attempt to avenge his father. Set at the onset of the Civil War, Gangs of New York is a window into a crucial point in the development of New York City. The movie is ambitious in scope and boasts both a star-studded cast and a famed director in Martin Scorsese. However, its characters and direction aren’t as compelling as in similar films.
Gangs of New York is notable for its historical setting. The New York of 1862 is a tumultuous place that the film goes to great lengths to bring to life. Racial conflicts, political corruption, gang violence, and the looming specter of the Civil War all contribute to a colorful environment with grey morality. The film’s large cast, broad scope, and attention to detail make it an effective slice of a particular time and place.
Where Gangs of New York finds shakier footing is with its characters. Amsterdam is neither pure enough to be sympathetic nor clever enough to be impressive, making him hard to root for over anyone else in the story. For his part, Daniel Day-Lewis cuts an odd figure as Bill Cutting, a knife-happy bigot who keeps a violent stranglehold over Five Points. The role is compelling but uneven, with quirks that undermine him as a villain.
The same pattern holds for the supporting cast. Cameron Diaz plays Jenny, a pickpocket with a love-hate relationship with Amsterdam. Jim Broadbent plays the political influencer William Tweed. John C. Reilly, Brendan Gleeson, and Liam Neeson appear as some of the key inhabitants of Five Points. The acting is impressive and the roles are distinctive, but they have precious few redeeming characteristics for the audience to latch onto.
Finally, Gangs of New York has an active directorial style that belies its historical setting. The dramatic scenes are treated soberly enough, but the frequent outbursts of violence are accompanied by aggressive camerawork that draws attention to itself. The movie also takes pains to drive home its historical significance by inserting contemporary newspaper clippings and filling gaps with Amsterdam’s narration about the birth of New York.
How much you get out of Gangs of New York will depend on what you expect from it. Those hoping for skilled acting, historical flavor, and ambiguous morality will find that Gangs of New York delivers exactly what they’re looking for with uncommon skill. But those hoping for a strong emotional core to tie the pieces together may be disappointed. Gangs of New York is an ambitious film, but for the wrong viewer, its story will fail to resonate.
For a historical crime drama with a more focused scope and a sharper plot, try Miller’s Crossing. For a more fanciful tale of revenge, try The Count of Monte Cristo. For an iconic crime drama from Martin Scorsese, try Casino or Goodfellas.
7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a rich setting and a talented cast, hurt somewhat by the particulars of its characters and story.