The way the story goes, in 1977, just after he made "Taxi Driver," Martin Scorsese took out a two-page ad in Variety magazine to announce his next film. That film was "Gangs of New York." It was to be made in 1980, but that was the year that "Heaven's Gate" tanked at the box office, so studios were reluctant to make another huge historical drama. Scorsese was forced to set it aside, and instead, he made "Raging Bull." Years went by, and he's made quite a few more movies since then, but now, finally, 25 years since putting that ad in Variety magazine, we get to see "Gangs of New York." Was it worth the wait? Well, I guess, but I dunno.
During post-production of this film, there was reportedly a lotta head-butting between director Martin Scorsese and Miramax honcho Harvey Weinstein over the movie's running time. Scorsese felt that his movie needed to be well over three hours long while Harvey Weinstein wanted it under three hours. Lately, Scorsese has been running around saying that it was all media bullshit, that it was really just that Scorsese and Weinstein wanted to make the movie the right length, and they agreed on the current length. He's also been saying that there won't be a different version, a Director's Cut, on DVD, because what's in theaters IS the Director's Cut. However, some critics believe he's just doing some damage control to sell the movie. I don't know what the truth is, but I can tell you that at 2 hours and 50 minutes long, the movie is slow at times, and I was a little disappointed. There are things in this movie that are excellent, but as a whole, it's a good movie, though not as good as you might expect from Scorsese. Then again, Martin Scorsese has directed movies I don't like, such as "Age of Innocence" and "Bringing Out the Dead."
There's much to like in this movie. For starters, it looks gorgeous. It's just a great looking film. Sure, there are some scenes that are brutal, but no one can make violence look beautiful the way Scorsese can. Whether it's the gang fight in the beginning or the riot at the end, Martin Scorsese can make violence look like an opera. The guy is unbelievable. Then there's Daniel Day-Lewis as "Bill the Butcher." Wow, the guy is astonishing in this movie. He rips through the movie the way Denzel Washington did in "Training Day." This is Daniel Day-Lewis' first acting role since 1997, when he starred in "The Boxer." Martin Scorsese somehow got him outta semi-retirement to do this movie, and I'm glad he did. Some may say that he's basically playing the role the way Robert De Niro would play it (indeed, De Niro supposedly turned down the role), but no matter, Daniel Day-Lewis kicks serious ass here. I never saw "My Left Foot," the movie that won him the Oscar for Best Actor, nor did I see "The Last of the Mohicans," a movie directed by Michael Mann that he starred in, and those who've seen the movie seem to love it. The only time I've ever seen Daniel Day-Lewis act was in another Martin Scorsese movie, "Age of Innocence." Unfortunately, it's a horrible movie that I actually dozed off to a couple of times. I love Scorsese, but I really didn't like "Age of Innocence." Since I wasn't into that movie in any way, shape, or form, I couldn't tell you how Daniel Day-Lewis was, but I can tell you that with his performance in "Gangs of New York," he's guaranteed another Oscar nomination. Excellent work.
The actual star of the movie is Leonardo DiCaprio, and though he's good in the movie, he's nothing compared to Daniel Day-Lewis. DiCaprio's character wasn't nearly as interesting, though, so the only thing he could really do is play the narrator role for the audience to relate to, and let the colorful characters surrounding him take all the glory. And it didn't help that Leonardo DiCaprio's accent was distractingly bad. Also in the movie is Cameron Diaz, who's pretty good in the movie, but not great. She's way too pretty for that kinda role.
This movie was based on the book of the same name, and it was adapted into a story by Jay Cocks, who helped write "Strange Days" and "Age of Innocence," the Scorsese movie I didn't like. The screenplay was by Cocks and Steven Zaillian (he wrote "Schindler's List" and he wrote and directed "A Civil Action" and "Searching for Bobby Fischer") and Kenneth Lonergan (he helped write "Analyze This" and "The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle"). I'm not sure how much the screenplay resembles the finished product, but I imagine not much. I suppose these guys did a decent job with what must have been a very tough assignment, but there were a lotta slow scenes.
I like "Gangs of New York," but I expected more. And why shouldn't I? This movie was directed by Martin Scorsese! He's the guy who brought us "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" and "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "GoodFellas" and "Casino"... was I wrong to set the bar higher than usual? Then again, maybe this movie is another Martin Scorsese masterpiece. Maybe there's a longer version of this movie out there, the true Director's Cut that Scorsese wants everyone to see but can't talk about. Right now he's saying that version doesn't exist, but there's always hope. And if that version IS out there, I really hope we get to see it.
Scale of 1-10: 7