|
Gangs of New York (2002) - 6/10
Over the years ive tried to watch this maybe a half a dozen times or so but the opening is so bad ive never managed to get through it. Ultimately i think this film is very uneven. Its acting ranges from excellent to laughable. Despite its scripts dialogue, theming, subtext and plot you have terrible cinematography and editing ruining what should be excellent scenes.
The opening action sequence is one of the worst edited and shot action scenes in a major motion picture made of its era or since. It peacocks itslef as if its giving you graphic bloody violence of the highest order but what its giving is not only fairly tame even compared to things Scorsese himself has given his audiences a dozen times over but it has some many hard jump cuts you could air on Monday night and think you're watching modern WWE.
Once that scene settles we jump in time and meet Leonardo DiCaprio's character who, like all the characters, is extremely well written and fairly interesting. This is the phase of Leo's career where he was just beginning to pull himself out of the teen heartthrob muck and try to mold himself into a serious A-list talent. And i respect his efforts here. His performance he would give today would improve this picture but he's not bad. What is bad is his accent. Sometimes Irish. Sometimes Boston. Sometimes its just Leo.
However jarring he is the trophy goes to Cameron Diaz who i truly hope was cast because she blew the casting director because otherwise whoever hired her to should be barred from whatever guild those cunts belong to. When she enters the film her lines are full ADR and not the good ADR that blends well with the sound caught the day of but instead that bad ADR where you can hear the empty room she's speaking in. I can only assume what she attempted to sell on set that day was such a mess there was no way they could use. And what a poor excuse for an irish accent she spewed out in the booth isnt exactly a winner either. And this is how we meet this character. Rough start. She isnt always terrible and sometimes she almost sounds authentic but, like a lot of the film, she's very uneven throughout the picture.
Now all that said its not like the acting is worth praise. That would be ridiculous because the acting is the best part of, again, this very uneven movie. John C Riley, Brenden Gleeson and (chiefly) Daniel Day-Lewis are exceptional. When any of these 3 are on screen you'll be captivated. They're great. Better than great.
As far as the story is concerned the late 2nd act to the credits really hooked me. First leg of the film i really struggled. I was really only holding on to Day-Lewis to get me to the finish line. Once the theme starting to expand and you could really see what the film is about, power on a societal level and the interplay of that against the backdrop of a budding democracy (and allegorically that subtextually juxtaposed against the political climate of the then present-day,) the film really finds its footing and manages to end with a voice thats trying to convey something if youre willing to unpack it all.
But there's the rub. You've gotta sit through at least an act and half begging the film to have not wasted your time. The actors, even the bad ones tbf, showed up. They're all doing their damndest to get something out of this material. Frankly though its a bit of a mess. When it's nailing it i liked it but after 6+ failed attempts to make it through this movie i can safely say I'll never watch it again and i think it's Scorsese's weakest film ive seen.
|