I have always thought of Martin Scorsese as a master of urban, contemporary storytelling. When he delves into period pieces (i.e. "Age on Innocence") he is not as successful. Such is the case with his newest film, "Gangs of New York," a good film that could have been great in such capable hands as his. I must say that I went into this film with extremely high expectations. I usually try to avoid doing this but with Scorsese, it's impossible. I also considered that since I didn't enjoy his last film, "Bringing Out the Dead," that he would redeem himself, in my eyes. Coming to the end of a brilliant career, Scorcese has yet to leave us a swan song. From the looks of things, "Goodfellas" could very well remain his last masterpiece.

I give Scorsese credit for taking on a part of American history that doesn't paint a pretty picture--especially in such patriotic times. His film centers around the immigration and subsequent oppression of Irish in the mid-1800's. Gangs of Irishman and "Natives" (who obviously had to immigrate from somewhere, or are they Natives just because they've beaten the Irish to the punch) were at war over control over "The Five Points" of New York City. Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) is leader of the Dead Rabbits gang who challenge Bill "The Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his natives. In a highly dramatic, intense opening battle Priest is killed by Bill in front of his son, Amsterdam.

Sixteen years later, Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) leaves reform school vowing to avenge his father's death. A Shakespearean revenge is set into place, only as the story progresses there seems to be no conflict in him. He is a fairly one-dimensional character, only focused on killing "The Butcher." He uses the gangs only for his benefit, not because he believes in their cause--which becomes about the first draft in U.S. history. Many Irishmen were getting off the boat only to be immediately drafted and put on another boat--a warm American welcome. This treatment leads to the Draft Riots of 1863, which are depicted towards the end of the film.

The film did hold my attention through its nearly 3 hours of running time, which is no easy task. However, unlike Scorsese films of the past, it failed to grab me. His trademark kinetic energy and intensity behind every shot is missing here. He also sometimes breaks the golden rule of showing rather than telling. When Amsterdam throws a Bible off of a bridge, we don't need to see the Bible sinking underwater--it's over the top. There are many other Christian references, mostly crucifixes, shown throughout the film. The rejection of religion was handled much better in his early, brilliant film "Mean Streets," where the main character struggled to make up for his sins on the street, but was still overshadowed by Catholic guilt. Surprisingly, Amsterdam carries none of this, even though his father was named Priest (?).

Without a doubt, the strongest aspect of this film is the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis. His fierce charisma illuminates the screen. We hang on Bill's every word and action, he is completely unpredictable and therefore frightening. Carrying such a strong, overpowering force it is easy to see how he rose to power. He is not a typical villain because he settles his own scores, if he wants someone dead he'll gladly kill them himself. He doesn't send errand boys to do his dirty work. The movies most interesting scenes come when Bill takes Amsterdam under his wing. My personal favorite was Amsterdam waking up to Bill by his bedside draped in an American flag. In this scene, Day-Lewis brilliantly, slowly exposes a more tormented side of a man incapable of any affection. In his own way, he treats Amsterdam like a son. It isn't just the best performance I've seen this year, it is one of the most commanding, vicious portayals I have ever seen. Day-Lewis, who took a five year hiatus from films, is sure to get an Oscar nomination and just might walk away with a statuette. Let's hope he's back for good.

5dxlo49g

5dxlo49g on October 15, 2006 1:39 PM