Cast overview, first billed only: | |||
Leonardo DiCaprio | ... | ||
Daniel Day-Lewis | ... | ||
Cameron Diaz | ... | ||
Jim Broadbent | ... | ||
John C. Reilly | ... | ||
Henry Thomas | ... | ||
Liam Neeson | ... | ||
Brendan Gleeson | ... | ||
Gary Lewis | ... | ||
Stephen Graham | ... | ||
Eddie Marsan | ... | ||
Alec McCowen | ... |
Reverend Raleigh
(as Alec Mccowen)
|
|
David Hemmings | ... | ||
Lawrence Gilliard Jr. | ... |
Jimmy Spoils
(as Larry Gilliard Jr.)
|
|
Cara Seymour | ... |
Having seen his father killed in a major gang fight in New York, young Amsterdam Vallon is spirited away for his own safety. Some years later, he returns to the scene of his father's death, the notorious Five Points district in New York. It's 1863 and lower Manhattan is run by gangs, the most powerful of which is the Natives, headed by Bill "The Butcher" Cutting. He believes that America should belong to native-born Americans and opposes the waves of immigrants, mostly Irish, entering the city. It's also the time of the Civil War and forced conscription leads to the worst riots in US history. Amid the violence and corruption, young Vallon tries to establish himself in the area and also seek revenge over his father's death. Written by garykmcd
Sorry Martin, this wannabe "Titanic" didn't do a thing for me...
I don't want to say this is simply a film for the masses about the masses but that's the way it turned out: a big fat mass of masses for masses.
That said, without spending too much time, I belive the film fails honestly because Scorcese is attached to it.
If this was a film made by any unknown director or some greenhorn, I would have no choice but to applaud the effort as the EFFORT is tremendous. But, when you look at the body of work and more importantly the intelligence and multi-level approach of Scorcese's other films, this film completely fails in comparison.
Somewhere along the way this film was butchered, (pun intended) whether it was by the studio, by Scorcese, or by the batch of writers who's conflicting visions and machismo keep bobbing up and down throughout the story. I believe Scorcese (or the studio) tried too hard to make a film for "today's (young) audience" instead of just making (or letting Scorcese make) a Scorcese film. Sure, perhaps many of today's brainwashed and dumbed down proles might not get it, but the film would have entertained the large following this director has cultivated over his many years behind the camera. If the only story he wanted to tell was a nobody wins revenge tale without redemption, flanked by an extremely shallow and cookie-cutter romance, then why waste all the time and money with 1860's New York? Whether or not Martin is actually washed up or still possesses his own magical abilities with a camera I cannot say, but it seems that whatever his original vision was, someone went through it (violently) with a cleaver.
It's interesting though, as a comparison, the actual base human story of "Titanic" has the same cookie-cutter romance elements as "Gangs" yet it is crystal clear that the FOCUS of "Titanic" is on an IMMACULATE portrayal of both the ship itself, the passengers, and the events that took place -- an accurate portrayal of history is the most important factor. "Gangs" does not present that same sharp and exacting historical focus to any degree, instead bits of chopped up pseudo history and gruesome violence are thrown around for a bit color in an otherwise monochromatic, by the books, and boring love story.
Bottom line: I can hear this bomb falling right now... Half my theatre left after the 2 hour mark, some before, and that was on opening night.