I am a little late on this, It's hard for a man such as myself to stay up on all the events of film, television and music. So often times hit songs, summer blockbusters or witty sitcoms go unwatched or unnoticed by me for some time. Case in point; 2002's 'Gangs of New York.' A film almost a decade old now... I know, I must be slipping in my old age, but if anyone out there actually reads my blogs I'm not too terribly fascinated with modern things. I love 'Back to the Future', 1994 and the dixie chicks for God's sake.
I digress.
After hearing basically nothing but rave reviews over 'Gangs of New York' for the past 8 years I decided it was high time I watched and got my mind blown by another Scorsese picture, ole Martin rarely disappoints. So with the aid of my best buy gift card I was finally able to watch this critically acclaimed piece of cinema.
I was unimpressed.
Let me explain a few reasons why.
1. I felt it was way too over the top. The movie as a whole felt much more like a Michael Bay/ Jerry Bruckheimer production then a Martin Scorsese film. Relying too heavily on stylized action sequences, explosions and exaggerated outfits and weapons then story telling. Civil war era meets Tim Burton's 'Batman Returns' was all I could think of.
2. The character development of Amsterdam Vallon, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, was severely unbalanced in comparison to Daniel Day Lewis' character, Bill "the Butcher". Basically they show us that Amsterdam's father got killed by Bill the butcher when Amsterdam was a boy and he wants to avenge his fathers death. Thats his goal in life, kinda Like the shark from 'Jaws' Amsterdam only wants blood. And also like the shark from 'Jaws' Amsterdam is equally one dimensional. Meanwhile we see Bill the Butcher go through a range of different emotions, stages and insights into his life and just generally feel a more deep connection with Bill's character. Now I'm sure a good portion of that is due to the fact that Daniel Day Lewis is a much better actor then DiCaprio but that still doesn't excuse it. We're suppose to feel more connected to the protagonist, we want them to succeed, we want to feel for them but when the protagonist is completely void of depth and dimension we feel nothing for them. That is certainly the case with Amsterdam Vallon.
3. I'm an american, I don't like watching 3 hour long movies.
4. Any movie that Bono writes the music for I want nothing to do with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Number 4 is reason enough.
ReplyDeleteThem's fightin' words! lol
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I can convince you otherwise, or at least persuade you to give it another whirl. Gangs of New York is my 3rd fav. Scorsese pic, behind Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. I do think there's been a sea-change in the way Marty makes his movies.
The stripped down Raging Bull-type pics seem unrelated to the grandiosity of his later epic-type pics, like the Aviator, and which I'd argue Age of Innocence is a type. Shutter Island toned things back down, and The Departed put things squarely back on our cherished Goodfellas/Casino-type ground. But this new lavish ground Marty covers is an enthralling peak into other provinces of his genius.
But Gangs of New York, I think, is a near perfect revenge pic set in 1863 Amsterdam.
1. Over the top: I think this depends on expectations. When I think Scorsese, I think quick cuts, close-ups, staccato camera gyrations, grainy gestures, blood, and characters that are less individuals and more archetypes or symbols. What about the fight between the rival gangs at the beginning? The ferocity of it was recorded in history, at the Lower East Side of Manhattan in the Five Points. Marty's quick cuts and flashes of ferocity I felt bore his signature completely. Michael Bay would have stuffed the scene with over-dramatic music, given air time to every race and sex, rendered every scene a poster shot, fashioned it after the pizazz of a music video, and made sure to include some irrelevant moral. Not Marty. Everything is morally ambiguous. The stature of the antagonist renders Vallon's motives questionable at least; I even sympathized with the butcher's perspective.
2. Unbalanced: I think it was meant to be. Vallon is almost a supporting character. But the feeling I got was that all the characters had their own Dickensian trait. Roger Ebert compares him to an Oliver Twist or a David Copperfield in that they aren't the most interesting/colorful people in the novel, but they are the eyes through which we see the others. He is a contrast to all the more wild characters that swirl around him.
3. Too long: lol Depends on your taste. Certainly a long bad movie is undesirable! But in my gut, a Taxi Driver made to be a week long would be too short!
4. U2: They've got some goodies, wink.
A full defense would take a whole blog, but give it another view. Maybe it'll grow on you, just like Back to the Future III might grow on me, lol.
Well I now have it on dvd so another viewing is bound to happen and I will certainly try to not scrutinize so hard. But the first viewing just didn't really do anything for me.
ReplyDelete