The film begins in 1846 with a violent clash between white Anglo-Saxons who call themselves “natives” (ironically the American born children of the people who came and killed all the natives) and white Irish immigrants who want to stake a claim in the “five points” of New York City. On the white side (uh, the native side) is the man they call the butcher after his profession, William Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), and representing the white side (uh, the Irish) is a priest named Vallon (Liam Neeson). Vallon loses, the last thing he hears is a knife being wedged into him (and some new U2 song apparently). After witnessing his father’s death and making it through some bitter schooling, young Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns to the city to seek revenge. But his plans are complicated not just by his newfound love (Cameron Diaz) or his relationships within Cutting’s gang, but by the draft riots that tore apart the north at the start of America’s Civil War.
There’s a lot to like about Gangs of New York. If within the three hours, you can’t find even one thing to like, you may be too hard to please. The set design is ingenious, the violence is hearty, and most of the performances are excellent. Daniel Day-Lewis was smart to give up cobbling and grab the reigns of an unforgettable must-see performance - and quite possibly the best DeNiro impression I have ever seen. But seriously, his ability to portray the humanity of a heartless vicious killer is simply astounding. DiCaprio, although he gets away with furrowing his brow for most of the movie, delivers the kind of genuine performance we expect from him. Often miscast, and here is no exception, he handles this role well. Cameron Diaz proves once again that Charlie’s Angels is something done for fun and that she really can act. Henry Thomas is excellent as always, with other solid performances coming from the funny Jim Broadbent, the always good John C. Reilly, a believable Brendan Gleeson and Billy Elliot’s Gary Lewis, all deserving mention.
But there are few stories more cliché than the son avenging a father’s death. And one has to wonder, why is this story so important it had to be told? The setting of Gangs of New York is infinitely more interesting than the story itself. The pacing is also inconsistent, leading us to believe that the story is about to end, only to make us watch another hour long movie and another climax after that. Certain moments are difficult to understand, like how this kid is able to put together a huge gang within a matter of days when he has no money and few people know him. And why a severe burn on his face doesn’t seem to give him much of a scar. Also, why DiCaprio’s character is the only one that seems to age in a movie that covers sixteen years. Oh yeah, and how Cutter’s false eye moves…
Gangs of New York is a real cinematic feat and something worth looking at - if for no other reason than Daniel Day-Lewis’s energetic work and Michael Ballhaus’s incredible cinematography. But the film is also a little full of itself, hoping the characters will all be interesting just because they have phony accents, the story will seem original because the setting is, and assuming the viewer is sitting in the kind of chair that’s comfortable for three solid hours. B
