Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

Gangs of New York

saw Gangs of New York on the weekend. the short: it's a messy, miscalculated film, which looks nice and has some good performances. (though at time they border upon theatrical, rather than natural, but that's not so bad.) the problem with the film is scorcese wanted to say something about new york, and the themes don't ever mesh. at the end, the film says that any uprising by the people in america will be violently put down by the government, and that democracy is not well and alive in the city.

personally, that statement is not a problem for me. it's just that the voice over sorta says that democracy is alive and well, and this is a demonstration of it. it's muddled. confusing, even, in its aim as a film, and definitely not scorcese's best film. i'm sure they'll give him an oscar for it, though. (well, they might not, but it's an oscar, and who really cares about them?)

it's a long film, too, and the plot (removed from outside the themes) is fairly predictable, right up until the army starts shooting people for rioting, but that's because the sense of disquiet and revolution in the film don't mesh with the story of revenge. in fact, one could go as far as saying that the 'gangs' in Gangs of New York could be cut out of the film entirely, and it'd probably be a better, and more cohesive film.