Post a response to this discussion thread
Nothing more, nothing less. Not a bad film, but not a good one either. And while there are a number of great positives (Daniel Day-Lewis, the set and production design, a few remarkable tracking shots, and three really good scenes, just off the top of my head), there are WAY too many negatives for this film to ever be considered any sort of masterpiece.
Such as:
Sorry, but after the great build-up, the opening battle fucking SUCKED. Scorsese should gut his bitch of an editor for fucking up such an important scene so badly. There was no sense of style, no flow, no sense of spatial relationships or dramatic weight. I don't know if the scene was butchered for time constraints or for MPAA constraints, but something was lost in the mix. It looked as if it were edited by an epileptic monkey on a trampoline.
And I don't agree with your claims that the movie's main theme is the relationships between the Underworld and the development of the city. The movie is about 96% "Leonardo DiCaprio's Revenge Quest". Except for the last 10 minutes, the only time politics ever entered the narrative were the scenes with Jim Broadbent's Tweed, which always felt forced and awkward. I left the theater with no sort of central thesis, no idea what Scorsese was trying to say, other than "America Was Born On The Streets" (as the poster claims), which, let's be honest, isn't that deep of a sentiment to begin with. But for all of the film's visual splendors, it's hard to disguise the simple fact that this is a 3-hour Jean Claude Van-Damme movie. Man kills boy's father, boy grows up, boy gets revenge. It's hardly an orignial concept, and that hurts the picture. Be honest...you knew exactly how the film was going to end before you even sat down in the theater, didn't you? I sure did, and that guts a lot of the suspense for me.
Cameron Diaz was, as usual, an absolute waste of space. Gee, a hooker with a heart of gold. How fucking original.
Scorsese completely failed with the character development, which is usually one of his biggest strengths. Leo wants revenge. Daniel Day-Lewis wants to keep the Irish out of New York. Cameron Diaz wants to hump Leo. Henry Thomas wants to hump Leo too. Brendan Gleeson seems to want a lot of political dreams and aspirations, but we never really find out what they are before he disappears from the film. Same deal with Jim Broadbent. John C. Reiley wants to be in a Paul Thomas Anderson movie again, where he would at least get *one* moment of humanity. Crazy Ear-Bitin' Lady wants to act crazy and bite some ears. Feh. Sorry, Bickle, but except for Bill the Butcher, I didn't care for one single character in the whole damn flick. And if you're asking me to spend three hours of my life sitting in a movie theater watching a historical epic, I don't think it's too much to ask for me to *care* about some of the characters. Don't give me any of that horseshit about how "character development isn't Scorsese's strong point", either. Bullshit. I cared about the characters in Goodfellas, in Raging Bull, in Casino, and even in Taxi Driver. Here, I liked Bill and I was annoyed or at least disinterested in everybody else. A pretty severe flaw.
For all the talk about how the film would have no score (merely diagetic music), I remember several scenes that *did* have music when none should have been present. And if you're going to fudge on your no-traditional-film-score rule, you might as well invest some time and money into getting some decent music. Although I did like the music from the opening march...
I could go on and on, but I've got shit to do. Maybe I'll argue more tomorrow.
I will say, however, that "I could give a tenpenny FUCK about your moral CONUNDRUMS, you meatheaded SHITSACK," is probably my favorite line from a movie this year.
Post a response to this discussion thread