Gangs of New York (2002)

I finally watched Lars von Trier's Dogville last week and I loved it, so I figured it was about time to watch another of those movies I've been putting off for years because of its length, Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York. 

It is set in 1863 when gangs ran the streets of New York and the government couldn't or wouldn't gain control of the city, and it mainly focuses on Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio), a young man whose father (Liam Neeson) was killed sixteen years before by Bill "the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), the leader of the most powerful gang in New York, and is now seeking revenge. 

Scorsese's intention is pretty clear, he wanted to make a realistic, historically accurate movie about the story of New York. The problem is that he chose a revenge plot that isn't of the most compelling as it is entirely predictable and with a resolution and could and should have come a lot earlier. As for the history of New York, specifically of lower Manhattan, it is quite messy and confusing because there's too much going on —abolitionism, immigration, racism, to name a few of the topics— and not enough time to address all these issues properly. The story did start out interesting, but eventually, it lost my interest completely. 

The characters aren't very helpful either. Amsterdam Vallon has to be one of the weakest leading characters ever. He's more of a supporting character in his own story than anything else as he lacks characterization and development. He is not interesting and you just don't care about his fate. Leonardo DiCaprio is quite dreadful in the role as he lacks the presence requested by such a role. Bill "the Butcher" Cutting is one of the most cartoonish villains out there and yet he is way more charming and interesting than the guy we are supposed to root for, and the credits entirely go to Daniel Day-Lewis who yet again, despite the script, gives a strong performance and makes quite a threatening villain and ends up being the only compelling thing in Gangs of New York. The rest of the characters and cast are just mediocre, Cameron Diaz and her Jenny Everdeane being the worst of them all as her performance is terrible as always and her character exists for no reason whatsoever.

Miramax Films

It's the direction, however, the most disappointing aspect of the film. Gangs of New York looks amateurish at its best —some shots are so ugly they make your eyes hurt—, the editing is choppy, the action isn't exciting and the humour not only doesn't add anything to the film, but it makes it look cheap. The scenery is quite beautiful and the costumes are well done but overall I think Gangs of New York is quite an overrated film. If I didn't know it, I would have never guessed Martin Scorsese was behind this.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

There's something I've noticed over the past months as I started watching more musicals and reading what other people think about them; most of the time, people either love them or hate them. Moulin Rouge! too has such a divided audience, and, curious to see where how I'd feel about it, I decided to watch it.

The film is set in 1889 and tells the story of Christian (Ewan McGregor), a young English man who moved to Paris to pursue a penniless career as a writer. Once there, he meets a group of Bohemians, led by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (John Leguizamo), who tells him he should write a musical show for them to be performed at the Moulin Rouge. While in the process of selling the show, Christian meets Satine (Nicole Kidman), the night club's star and courtesan, and falls for her. She eventually falls for him as well but the club's owner, Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent), is planning to sell her to a Duke (Richard Roxburgh) who will help him turn the night club into a theatre only if he can have Satine.

It's definitely not very original and pretty clichéd as it's your typical poor poet loves girl but girl belongs to rich man kind of plot, and it's also rather simple and predictable, but frankly, I didn't really care as Moulin Rouge! is not one of those movies who has to rely on twists or a sophisticated plot to engage and entertain its audience.

One of the many aspects the film heavily relies on is the cast. Although the characters lack characterization and development which makes it kind of hard to develop an emotional attachment to them (I didn't think I had any, to be honest, but, as the film was coming to an end, I realised that I really was rooting for Christian and Satine), and most of them don't really have a reason to exist other than for the sake of appearing in the musical numbers, the actors do a wonderful job and give the characters much more dimension and depth.

Ewan McGregor is great as Christian, the romantic and naive man who falls for the Moulin Rouge courtesan; Richard Roxburgh as the evil Duke and John Leguizamo as Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec both bring to the film the right amount of comic relief; Jim Broadbent is menacing enough as Harold Zidler; it's Nicole Kidman though that simply steals the show. Her Satine is very sensual and seductive but, at the same time, she is very vulnerable and fragile. Her chemistry with McGregor is beautiful and their voices complement each other.

20th Century Fox

Another of the reasons why Moulin Rouge! works is that it is a musical. The dancing is frenetic and outlandish, and, although I didn't find some of the choreographies to be particularly memorable, it's very entertaining. And the music, oh, the music! Buz Luhrmann made some sort of musical collage with songs from Madonna, Elton John, David Bowie, and more, and it works and makes for a quite an emotional ride even if listening to the soundtrack alone.

At last, Moulin Rouge! is visually stunning. The cinematography, the editing, the production design and sets, the costumes and makeup, they all contribute to making the film a colourful feast for the eyes.