Gangs Of New York

With every passing year, it becomes more and more likely that Martin Scorsese will join that select group of elite directors never recognized officially by Oscar. Hey, the Academy didn't deign to recognize Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick, why should they honor Scorsese?

2002 put Scorsese in the bridesmaid position once more, though at least this time he didn't lose to an actor with visions of grandeur. Scorsese's first Best Director nomination came for 1980's Raging Bull. Although the film and Scorsese earned nearly unanimous plaudits - and earned 24th place on the American Film Institute's Top 100, the highest ranking of Scorsese's three entries - he lost the Oscar to Robert Redford and his directorial debut, Ordinary People.

Scorsese lost again for 1988's The Last Temptation of Christ, but I suppose that one stung a little less. For one, Scorsese lost to Barry Levinson and Rain Man, so at least an established director slapped him this time. In addition, Christ failed to receive a nod for Best Picture, so it seemed much less likely that Scorsese would get an award for his work; it's not impossible for a director to win an Oscar when his movie fails to grab a Best Picture nominee, but it's insanely unlikely.

Scorsese experienced dйjÐo vu when they distributed awards for the films of 1990. Again despite enormous praise, his GoodFellas went home without major Oscar recognition. Instead, another actor-turned-director won the day, as Kevin Costner and Dances With Wolves nailed major victories.

Scorsese failed to garner another Oscar nod until recently, when 2002's Gangs of New York nabbed 10 nominations. Alas, despite sentimental favor and major promotional campaigning on his part, Scorsese left the auditorium without a trophy once again. Roman Polanski received the Best Director prize for The Pianist, while Chicago earned Best Picture. Despite the 10 nominations, Gangs went home without a single award.

I suppose there are many reasons why Gangs failed to receive any trophies. At the heart, the main cause may be simple: it's not that great a movie. While ambitious and sporadically successful, no one will mistake Gangs as competition for Scorsese's better flicks.

Gangs opens with a prologue set in 1846. We meet "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson) and his young son Amsterdam (Cian McCormack). "Priest" leads a contingent of Irish immigrants into a bloody battle with Bill "The Butcher" Cutting and his native-born Americans. This fight is meant to determine who will run the Five Points section of New York. After a savage fight, Bill prevails and kills "Priest". This segment ends as we see Amsterdam taken away into official custody.

The movie then flash-forwards to 1862, where we see an adult Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he emerges from a long stay in a house of reform. Unfortunately, this didn't reform him at all, so he returns to the Five Points and a life of crime. He quickly meets up with an old childhood friend named Johnny (Henry Thomas). Johnny introduces Amsterdam to other young ne'er-do-wells, and the latter joins up with their

...