I would pay $3.50 to watch this movie
 
    First off, I don't hate Leonardo DiCaprio. In fact, I loved him in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", "Total Eclipse", "Marvin's Room", and "Celebrity". I've enjoyed his acting in every movie that I've seen him in, which does not include "Titanic", as I have boycotted that movie for reasons unrelated to DiCaprio.
    Secondly, I don't hate Cameron Diaz. Although she does remind me of a porpoise, I have never had any good reason to dislike her acting based on the movies that I have seen. Scorcese, although he tends to be a bit long and repetitive for my tastes, maintains a solid hold on the title of "Most Respected American Director" in worldwide snooty-movie-people circles, and I can't dispute that title without resorting to directors who have passed on.
    However, Scorcese has always been a Hollywood director, with all the shortcomings that brings with it, primarily a tendency to have more concern for the marketability of a movie than for that movie's artistic merits. As such, Scorcese has almost always managed to up the bar of Hollywood filmmaking by pushing the restrictions of the mainstream entertainment industry just a titch each time he makes a film. In "Gangs of New York", however, I think that the only envelope that he may be pushing is the limits of good taste in graphic violence, which has already been expounded upon in depth by such movies as "RoboCop".
    As far as the breakdown of "Gangs of New York" goes, the cinematography is stunning. The directing is fairly good overall, the acting is, at worst, good, and the plot is unique and somewhat interesting. My main issue with the movie, as far as the individual elements go, is the choice of techno music for the big battle scenes. I know techno is "in", but it just doesn't jive for everything, and, in my opinion, clashes horribly and distracts from a 19th-century gang battle in the streets of New York City.
    Other than that one issue, the sound was pretty good, and the choice of music was apropos and interesting. As a whole, however, the movie is a klunker. The pacing of the movie was slow. The entire plot of the film could be summed up in about two pages, double spaced, and yet it still portrayed itself as a long, involved epic. For three hours I was waiting for the payoff, and it was deus ex machina. This is inexcusable, even if it passes because of "historical accuracy" or some other claptrap that has nothing to do with a film that is not very historically accurate to begin with. Deus ex machina is an unpardonable excuse, Mr. Scorcese, no matter what.
    Other than the general dull pacing of the movie, the film is worth watching. The acting is solid, and the folks who say Daniel Day-Lewis was awesome are correct (and they should watch "The Boxer", in which he stars opposite Emily Watson). The cinematography, as I said before, is stunning, and the setting is unique. The plot follows along a formulaic line from such movies as "Braveheart" and "The Patriot", but it's still fun to watch. I'd suggest watching this movie in the bargain seats or waiting for it on DVD.