JoshuaMHetu

Watching "Gangs of New York" again, I was awestruck by the power of Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Bill the Butcher - the flawless accent, terrifying rage, and shrewd intelligence combine to create a villain unlike any other that I've seen. Had the studio campaigned for Day-Lewis to be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, rather than Best Leading Actor, at the 2003 Oscars he likely would've won. And not only is DDL perfect as Bill Cutting but the storyline centered around him is fascinating, focusing on a dynamic slice of American history rarely given the Hollywood treatment: the so-called "Nativist" reaction against Irish immigrants and the 1863 New York draft riots. As a descendant of Irish-American immigrants, this aspect of the movie hit home for me as it showcased the bigotry that the Irish had to overcome before finding their place in America.

Unfortunately, Bill Cutting plays only a supporting role in a movie cluttered with various storylines and side characters that don't fit together. The real protagonist is Amsterdam Vallon, played by Leo DiCaprio, who is on a quest for revenge against Bill because he killed his father. But that storyline takes a backseat to a cliched love triangle between Bill, Amsterdam, and a pickpocket named Jenny. And THAT storyline is overshadowed by a subplot involving the underhanded dealings of political boss William Tweed, and then that aspect of the film is sidelined in favor of another political thread focusing on the 1863 draft riots.

Throughout the movie's nearly three hour running time, it shifts breathlessly between these elements without fully developing any one of them. The result is an often messy film that struggles to find a compelling story to tell. Never before have I been bored by a Scorsese movie, but in this instance I just wasn't interested in what was happening throughout the majority of the film because so much of it seemed underdeveloped and unnecessary to the overall plot. Scorsese would've done better to focus exclusively on Bill Cutting and the draft riots, rather than undermine what could've been a great movie with superfluous side characters and subplots. So I recommend watching "Gangs of New York" for Day-Lewis, but keep in mind that it's not one of Scorsese's better movies. 7/10.

"When Lions Roared" is a bizarre miniseries that on the one hand features quality performances from the main cast, while on the other hand suffering from poor production value and inexplicable storytelling choices. John Lithgow, Bob Hoskins, and especially Michael Caine do a good job portraying complex historical figures and for the most part I enjoyed seeing them bring the Allied leaders to life. But the performances aren't enough to make up for bad sets and costumes that look obviously fake, even for a 1990s miniseries. The unnecessary usage of green screen is jarring; often the series looks more like an SNL than an Emmy-worthy drama.

But worst of all was the strange decision to have Churchill, FDR, and Stalin somehow interact via split screen - while Churchill is in London he looks to his right and starts speaking to Stalin, who is shown in Moscow. Then at the far end of the screen Roosevelt pops up and he starts speaking to both Churchill and Stalin - even though he's halfway around the world! There are equally strange moments when FDR and Churchill suddenly stare off into the distance, and then the screen splits and Stalin starts speaking to them directly from Moscow - even though he's in another country! I found this choice distracting and silly. Characters break the fourth wall and the portrayal of Roosevelt is not historically accurate: after the attack on Pearl Harbor is shown to be upset that America has entered the war, while in reality FDR had wanted to enter the war on the side of the Allies and he'd spent years preparing the United States for just that. Overall "When Lions Roared" contains good performances but on the whole it's poorly made. 5/10