The gratitude and enmity at the beginning of the film gave birth to a Hamlet, but how did Hamlet become the election campaign, and the hatred was suddenly diluted by democracy and freedom? Then the democracy and freedom he understood was hampered by his Irish origin. I can see that the director really wants to explain these links clearly, but still feels that there is too little pen and ink and the jump is too big.
As other film critics have said, the most shocking scene of this film is that a living person embarks on a ship to serve, and a coffin disembarks and returns from service. The two scenes are intertwined, which is very shocking. This scene pulled the film to an epic level, very angry and tense, but this is not what the director wanted to say, the film went back to the street. So these lenses seem so overwhelming, and their strengths have become weaknesses.
There was also Lewis who had problems due to improper director arrangements. There is no denying that he is the lead actor, and the acting skills shown in this film are absolutely top-notch, portraying the character image into a classic on the screen. But the director paid too much attention to shaping this role but ignored the shaping of the group portrait, so that I think the so-called local gang only has the bald head of him and the original dead rabbit gang, and all the supporting characters are facialized, as dry as the memories of Amsterdam. Under the guidance of the director’s efforts to shape the classics of the villain’s screen, Leonardo and Diaz could not play at all. It is hypocritical to say that the two of them did not call, the sex scenes were messed up, etc., and the director’s responsibility was left to them. The space is inherently limited.
So Hamlet rested in confusion, and his enemy died like a soldier, as decent as his father.
A gangster charged into the army and was shot. This shot left the audience as confused as Amsterdam. What does the director want to say, the victory of hot weapons, the defeat of anarchism, the praise of power, or the decline of the interests of small groups under public power? The director was a little more atmospheric, but the atmosphere was so indistinguishable from the street. Perhaps Director Ma wanted to tell a gang story well, but he realized that he needed a more grand theme to gain a foothold, so various themes were cut in. I wanted to say too much, but I didn't tell the good stories I originally wanted to tell. He only made Lewis create a classic image on the screen.
At the end of the film, another theme was caught and used to deepen the whole film. Who can remember the love and life with tombstones, I can only faint.
View more about Gangs of New York reviews
