Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: Day-Lewis brilliantly on-track, Scorsese not...
Review: THE GANGS OF NEW YORK features camera-shy performer Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting in what is probably his best role to date. Day-Lewis, who doesn't make many movies, is smart enough to be selective in this era of empty-headed movies. My hat is off to him. A brutal performance. A performance nightmares are made of. A great performance. Unfortunately, Day-Lewis is almost the only saving grace in Martin Scorsese's 3-hour blood-bath. Spending north of $100 million, Scorsese took several years to complete this drama about the New York draft riots in 1863. The costumes, the look of the town, even the violence is very effective. But as the film proceeds the violence piles up. The streets are running red with blood. While 'the butcher' is always a fascinating character to watch, nobody else is as watchable. Leonardo DiCaprio, who seeks the death of 'the butcher' for murdering his father (nicely played by Liam Neeson in a cameo), is sadly miscast here. Or maybe anybody would be when compared to the monumental acting talents of Day-Lewis. No fault of DiCaprio. Cameron Diaz is terribly wasted. Scorsese has made a 'man's film', and it would seem there is little use for women, including Diaz. It is always good to see Henry Thomas' career be given a boost with a large role. He plays Jonny, DiCaprio's friend, and a loyal follower of Cutting's. A strong performance, and this young man is still learning his craft. He'll only get better. But all of these actor's abilities pale in comparison to Day-Lewis. Again, no fault of Scorsese here. His primary fault is losing himself in the violence, in the blood, in the tragic events that unfold throughout the film. Three hours of grisly death is hard to stomach. And with so little humor in the film, it's not a wonder why there are people who either love the film or hate it. As for me, I appreciated the scope of the film. I understood what Scorsese was trying to do. But somewhere in the making of the epic, the director lost his way, his focus. Day-Lewis displays an actor's clinic with his performance. This is the main reason why you should see the movie. There are some other fine moments as well. Afterall, Scorsese is Scorsese. The film in a lesser director's hands would have churned out a piece of cheese. Still, even great directors sometimes lose their way. For Scorsese, THE GANGS OF NEW YORK was one time he did.

Rating:
Summary: HAIL...HAIL...THE GANG'S ALL HERE...
Review: This is a remarkable film on many fronts. It is sublime in its cinematography and re-creation of old New York of the mid-nineteenth century. It attempts to be all encompassing in terms of the historical context of the film, as it captures the corruption of the politics of Tammany Hall under old Boss Tweed, the Civil War draft riots, the rivalry of the prevailing gangs of the day, the contrast between the rich and the poor, the influx of immigrants into the belly of the beast, and the violence and chaos that constituted much of life in the lower class bastion that was known as Five Points.

The film centers around its two main characters, Bill "The Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day Lewis) and Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio). "The Butcher", leader of an anti-immigrant gang, becomes the pre-eminent gang leader in Five Points, after he vanquishes an upstart Irish immigrant gang leader, "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson), in an all out gang war that settles the issue as to who is top dog. Now fatherless, young Vallon is sent to an orphanage. When he emerges from it sixteen years later, he returns to Five Points to avenge his father's death. Let the games begin!

"The Butcher" is now a political power in Five Points to whom Boss Tweed (Jim Broadbent) pays homage. He is firmly entrenched in power and is guided by his own peculiar sense of honor and ethics, while remaining, at the same time, a cold blooded killer. Amsterdam manages to attach himself to "The Butcher" and becomes part of his inner circle. He develops an intense, almost father-son, relationship with his father's killer. In fact, his initial desire for revenge is overcome by ambivalence, until an old crony of his father reminds him of his duty, and the betrayal of a friend sets in motion certain pivotal events. Amsterdam also finds a love interest in the person of a pretty red-head, Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), a pick pocket and, as is Amsterdam, a battle scarred orphan from the slums of New York.

Daniel Day Lewis is absolutely brilliant as "The Butcher", a complex and multi-faceted villain. There is little doubt in my mind that he should have received an Academy Award for his performance. He even got that lower class, New York accent down pat. His portrayal of "The Butcher" is simply unforgettable, intense and commanding. Every time he is on the screen, the viewer cannot help but be transfixed. Daniel Day Lewis is electrifying, a veritable chameleon and a true actor. No matter the part, he is always unique in the role and is one of the finest actors in the world today.

Leonardo DiCaprio is adequate in the role, but seems miscast. He is, at times, like a fish out of water, though he does the best that he can and turns in a decent, though somewhat wooden, performance. Cameron Diaz is, likewise, fine as Jenny, a role that is all but disposable. She and DiCaprio both have difficulty with their respective roles in the sense that their Irish brogues seem to come and go at will, which is a tad disconcerting.

British character actor, Jim Broadbent, however, is terrific as Boss Tweed, one of the most corrupt politicians ever to reign in New York, lending the role a bit of gentility. Moreover, he has no problem maintaining an American accent. Henry Thomas gives a sweetly poignant performance as Johnny, Amsterdam's childhood friend, who becomes consumed by the green-eyed monster when Jenny, the girl whom he loves, has eyes only for Amsterdam. Liam Neeson is also excellent in the role of "Priest" Vallon but is onscreen for merely the blink of an eye.

This richly ambitious film focuses on the epic storytelling strengths of director Martin Scorsese. Raw, gritty, and highly atmospheric, Scorcese's vision of nineteenth century New York is like something out of Dante's inferno and, consequently, riveting. Coupled with the earth scorching performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, it is a film that can easily be watched again and again.

Rating:
Summary: Please Forgive Me For Insulting This Movie
Review: I Am John Charet, the guy who back in July and some other month
insulting Gangs OF NEw York badly, well now I regret that and insulting the films of the millenium. Please forgive me for insulting the films of this millenium. The truth is I love Gangs Of New York and I love all filmmaking of the new millenium meaning the ones of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and beyond. I only insulted the films of today because a bunch of my friends, who only listen to the modern stuff always insult the entertainment from the past and it hurt my feelings bad, so I took my anger out by insulting this film and this decades filmmaking to see how they feel when somebody insults their stuff. However it was wrong of me to do that because the truth is I love the films of the new millenium. I think 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and beyond rules and is awesome. I am growing up in a modern society which is what I love, we get DVD Players,
the internet, Playstation 2, Xbox, and al neat stuff like the Video Games like GTA Vice CIty, Hitman, Manhunt, Backyard wrestling, FInal Fantasy Games, That new Indiana Jones Game. I am crying now that I insulted the decade I am growing up in now the new millenium which is truly awesome. I only insulted it because my friends were insulting some stuff that I liked from the past. So I wanted to see how they would feel by giving a test, which was insult their favorite things to see how they feel. The truth is though I love everything about 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and beyond, I relly love those movies, in fact I own 67 dvd's of movies that were released in the 2000's or mellenium (Okay close to it). I am not lying, I really love the millenium, I just got upset that my friends were insulting some old movies. Sorry I went overboard on saying all movies from past decades were never gratuitous in terms of violence and stuff. Their were movies in terms of being gratuitous back then too, just like today in the new millenium being 2000, 2001,
2002, 2003, 2004, and beyond it's a combination like it was in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90,s big halves of films have lots of violence that's gratuitous and other big halves have lots of violence that's not gratuitous. It remains the same in the new millenium the 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and beyond. In fact,
I think their are strenghth's in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and beyond that the past decades did not have. For example, people are more nicer now than they were in the 20th century, they don't rush you that much in terms. It would've sucked to grow up in the 70's or 80's since you did not have dvd's or internet or Playstation 2, or Xbox now that would be boring to not have any of that stuff. Saying that the 80's sucked in terms of people's behavior of greed and technology which is bogus to have no dvd's or Ps2's or internet. The 70's were probally good and the 90's big improvement nicer attitude's better tv like Tales From The Crypt, Hitchhiker. But The good decade is now 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and beyond and shows like The Sopranos, Oz, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Deadwood are brilliant and awesome. Lord OF The RIngs Also Rule Return OF The King is excellent just like FOTR and TTT were. Troy with BRad Pitt looks awesome also. I am serious this millenium rules.
On the movie Gangs Of New York now- Martin Scorsese is a brilliant director every movie he does I love- Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, and Casino are just of a few I can name and this is no exception along with Bringing out The Dead. Daniel Day Lewis is excellent as Bill The Butcher his third best (After My Left Foot and In The Name Of The Father) performance. Dicaprio and Diaz are good too. The third best film
of 2002 After The Pianist (Richly Deserved Oscars), LOTR TTT. Although I think this is the better movie, the musical Chicago comes close in brilliant entertainment that it winnning was no injustice. However I would have given Gangs Of New York the oscars for Film Editing, and Cinematography. This is anothr Scorsese winner, he never fails to entartain me. Believe what I just said I was just overreacting when I insulted this decade and this movie, I really love these things like 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and beyond. I love all the technology we have today and movies are still excellent. The LOTR trilogy and Band Of Brothers top all other action movies. Oh yeah and flicks like XXX and The Rundown are just like Rambo and are fun to watch. I am telling the truth what I just said I love the movie, the movies of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and beyond. Oh and DVD players, Playstation 2, and the internet. Please I am telling the truth in this review.

Rating:
Summary: A Slice of Americana
Review: Wow! Martin Scorsese has a cinematic vision in "Gangs of New York" and sticks to the storytelling no matter how graphic, how violent, how revealing of the sometimes brash side of human nature. We like to think of Americana happening somewhere in the Heartland with corn stalks, faded red white and blue from the harshness of the summer sun and winter chill. What Scorsese shows is that the heart of America may not lie in Nebraska far from civil war battlefields, far from epic wars. There may be a seedier side born of violence, a country carved out of war, but then not many countries are born of else. Let me tell you what I mean.

"Gangs of New York," has a deeper message than the simple retelling of a time in the mid 1800's in New York City. It has elements of the forming of a country in mid-stride. It has elements of America as the great melting pot or a country fought and "died for" by those feeling worthy of the term natives. But then the natives led by Bill the Butcher Cutter (played brilliantly by Daniel Day Lewis), aren't really natives on these shores are they? On the other side of the pitched fight, is Amsterdam Vallon (played less brilliantly but still compelling by Leonardo DiCaprio) as the leader of the immigrant Irish gang. The battle between the two is broader than a personal vengeance, broader than a family feud despite Amsterdam seeking justice for his father's death at the hands of the butcher. It is more about a fight for the soul of the country, a pitched battle where both sides suspend reason and turn to violence. Each feel God is on there side so take the "by any means necessary" approach to prove that might makes right. There are parallels to the Civil War ongoing but largely out of the picture in the gang war in Five Points slums. There are even more modern parallels as in the closing scenes we see the New York skyline burning, in the fore frame a graveyard where Amsterdam's father "The Priest" is buried. The New York skyline is time sequenced as the Brooklyn Bridge remains the constant, the graveyard grows weathered and unkept, the Empire State building appears, and finally in the closing scenes the Twin Towers stand. There is a parallel to a battle currently raging in the present and New York again seems at the heart of it.

"Gangs of New York," has a feel to it. There's some Citizen Kane, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and Braveheart all intermingled therein. It is made to be an epic. There is good and evil and then there are humans that display all shades of that continuum. The final battle between the natives and the immigrants is waylaid by the pressure of the Civil War and draft riots. The final battle becomes clouded and I feel is a misstep in the film. It leaves for slight disappointment. In the end "Gangs of New York," will go down as one of Scorsese's more powerful movies and that says a lot.
--MMW

Rating:
Summary: I threw mine away.
Review: The look on my face from beginning to end was; waiting for the movie to start. When I finally snapped out of it, I couldn't help but think what ugly imagery, and the charachters are so unrealistic..I can't believe 135 "TOP CRITICS," called it one of the best films of the year. I'm equally stunned by the 10 academy award nominations. How did that happen? I'd rather watch 'my body guard,' or 'streets of fire,' from like 1980. Beastmaster was a better film!! If you haven't seen 'gangs of new york,' you're better off keepin it that way.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I was disappointed by this movie. Scorsese is one of the best American directors alive, and the story of New York City in the 1860s is a great subject, exactly the sort of thing Scorsese ought to excel at.

But the whole project goes weirdly awry. The plot is trite and silly, the sort of boring revenge drama we've seen a hundred times before: It doesn't shed any light at all on the subject of New York in the 19th century. The cast is extremely uneven: Di Caprio is simply not credible as a prison-hardened gang leader (he's still a soft, spoiled, 20th century pipsqueak), Day-Lewis as the villain is so over-the-top he's funny (maybe he meant it to be that way?), and the great Liam Neeson is wasted (literally) in a brief appearance as Di Caprio's dad. Only the smaller roles are well cast, particularly Jim Broadbent as Boss Tweed. (And by the way, what was the Vampire Woman doing in the movie? She seems to have wandered in from the set of Road Warrior.)

Worst of all, though, was the tone of the movie. It was completely off. From the acid-rock electric guitar solo that plays over the big fight scene at the beginning, to the pointlessly flashy visuals (it looked like Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge), to the ridiculous mischaracterization of race relations between Irish immigrant gangs and the blacks, to the offensive use of the Draft Riots (really a huge race riot) as mere background to a phony, anti-climactic duel between protagonist and antagonist--everything was just so weirdly conceived and utterly tone deaf.

What went wrong? Scorsese seemed like the perfect choice to direct this movie, but he blew a great opportunity to tell a great story. Maybe he has no feel for any time period other than his own. What a shame.

Rating:
Summary: Well, I dunno.
Review: "Mixed reviews," I guess, best describes it. Gangs of New York strives to portray the chaos of street ("gang") warfare in NY in the mid-19th century. On the plus side, there's director Scorsess and the cast, including Cameron Diaz and Daniel Day-Lewis. On the minus side, there's also the cast, including monumentally miscast Leonardo DiCaprio. The attempt is to portray the rough and raucous underbelly of American history. This portrayal is probably authentic and certainly spectacular. It's the story of vengeance betw Irish Amsterdam Vallon (DiCaprio) and Bill Cutting (Day-Lewis), his father's murderer.
Have a go. See what you think. I'm still not sure how to rate this one.

Rating:
Summary: ABSOLUTELY MESMERIZING!!! SCORCESE SCORES A 10+!
Review: "Gangs of New York" will be put beside "Gods and Generals," "Gladiator" and "The Patriot" as one of the finest historical epics ever produced. While Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz do a fine job in their performances (I've never really been a huge fan of either star), the highlight of the film in terms of acting (and almost nobody will disagree with me) is Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher! His performance should place him next to Darth Vader and Hannibal Lecter as one of the greatest movie villains ever to grace the screen!
The film's depiction of the New York Draft Riots of 1863 is shown accurately as well as extremely graphic (this film is not for those with weak stomachs). This film will stand the test of time, that's for sure!
The DVD is great, minus the fact that the film is spliced over two DVD's (about 84 minutes on each disc). While each of the "Pearl Harbor" DVD's had to split the film because they had between four to seven audio options, this has only three! They could've put the movie and audio options on disc one, and the extras on disc two. Other than that, the DVD is worth the price!
Movie Grade: A+ (5 Stars)
DVD Grade: A- (4 Stars)

Rating:
Summary: This isn't Little House on the Prairie, kid
Review: Gangs of New York is a problematic movie, but not nearly as bad as many of the reviews make it out to be. It reminded me a little of "Once Apon a Time In The West", a sprawling epic which bites off a heck of a lot more than can reasonably be digested in 2 to 3 hours.

First, the pluses. Scorsese has tackled a relatively unexplored historical subject with courage, namely the Five-Points Irish ghetto period and the rise of the Tammany Hall machine leading up to the Civil War draft riots. Both subjects are barely mentioned in high school history books; even Ken Burns' excellent "Civil War" series trips lightly over the riots, which were put down by Army troops and cannon fire. The movie has the sensitivity to explain that this was not just an ugly racial incident, but also a genuine class war fought by people too poor to pay the draft bounty and evade service. You won't find these guys in "Red Badge of Courage"; they will cheerfully carve each other up on Water Street, but won't be suckered into fighting against strangers in a government war.

Daniel Day-Lewis is such a chamelion of an actor that he is taken too much for granted, but he shines in "Gangs." DeCaprio is OK although I could think of others better. How about some actual Irish actors for a change?

The opening street fighting sequence is an eyeful but I was unable to tell if this was intended as real or a "Mad Max" take on American History. The blaring electric guitars did not help.

Negatives: Cameron Diaz as the female love interest. She is NOT Irish. Why do directors do this? I was reminded of Julia Roberts' miscasting in "Michael Collins", which nearly spoiled an otherwise excellent film.

In the end, I had to give the director credit for trying to interweve a specific personal plot development between he DeCaprio and Lewis characters with an otherwise episodic account of the savage Tammeny period which usually gets the antiseptic treatment in the standard books.

Rating:
Summary: There's A Much Better Movie on the Same Theme
Review: I agree with all the other reviewers below who were disappointed in this movie. They have spelled out all the reasons why I, too, was let down by it.

I also agree with a previous reviewer who recommended instead the great Brazilian movie "City of God". That person is right: "City" is everything "Gangs" should have been. It brilliantly tells the story of two generations of violent gangsters in a squalid, no-hope slum, and how people got sucked into a life of crime and could never escape. It is an unforgettable movie, unlike Scorsese's recent dud.