Rating: 
Summary: Daniel Day Lewis Is Outstanding- Ben N. At The Movies
Review: Wondeful Film Directed by an Director with a Witty vision Martin Scorsese and with that to note it includes Daniel Day Lewis which by the way totally makes this film worth watching and Leonardo Dicaprio who gives out a good performance and finally Cameron Diaz who proves herself a name in this great appeal of a movie this is a must have on dvd buy it todayBen N. At The Movies
Rating: 
Summary: What's the Point?
Review: That is all. I couldn't see any point to this movie, especially with the "fast forward" trick at the end to bring us up to a present day NYC skyline in which Scorsese delusionally decided to include the World Trade Center towers. Oh, and since when did a performance that barely made it to "Captain Hook" Cartoonish level warrant any praise at all? The ONLY part of this movie that was interesting/compelling had nothing to do with the prurient sex and violence. It was, instead, Boss Tweed, and his nonchalant quips about getting bread and soup out the docks the morning after the murderous draft riots because, "We're losing a lot of votes here tonight." THAT is all.
Rating: 
Summary: A mess of a film
Review: Scorsese was apparently so dazzled by the history of Ol' New York and the pomp of his own vision that he failed to see that his story has no center. Daniel Day Lewis is the only one involved in this production to provide any clarity, any raison d'etre. His character is big, loud, self-loathing, grotesque, murderous, earnest, cunning, skilled, over-the-top, and tragic: he is the center of gravity in the film, a great symbol for a PART of what America is, and when he's not on screen the film becomes a dull slideshow of old photos presented by an old professor who's ceased connection. There are two films here: one, where Lewis' Bill the Butcher tells the real story of how America was created by Exploitation and Tenacity of Immigrants (Irish, Italian, African, Chinese, German). The other film (No.2) is the one where Scorsese has lost sight of what the story is really about (it's about old new york, sure, but does it really lavish enough time and attention on the details of anything to educate?). Diaz serves no purpose here...imagine her out of the film and you'll see it makes no difference that she's in. As with other Scorsese films, the latent homophobia is in effect here. The cinematography is good but a bit subpar for what you'd expect from a Scorsese film (all of his other films have rich visual pallettes to speak of). The score is a collection of tunes which don't quite go together at the end of the day (whoever did the whistling tune at the beginning of the film should've scored the whole movie). Forget what you've been told, this film is NOT a masterpiece, is NOT a good film, is NOT worth seeing in almost every way save for the way the studio system is a relic from a time since passed, a system which offers spectacle but nothing more (and even the spectacle isn't that original).
Rating:
Summary: Something is missing in the movie, good script?
Review: With all the buzz about this movie, I hoped to enjoy a classic masterpiece but all along I felt something is missing in thsi movie, its just not working alright all together. At a point, it felt like a documentary and failed to cature any further interest (not a good sign for epic movie). When the movie ended it just dawned on me, its the script, you can't work any better if the script is not up to the mark.
Rating: 
Summary: Many Excellent Things, Some Very Mediocre...
Review: Overall this is an excellent movie. But it's not one of the best. Clearly Scorsese was going for the Oscar. He tried too hard. The premise is fantastic. The US as a coherent nation did not come about until after the Civil War, and this film gives insight as to how different New York and the country was 150 years ago. There were a number of external themes Scorsese had to work with, including race relations, ancient enmities (Irish and English), and the promise and horrors of a new country torn apart by civil war. As for the personal theme - the boy whose dead father, leader of the outlawed 'Dead Rabbit' immigrants, becomes the protege and surrogate son of his father's killer and bigoted rival, 'The Butcher'- Scorsese had great potential for character development. There was much here to work with. All the actors did phenomenal work, probably the best they've ever done. Problem is, Scorsese went for star power and some actors didn't measure up. Lewis, bar exception, was fantastic. His performance alone is worth the DVD (right up there with Ben Kingsley's gangster in 'Sexy Beast'). DiCaprio did his best work, but he missed the mark. Same with Diaz. The love interest did nothing for the plot and, with all the available themes, only wasted film and time. Their first meeting seemed lifted from 'Titanic'. Was this the best DiCaprio could muster? Scorsese needed greater depth overall, and DiCaprio failed to deliver. As for Diaz, sorry, she should stick to 'Mary' and 'Angel' movies. This too was beyond her (although in her defense her script was pathetic). Scorsese went for pretty faces rather than force of character, an unwise move. The lesser characters, for the most part, were excellent. Finally, the script. As mentioned elsewhere, it failed to utilize the various themes and subplots to their full potential. The 'admiration' Butcher had for Priest is overplayed, and the Diaz/DiCaprio love theme adds nothing. However, the growing influence of the Federal government, the war and desperation of the Union army, even Tammany's city government, are all underplayed, making the movie disjointed. So in trying to generate revenue, use star power, and create an Oscar winner, Scorsese succeed in making a good movie and failed to make a great one.
Rating:
Summary: Scorsese's absolute worst film
Review: God. I so wanted to LOVE this movie. I tried so hard to even like it. But I'm giving this film only one star because I cannot give it any less. Martin Scorsese has completely lost his edge and this is just another addition to the downward spiral he started with "Casino". Here are the reasons I did not like it: 1. Leonardo DiCaprio. Many people have commented that he was miscast. This is an understatement. I've learned to tolerate him in the past. For God's sake, I even thought Titanic was watchable. But not once in the film do we see any kind of identifiable emotion from his character. Just blank stares. His motivation for killing Lewis' character (and choosing such a laboured and slow way to do it) might have worked if Liam Neeson's character had had any development. Seriously, the kid who plays the young DiCaprio is a better actor. 2. Daniel Day Lewis. Was everyone watching a different film than I was? He seems like he is about to lose it and start cracking up in every scene. I certainly wasn't scared of him at all, just bored with his smugness. It seemed to me as though his character was written for a younger DeNiro. Maybe Scorsese had Lewis in mind, but every time he mugs at the camera, I can't help but think of DeNiro peeking out through his eyes. 3. The unnecessary hype. Everyone will go see a movie this big regardless of hype. I get tired of being told how good a movie is when I've seen to the contrary. 4. Scorsese's direction. The opening fight scene is just ridiculous. I mean, how much blood can one person have in them? Just stupid gore set to a Peter Gabriel song. It seems as though Martin knew "Last Temptation of Christ" was his last good film. 5. Cameron Diaz. She's gorgeous. She's been good in movies before. But I've seen dishrags that turned in better performances than Cameron Diaz in this movie. I kept wishing Lewis would hit her with one of his knives. 6. The length. I love long movies. I prefer long movies. When they're well done, you just don't want them to stop. But if a movie's going to be three hours long, it damn well better be worth even being two hours long. If I'm thinking more of how much my (butt)hurts than of the film, it's a bad movie. I can think of more reasons, but it's just making me mad. Scorsese used to be the most brilliant mainstream director in Hollywood. Go see "Goodfellas", "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "King of Comedy", "Last Temptation of Christ", or "Mean Streets". This is just another to be added to his list of (crummy) movies like "Casino" and "Bringing Out The Dead". I would even rather watch his Michael Jackson videos than this.
Rating:
Summary: O'dicaprio fresh off tha boat.
Review: never liked leo...still don't but he did a fine job in this movie. Lewis on the other hand Was the movie. bill cutting is one of the best characters to come along in a good while. can't get enough of this movie, although, they could have played down the love story.
Rating:
Summary: Not a Drama
Review: This is a film that I regret watching until the finish. I am the kind who CANNOT stop a movie no matter how bad. I just have to finish it to see if it will redeem itself. This did not happen. I was expecting historical drama mixed with fiction as well as some violence. But, this was just unnecessarily bloody. It was obvious that the envelope was being pushed here just to grab response. I find that's usually required if there is not enough of a storyline to compensate. The actors did well. The storyline had so much potential, but too much emphasis on trying to create a "realism" which comes across as just being plain gory and hard. I thought Bravehart was a gory movie, but good. This is no Bravehart.
Rating: 
Summary: 3 and a half stars: Clockwork Orange flashbacks.
Review: I love Clockwork Orange, and think it was a masterpiece. The fight scenes in this movie between the rival gangs seem to me, to be just that, rip-offs from that movie, whether by accident or intentionally, who cares? DiCaprio is better than I thought. Lewis stinks in the 1st DVD and is better in the 2nd; that sums this whole movie up really: the 1st half stinks, and the second is worth the watching. Still, towards the end, you can't help but feel what a moron DiCaprio's character is. Would you do what he did for 3 hours?!
He could have bagged a pistol, shot him in the first half hour and been done with it all! But, we wouldn't have had the big epic to watch. I own this and think it's hilarious movie (the violence with Lewis is really funny-seriously), but give it only 3 1/2 stars because of the ridiculous mistake the director made of throwing in the subplot at the end, where we have the draft fury mixed in with the main plot, which should have been followed straight through. 3 1/2 STARS FROM SCRAGGY'S TOMB OF DVD's, USA.
Rating:
Summary: How many movies can we cram in three hours?
Review: This was probably the worst movie I've seen in a long time. For two hours, it's a well done revenge story, albeit rather predictable. DiCaprio comes through stronger than I thought, but something is still missing, which lends an element of plasticity to his character. Daniel Day-Lewis, however, is an excellent villain, and despite my dislike of the film itself, I chalk him up with the likes of Sir Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter. He's just plain that creepy, that brutal, and that evil. The movie's failing lies not in its casting, however, nor its aspirations for period authenticity and the like. The issue is that two hours into the movie, Scorsese attempts to shift the focus from "big fish in a little pond" gang warfare to a heavyhanded push on failed revenge, oppression of the impoverished, crooked politicians, and a thundering fiasco of a finale that obliterates all remaining sense from the film. Many of the issues are skimmed over and thrown as plot suckerpunches at the end, with little buildup nor lasting resolution, leaving me to feel as if I had watched one movie about Leo getting revenge on Daniel with an additional hour sequel attached that bounces from topic to topic. The very end, without revealing too much, is just plain silly as it attempts to pull a few heartstrings. In this reviewer's eyes, it fails.
| 
