Rating: 
Summary: part of the gang of epics
Review: Like Gladiator and Braveheart, this one's to be loved for its sweeping epic scenes, stunning landscapes, solid cinematography and a few stand out performances - namely Lewis.'A dark mood is effectively captured as is a real sense of the adventure and danger of settling this country. Suspending some critical judgment is always good with pictures like this. Simply go with it and get swept up in its grandeur. For me that is the real magic of film.
Rating: 
Summary: Entaining
Review: I wouldn't go as far to say that this film deserves the Oscar, but I will say that it deserves the nomination. DiCaprio pleasantly surprised me, he actually can act. And, of course, no one can beat Daniel Day Lewis. It wasn't so much the plot that did it for me, though it was quite interesting, as much as it was the setting. And of course, the riot scenes. I'm a bit of a sucker for films that have a bit of violence in them, and the scene depicting the Civil War draft riots were very well done. If oyu like action films, then this movie is for you. But as a warning: it's not for the light-hearted.
Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful movie, mercilessly cut
Review: There's no doubting Scorsese's ambition, passion and talent in bringing this epic film to the screen. What's dubious is his wisdom in cutting it. This feels like a 300 minute film cut to half its proper length. There are simply too many ideas here, too many narrative and thematic strands to be wound together effectively in 160 minutes. The result is a sprawling mess of a movie which never quite hits its stride. What should have been a steadily accelerating march to a powerful climax becomes a faltering, frenzied dash over too much historical territory with a running commentary from DiCaprio's Vallon to help the struggling audience keep up. There's too much packed in here, and too little opportunity to reflect on what it all means. Rather than picking a single story which metaphorically tells the tale of the era, it feels like the film is trying to present it literally. This is surprising, given that three screenwriting luminaries worked on the script. But the 'and' between their names in the credits (rather than the collaborative ampersand) could explain why it falters: the writers weren't working together. Or perhaps the script was wonderful, but studio pressure trimmed the running time. Either way, the flaw is fatal. The most engaging storyline - the revenge plot and Amsterdam's attendant inner struggle - gets lost. Its resolution plays like an afterthought: a narrative loose-end to be tied up well after we've wandered off in entirely unexpected directions. Revenge stories rely on tangible motivations and engaging characters. Daniel Day-Lewis gives us one in Butcher Bill: his Oscar-worthy performance is almost enough to carry the film. But DiCaprio fails to move us. Bill is arguably more sympathetic, and definitely more entertaining. Ironically, the best scene in this vast epic is the quietest, simplest one: Bill sitting at Amsterdam's bedside, draped in the flag. It's a scene full of tension, full of brooding menace. For a few minutes we get to sink into a scene, and to feel something - to experience the tension between the characters and to learn something about both of them. Story issues aside, this is a wonderfully crafted piece of cinema. It looks amazing. The score is great, too. Howard Shore's orchestral pieces mix seamlessly with the contemporary pieces from Peter Gabriel (neatly deployed in the opening fight sequence) and U2 - but there might be a little too much Irish jiggery for the average viewer. One final quibble: why are the WTC towers in the final shot? In a montage which pays homage to the changing cityscape, at the end of a movie about New York's violent past, can we still not face up to its most recent episode?
Rating:
Summary: Let Down
Review: I was expecting a lot more from this picture. While the film look beautiful, and Daniel Day Lewis is outstanding, the rest of the film flounders a bit for me. Without giving away too much of the plot, I believe that the writer and director were looking to have DiCaprio's character conflicted by what he always believed and what drove him through life, and what he saw and learned. I think with a little polishing on the writing, and someone as good as Daniel Day Lewis to play Leo's part, the movie would have been so much more. It is worth a watch just for the beautiful look of the film.
Rating:
Summary: Scorsese's "Apocalypse Now"
Review: "Gangs of New York" is, for all its merits, not a masterpiece. That's cerain no matter how you try to defend it. The script is weak, the cast is wasted, and most of all, the conclusion is overblown -- see how the film ends, and no one can gives this film a full mark. In a way, the film title tells it all -- it's all about the "Gangs of New York" before the time such films like "Godfather II" covers. The film starts in 1846. Over the territory called Five Points, two groups -- Irish "Dead Rabbits" and "Native Americans" -- are about to settle the final score by the most bloody battle on the snowy street in New York. During the battle, one of the leaders is killed by the other, and the now orphaned boy is sent to an institute to be raised there. Cue to years later. Now the boy Amsterdam (DiCaprio) comes back to town, and comes to know how to live streetsmart, under the wing of Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis), the very person who murdered his own father before. Now learning the way of living in this rough and tough dtrrict, Amsterdam meets his love, a beautiful and smart pickpocket Jenny (Diaz), who has a shady past she wants to leave behind. Thus the story goes. But as you will see, the plot is there as if to be an excuse for showing the detailed re-construction of New York City and its now forgotten customs, and the character of Amsterdam is too unconvincing because we don't know what he really wants to do all through the film. Actually, the love-triangle around Leo's character becomes nothing just before the meticulously researched details of New York in the 19th century. So, you will see how the fire brigades fight each other (not the fire) because of their disputes over territories; or how things can be stolen from aristcratic mansions with ease. Details are the life of the film, and the story is almost non-existent. This is the greatest merit and demerit of watching "Gangs of New York." Don't expect too see DiCaprio's character display any depth, or Diaz's groundbreaking acting. There is none simply because the film does not allow that. Even the ever-great Day-Lewis is often buried among the tidal waves of facts about New York, which in themselves are visually striking in the same way as the London of David Lean's "Oliver Twist" (which the production designer Dante Ferretti saw with the director). The film ends with one of the most overproduced conclusion, and though as a storytelling the film is a mess, the visuals are always impressive -- after all you know that they all created these buildings in Italy for this occasion only. The cast is great, but I could not believe Ms. Diaz is really suitable for the role of 19th century drama -- she has shown herself too many times in films like "The Sweetest Thing" -- and as I said, if you are a fan of DiCaprio, you can skip this one and go to see "Catch Me If You Can" -- not least when you love him as Romeo or Jack. There are impressive cast -- Liam Neeson, JC Reilley, and Jim Broadbent -- but regrettably too small amount of attention is given to their roles, making them look truly wasted. This is, I think, Scorsese's "Apocalypse Now" -- he is trying to draw a grand-scale picture which he can never finish. And see the analongy here -- the cost, the confusing ending, good cast behind the overblown productions, and long, grueling shooting. Like Coppola's film, "Gangs of New York" might need some time to be appreciated. But remember, some people still say that Coppola's film is not a masterpiece, if a great attempt.
Rating:
Summary: A lot to like, and a lot to disapoint
Review: Gangs of New York could have been a great movie. It has all the pieces: Great story, great characters, great setting. It's all there; in one great big 'ole mess. This is one of those movies that make me mad. The potential is outstanding; this could have easily been my favorite movie all year if done right. But instead it's like getting the car of your dreams, with the windows smashed and spray paint all over it. One problem is that Martin Scorsese doesn't know how to direct big battle scenes. The opening battle pitting two gangs, the Natives led by Bill the Butcher, and the Dead Rabbits led by the Priest, is horribly played out. The action is far away and feels dis-jointed. A strange guitar-riff score sounds out, so out of place in 1850's New York. The same goes for a final battle that's supposed to feel epical, but is over in only a few minutes. It's a huge anti-climatic moment that I couldn't even believe Scorsese did. Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day Louis), though, definitely steals the show away, shining far above the severe faults of the film. John C. Reilly is also very good, as are many of the older actors. Who doesn't shine as much, though is Amsterdam (Leonardo DeCaprio) and his prostitute girlfriend (Cameron Diaz). They're just not quite as interesting, feeling like stock characters next to Bill the Butcher and others. Still, the film's first two hours are not all bad. Though it had many problems, I was still generally happy with the movie. Then the last hour kicked in, and destroyed it. The final hour is a horribly paced, edited mess. After Amsterdam's identity is discovered by Bill the Butcher as well as his plans to avenge his father's death, the film feels like they took two hours of a good film, and cut half of it away. Things happen with little or no explanation. We don't see this, or that, just told somehow. Imagine what your favorite movie would be like if they chopped every scene in half; now you have a taste of what it's like to watch the final hour of Gangs of New York. It's something that you so desperately want to love deeply, but can't even come close. Like I said before, there is plenty to like. The cinematography, sets, costumes, and many of the characters. But its flaws just tarnish it too much. It's worth seeing at least once, who knows, maybe its flaws won't bother you as much. Just be ready for a big disappointment.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best of 2002!
Review: Along with Road to Perdition(overlooked by the Oscars) and The Two Towers, this was my favorite movie of last year. I also agree with every review on here, whether they liked the movie or not, they all agree with the fact that Daniel Day Lewis is worth the admission price alone. He is interesting, funny, entertaining and evil, all rolled into one unstoppable force. All the other acting in the movie is pretty average and decent, nothing terrible. Sure, there are many flaws and inaccuracies, but if I wanted to be educated about this subject I would watch the history channel or read a book. This film is entertaining, although there are some slow parts(mainly in the middle sections). A must see on the big screen!
Rating:
Summary: Exceptional
Review: I thought this movie was excellent. When I saw it in theaters, as I was leaving I told the person I was with that I would have turned right around and watched it all over again. The acting was superb(including DiCaprio..suprising I'm sure). The music fit well( I ended up buying the soundtrack). There was several, several very gruesome scenes, but I felt they were necessary to show the pain and anguish. I plan to buy this movie when it is released on DVD. So please set aside your feeling of DiCaprio from Titanic or before, and enjoy the brilliance of this movie
Rating: 
Summary: DAY-LEWIS RULES !!!!!
Review: THis guy proved once again who is the best in his game!! Man, more than five years aways from the screens and he comes back in such a memorable peformance, contending for the OSCAR, in a movie that portrays nothing more than a big-budgeted and old and banal history of revenge. It's a shame that himself has declared that he does not like movies,; he prefers theater much more. He's the best.
Rating:
Summary: A mixed bag ...
Review: This flawed attempt at historical drama was a disappointment. Especially since this was a Scorse film. With a director of his caliber, I expected a better movie. The editing, in particular, was horrendous. This was a story that could have been told more effectively in less time. There were times that the movie dragged needlessly. This extra time could have been spent explaining some huge holes in the plot or even developing some marginalized characters like McGloin and Happy Jack. In the first 15 minutes of the movie, these two characters are clearly devoted to Amsterdam Vallon's (DiCaprio's) father, Priest Vallon (Neeson). Quick jump to the future and they are in the enemies' camp. Why did their loyalties change? Then there is Vallon's childhood buddy Johny (Henry Thomas) who eventually betrays him to Bill the Butcher (Day-Lewis). We know that Johny is in love with Jenny (Diaz) but did Vallon know this? Given this knowledge and Vallon's character, wouldn't Vallon have changed his mind about pursuing Jenny? Oh, and what about the intrigue with the Chinese men. What was that all about? The moviegoer is left to guess at what the arrangements are between them and Vallon. The performances by the actors were worthwhile. Liam Neeson does some of his best work ever and unfortunately is only in the first 15 plus minutes of the movie. DiCaprio is believable and is actually starting to look like a man. Day-Lewis is brilliant in his portrayal of Bill the butcher. I can't recommend this movie whole heartedly. The movie is violent and does have some gratuitous nudity. (I think we all understand that the men were in a brothel without having to see the women naked from the waist up. Duh!) The history isn't 100% accurate and the set and some of the special effects aren't believable. However, if you have nothing better to do and want to see a truly astonishing bit of acting on Day-Lewis' part, I would say "Go and see the film."
|
