Rating: 
Summary: See it for Daniel Day-Lewis
Review: See this movie for one of the best acting performances ever. Daniel Day-Lewis is nothing short of amazing in his portrayal of Bill the Butcher. The best way I can describe it, is that he seemed to be acting with his entire body - the look of pure evil in his eyes, the way he held his head, the way he used his mouth, the way he handled the knives, the way he walked, the accent (what an old New York accent must have sounded like). For an actor to have that much concentration and control almost seems impossible. If he does not win the Oscar for Best Actor, I will personally boycott the Academy Awards show from now on. Acting does not GET any better.
Rating: 
Summary: Scorsese's MTV movie
Review: 'Gangs' is a deeply disappointing film from a great film maker. Ok it works in patches, and has one highly memorable performance, which is why I'd give it two and a half stars. But it isn't anything like a masterpiece.
'Gangs' has three big flaws:
First the story, which is too banal for the scale of execution. It's basically a revenge western, with echoes of 'Unforgiven' 'One-Eyed Jacks'etc. In fact, the concept of a psuedo-son returning to slay his psuedo-father goes right back to ancient times (Arthur and Mordred etc. and what was the name of that Greek guy?)
The second is Leonardo diCaprio, who spends most of the movie looking like a pouty adolescent with a dead fish tied under his nose. In fact, this is a Scorsese film with very little good writing or good acting. Almost all the younger members of the cast are barely adequate; Cameron Diaz is competent but finds no chemistry with Leonardo. A few of the older guys show how it's done but most of them, like Jim Broadbent, are underused. Liam Neeson demonstrates more charisma in his ten or so minutes on screen than Leo in the entire movie.The saving grace of course is Daniel Day Lewis whose roistering performance - uncannily staying the right side of ham throughout - certainly makes him a contender for this years Oscar. But Marty made a BIG mistake with Leo.
The third flaw is Scorsese himself. With the exception of 'Cape Fear' (in my view, Scoerse's nadir) and 'Boxcar Bertha' (ok, then he was learning) all previous films by Scorsese were recognisably his own work; successful or otherwise, they carried clearly his own distinctive brand. Ironically, he's finally won a 'best director' gong (at the Globes)for a film that shows almost no marks of directorial brilliance or even individual distinction. Almost any competent, journeyman director could have made this movie. Indeed, Scorsese seems to have compromised fatally with this film, perhaps in a slightly desperate attempt to get a hit and redeem the movie's costs. For me it started to go down less than 10 minutes in when the initial battle in the snow is suddenly played out against a thundering rock music backcloth. As soon as U2 kicked in over a scene of 1846 carnage my heart started to sink. It's as jarringly inappropriate as some lame Brian Adams ballad is to Robin Hood; it immediately destroys any authentic atmosphere Scorsese has tried to create. Scorsese suddenly gets all shy of violence too; he does the battle nasty bits in slo-mo, taking away the brutal, visceral edge the scene needs to make it real. That Scorsese has to resort to slam-bang, in-your-face MTV direction shows how little confidence he has in his own material, particularly the dialogue. All of which makes 'Gangs' sad as well as disappointing. When Scorsese believes in himself as well as his material, he'll make great movies again.
Rating: 
Summary: great filmmaking overcomes banal story
Review: ***1/2 Finding yourself brooding over the sorry state of civilization lately? If so, I would strongly recommend you take a trip to "Gangs of New York" and see how much worse things USED to be in the not too distant past. The film is Martin Scorcese's epic paean to the Lawlessness That Made America Great, a theme most often explored against a Far West backdrop, out on the open prairie or in two-bit towns like Tombstone, Arizona or Dodge City, Kansas. Here it's been transferred to 1860's New York City, which in Scorcese's vision, turns out to be a veritable Dickensian hellhole of vice and corruption, a place teeming with rival gangsters, pickpockets, corrupt politicians, lawbreaking policemen, and even firefighters so obsessed with matters of jurisdiction that they do physical battle with rival departments while an unattended building goes up in flames behind them. This is a world where life has no value and where a man's existence can be snuffed out without so much as a by-your-leave or a single person left behind to mourn him. The members of these rival gangs make the Sharks and the Jets - who would make their appearance on the same turf a full century later - look like mere pantywaists in comparison. Visually, the film is a masterpiece, offering some of the best cinematography, art direction and costume design of any film released in 2002. With the help of some master craftsmen, Scorcese has created a complete world unto itself, one that doesn't look quite like anything we have ever seen on film before. The setting provides a stunning mixture of the real and the surreal, with everything from the clapboard buildings to the foot-tall hats deriving their style from extrapolated exaggeration. It is truly an astonishing, eye-popping achievement. The same cannot necessarily be said for the rest of the film, however. Based on a story by former film critic Jay Cocks, the screenplay by Steven Zaillian, Kenneth Lonergan and Cocks himself never quite achieves the level of greatness promised by the setting. The main drawback is the story itself, which is basically just a trite revenge melodrama all gussied up in fancy period clothes. Leonardo DiCaprio takes center stage as Amsterdam Vallon, a young man who, as a boy, witnessed the murder of his father at the hands of Bill "the Butcher" Cutting, the meanest man ever to terrorize the streets of this fledgling metropolis. Bill, who is an expert with knives and other cutting instruments, is the man all the denizens of the section of the city known as The Five Fingers fear, and he is able to use that fear to make himself undisputed king of the area. After a 16-year absence, Amsterdam returns to the scene of the crime, determined to even the score and make Bill pay for his offense with his life. Despite the glories of the setting, Scorcese is never able to bring the story itself to life. Perhaps DiCaprio is just too weak and passive to make a very convincing foil for the hard-as-steel Bill Cutting (who seems heavily derived from Dickens' Bill Sikes character in "Oliver Twist," a literary source that never seems too far from the minds of the movie's authors). Perhaps Daniel-Day Lewis is just too convincing in the role of villain to make it seem like anything even close to an even match. Perhaps, too, the obligatory romantic plot strand involving DiCaprio with a miscast Cameron Diaz is simply too hokey to fit into the grim tale being told here. Whatever the reason, the core of the film turns out to be the weakest element of "Gangs of New York." Moreover, the dialogue is utterly banal and uninspired, consisting mainly of syrupy platitudes and half-baked philosophizing. Lucky for us, then, that the director has provided us with enough visual stimulation to keep us at least intrigued, if not quite fascinated, throughout. What does fascinate us, however, is all the historical detail that permeates the outer fringes of the story. These include the ever-present backdrop of the Civil War, which keeps encroaching into the world these people inhabit, and the anti-war riots that tore virtually all of New York City apart - both of which the filmmakers use as a kind of macrocosmic comment on the petty battles and rivalries taking place in this hellish part of town. In moments like these, "Gangs of New York" almost touches greatness. Also of interest is the way in which the film highlights the fervid anti-immigration attitude that has so completely permeated the history of a country that, in a bewildering paradox, has always prided itself (in theory, at least, if not always in practice) on being the great "melting pot" for the world's downtrodden and disenfranchised to flock to - and the film reminds us of how prevalent that anti-immigrant attitude still is today in many quarters. Truly, some things never change. In some ways, this film might make an interesting companion piece to Scorcese's "Casino," in that both films deal with the theme of lawlessness and corruption making way for legal conformity and respectability. Each of these works, so distant from one another in time and place, manages to portray the kind of epic birth pangs that cities and countries often have to go through before they can call themselves truly "civilized." This theme is, undoubtedly, what led Scorcese to compose a kind of visual ode to New York City in his closing shot, his own personal valentine to a city that has suffered so much in the past few years. It is his way of saying that, from such squalid beginnings, New York City has grown into the great cultural center that it is today and that it can be proud of its heritage and the people who helped make it. After the events of 9/11, that is a very powerful and stirring sentiment indeed. Yes, "Gangs of New York" is a severely flawed film in a lot of ways, but it is also a work of vision and of almost unparalleled technical accomplishment that deserves to be seen. Even if there is not much here to engage the mind or the heart, you can always feast your eyes on the glorious visions unfolding up there on the screen.
Rating:
Summary: This Movie Gets 4 Stars Because...
Review: 1.) It's an unflinchingly realistic story of an Irish immigrant (Amsterdam, played by Leonardo DiCaprio) who vows to avenge the cold murder of his father by the gang leader of the "natives" (Cutting, played by Daniel Day Lewis). 2). At 2 hours and 45 minutes, "Gangs of New York" moves at a brisk pace that keeps the viewer hooked to the screen. 3). Daniel Day Lewis is absolutely electrifying as Will Cutting, the ruthless butcher who is Amsterdam's sworn enemy. (Cameron Diaz's role, however, is completely disposable and DiCaprio's performance starts off strong, but flies off the rails by the end of the movie.) 4). Director Marty Scorcese is a gifted storyteller, and in this movie, he doesn't gloss over the blatant racism and social unrest that pervaded New York City in the mid 1800's. Is it Scorcese's masterpiece? No, it isn't. It also doesn't live up to the hype generated by some critics who gush over this movie. But it is a solid, raw, and thoroughly entertaining film that's not for the thin-skinned or squeamish. Grade: B+
Rating: 
Summary: Better Than Expected.
Review: I came to this movie with very low expectations after reading all the negative reviews left by other moviegoers. To my surprise I enjoyed this film very much, and in a year without a clear front runner, I might even suggest that this film should win the Oscar for best picture. Is it perfect? No, I believe the plot could have been tightened, however, the look and feel of New York in the 1800s was created beautifully, and the acting is first rate, especially Daniel Day Lewis, who has to be a lock for the Oscar. This is a brutal film, certainly not for everyone, but it does offer a glimpse into a segment of American life that is often overlooked in history books. This is the ugly side of our past, and at times it is painful to watch, but it reminds us of the struggles and sacrifices our forefathers had to make in order to shape this country into what it has become. Lord of The Rings The Two Towers, Chicago, Far From Heaven, and The Hours are certainly fine films and worthy of Oscar consideration, but none of them touches you emotionally like this film, and that is what the Oscar winner should do. Love it or hate it, Gangs of New York leaves an impression on the viewer that is not soon forgotten.
Rating:
Summary: The Hands That Built America
Review: Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York comes with a lot of baggage. It's been rumored to be released for well over a year and rumor has it that there has been quite a battle between the director and his financier, Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. The film has had "can't miss" and "epic" titles thrown on it well before anyone laid eyes on it and it was more legendary before release than after. It certainly is epic and is most definitely worth seeing, but the story can't compete with it's hype. The technical aspects of the film jump out at the viewer. The gigantic sets built in Rome where well worth the effort and it feels every bit the mid-1800 America it is supposed to represent. The costume design is dead on and the art direction is as good as you'll find. The only thing up to and topping that effort is the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis, which is unforgettable and will go down as one of the truly great performances of the last few years. Amsterdam (DiCaprio) witnessed Priest (Liam Neeson), his father, slain in a gang fight between their Irish immigrants and the Native born led by William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting. The battle was for the 5-point area of NYC where Bill now rules with an iron fist and doesn't have any problems with his "constituents" paying their dues. Once grown into a man Amsterdam returns to avenge his father's death and through the help of his childhood friend Johnny (Henry Thomas) gains entry into Bill's inner circle and becomes one of his most trusted associates. This is where the film bogs down on itself. Our protagonist Amsterdam is far less interesting than the supposed villain in Bill the Butcher and we really don't care who wins as long as we can see more Bill. DiCaprio does his best with the character he's given, but is miscast (though not as bad as Diaz as his love interest who seems to have nothing to do). DiCaprio is a charm guy, not blood and guts. Day-Lewis injects such an aura of power and prestige that DiCaprio looks that much smaller. Bill is every bit nasty and evil as he should be, but at his core he's a man of honor, much like Amsterdam's father, who Bill calls "the man I've killed worth remembrance". Overall Gangs of New York is a deeply flawed film that could have been truly remarkable. It is a tribute to Scorsese that it's as good as it is with all it's faults. The story gets overbearing at the end as the NYC draft riots are piled into the story, which adds nothing to our story of the Immigrants and the Nativists and takes away from the showdown of Amsterdam and Bill, which was inevitable. Their are some moments of true bliss: Priest's walk to battle, Bill's knives throwing act, Amsterdam's first attempt at revenge, and then their final showdown in the dust. It comes down of the fact it's a world too big for it's characters. As Bilbo Baggins would say "like butter spread over too much bread". It's still a must see film, but if it's a "must see again" is up to the viewer, which will probably love or hate it on the subsequent viewing. Ambitious is good, but ambitions tend to bring out the best and worst in people.
Rating:
Summary: A violent, engrossing, and wonderful film
Review: "Gangs of New York" is a marvelous piece of work about 19th Century New York and how it came to be the New York of today. Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely brilliant in his performance as the evil and sadistic Bill the Butcher. His character and acting steals the show. Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz also do a superb job. Director Martin Scorsese's wild use of bloody violence, along with his numerous scenes of intense and interesting character dialouge, plus the history of NY with some slight twists to it, make this a compelling Scorsese masterpiece. Probably his best job at directing (although "Cape Fear" is my personal favorite of his films). It is such a shame that he did not win the Oscar for best director. He did a great job, and the Oscars should acknowledge his superb talent.
Rating:
Summary: The Master Does It Again
Review: Martin Scorsese has once again crafted a brilliant film, all the more impressive because the script is average at best. As usual, Scorsese is a master of the camera. I can't think of anyone who knows how to pump so much blood into every scene of a film. His movies are always so alive; and, unlike most Hollywood directors, he doesn't achieve this "life" by excessive rapidity of cuts in the editing room. How many directors have attempted to rip him off? And how many have done so and succeeded? It's like the old cliche -- often imitated but never duplicated. He is one of two stars in this movie, and, sorry girls, but Leo is not the other one. That honor would go to Daniel Day-Lewis. I'm a film major in college and study actors' performances with a fine-toothed comb, but I have never seen anything quite like his performance. I know that every movie magazine says that about someone at least once every few months, but you'd really have to see the movie to understand. His eyes are so intensely evil that it is almost unfathomable. His accent is dead-on, all the more impressive because he's Irish. It is truly the most tightly-coiled performance I have ever seen, and no one could have done it better. This guy's as brilliant an actor as there ever was. That being said, the film does have its flaws. DiCaprio and Diaz are dreadfully miscast. I could never buy Leo as a killer; he just doesn't have the intensity as an actor to make me believe. That baby-face, even with his scruffy beard and dirty hair, never once convinced me of his hatred for the man who he watched murder his father. Stick to fluff like your other Christmas 2002 release, Leo. At least Diaz has a reason for a poor performance -- the part written for her is awful. Maybe a better actress could have made the part a little better, but even a great actress couldn't have made the character important. There's really no room for a love-interest in this movie anyhow. The film would have been better (and shorter) if her character just didn't exist. And her character is not the only flaw in the script. The dialogue isn't necessarily bad, but there's nothing to distinguish it as good. Day-Lewis has all the best lines, and, for that matter, pretty much the only lines that mean anything. Also, the third act needed a major revision; it was sloppy and didn't move from one point to another in the right fashion. And Leo's voice-over is not only unnecessary, it's a downright distraction. If a screenwriter has to use this conventional technique to let us know how a character FEELS, something's wrong. In "Goodfellas," Henry Hill used a voice-over to explain things about his way of life that maybe we wouldn't understand without it. Here, Leo just tells us how he feels. Maybe he should have put some of that into his performance. (And just so everyone knows, I have nothing against Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor -- but truthfully, his two best performances were as a child in "This Boy's Life" and "What's Eating Gilbert Grape." Since then, he's used his stardom as an excuse for lazy performances.) In a way, though, Scorsese probably needed DiCaprio. He was making a period piece that cost over $100 million funded by Miramax, which is not a high-budget studio (for those of you who don't know, that studio spearheaded the "independent film" wave of the '90's, but since then has become a major player -- just not as expensive as other studios like Paramount or Warner Brothers). So he had to use him for funding purposes. It's a shame "Spider-Man" wasn't a hit before the film went into production; with Tobey Maguire in the lead, he could still have gotten funding and the performance would have been much better. But, alas, it's still a wonderful piece of cinema. Scorsese's direction and Day-Lewis' performance are not the only assets. A wonderful score and absolute beautiful production design make this worth seeing. And the final scene, a beautiful montage that I won't give away, actually brought a tear to my eye. And Scorsese did it with visuals, not with words. It actually makes a great companion piece to an earlier Scorsese/Day-Lewis collaboration, "The Age of Innocence." In that film, Scorsese shows us the high class of 1800's New York, as opposed to the New York ghetto of the same era. If you're looking for a well-crafted movie that ultimately succeeds despite its flaws, "The Gangs of New York" is worth the price of admission.
Rating:
Summary: Very overrated
Review: This movie is needlessly bloody, poorly scripted and not particularly well-acted. Leonardo DiCaprio was stiff and Daniel Day Lewis hammed it up (and looked ridiculous with his clown costume and sillly moustache). Character development was virtually nonexistent. Don't waste your $ on this one; critics are being kind to it based on Scorsese's past work.
Rating: 
Summary: Ugh!
Review: I generally like historically-based period films, but this one was missing way too much information. I can get past the violence (a lot of it, very graphic), but the plot was just too vague and drawn out ... almost three hours. If you must see it, wait for cable.
|
