Rating: 
Summary: I don't know . . .
Review: Ok, I rated this a 3, because it's entertaining. Then again so was RockyIV, lol. A 3 star rating for a Scorsese flick isn't too good considering his resume.
I tend to agree with the last two views. A lot of holes in this movie. Some of it not too factual also. Racism was EXTREME back at this time, but you see black guys hanging with the gangs at times. What up with that? It also spun out in so many different directions, and it was pointless too. Just be real. Don't do a movie about Harlem and then make it look like Beverly Hills 90210.I was surprised that DiCaprio did as well as he did, still not too good. Someone in Hollywood must really like him because in reality he shouldn't be cast in anything, except maybe a retarded kid like in Eating Gilbert Grape. He doesn't have the appearance for this role and most movies he plays in. THANK GOD he didn't do American Psycho, he can't hold Christian Bale's jock strap. I kept getting the feeling too that Scorsese was trying to gives us a heads up on his views on immigrantion, racism, etc. Just stick to the movie. I get tired of many directors trying to make a point when it really has nothing to do with the film. This movie was supposed to be about revenge, stick to the task guys. Some times it seems to me these old guys like Scorsese lose their edge and their age starts to hurt their perspective. Maybe nature intended man to die in their 30s-40s for a reason. Just look at Steven Spielberg or George Lucas, lmao!
Rating: 
Summary: Not really a Scorsese film
Review: "Gangs of New York" shows us Scorsese at the peak of his technical virtuosity, but little else. The opening battle is well crafted, and the film is packed with the dolly shots and swish pans that have become trademarks of his style; fans of his kinetic cinematographic style might find this worth checking out. But the film does not convey the same "tough" New York atmosphere that we've come to expect from his films, especially considering that the Five Points seems far more barbaric a place than anywhere in modern day NYC. The screenplay is a mess compared to almost everything else he's done; the paralleling of rising tensions on political and demographic levels never feels well woven, and this crucial structural element makes the Draft Riots (that's not spoiling anything, it's part of any plot summary you'll find) at the end seems as if they've come flying out of left field. Not to mention that pretentious skyline buildup...I will give credit to Daniel Day-Lewis, though, for one of the best performances of a commendable career, and his presence alone almost makes this worth a recommendation. So to anyone who enjoys soaring electric guitars in the midst of an 1846 battle sequence, "Gangs" is the best bet; but for those fans of Scorsese's great New York films of the past--"Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," "GoodFellas,"--the best bet is to stay away.
Rating: 
Summary: A brilliant technicolor mess!
Review: I truly enjoyed munching on my oversized refillable tub of generously well-oiled popcorn and hollering rebel yells at the silver screen whilst digesting Martin Scorsese's sprawling musical, 'Gangs of New York.' That said, I found it difficult to overlook the unfortunate and uncritical impact that film school may or may not have had on this otherwise illustrious overrated director, whose past excursions into film-making and television sitcomville have proven either to be downright disastrous or deservedly unprofitable. Might I politely suggest that Mr. Scorsese take a hiatus, wherein he might rethink his approach to effecutating epic cinematic blunders. (to quote an internal Miramax memo to MS: 'Not every scene need represent an emotionally bipolar event, i.e., life or death, orgasmic or impotent, epic and grandiose or small but contemplative.') In his sentimental, confused, and perhaps DeKooningishly senile twilight years, Mr. Scorsese and/or his A-list cronies have unwisely decided to recycle his gratingly if youthful misplaced cynicism as exuberantly expressed in "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" (which was little more than a cheap, gimmicky remake of Robert Altman's slightly less exciting "McCabe & Mrs. Miller"). Sure, Leo and Danny look good in tuxes, but where's the energy in casting current and popular stars and having them play dress-up? Why digitally saturate the colour blue? Was there a really severe drought in New York in the mid 1800's or only in Rome just last year? Who if anyone manufactured flawlessly reflective unbubbled panes of regualr window glass back then? I was also (perhaps naively) looking forward to some judiciously plentiful casting of thick-skinned homeless extras who wouldn't mind a little cinema verite on their resume. Marty, get a real job, like teaching film school!
Rating: 
Summary: The other Civil War, New York style!
Review: This colorful spectacle of a story overwhelms the audience at times. The title is misleading: should perhaps have been called Tribes instead of Gangs as that is what they were called in 1876. It seemed to be mostly the Irish against the others, though that simplifies the holocaust caused and the devastation of the old New York. The young priest's son called himself Amsterdam,in fact, after he is grown and released from the orphanage into society.
Love does conquer all in the end, and we can see the phoenix arising again as the New York City skyline is revealed in its developing stages since then.
Daniel Day-Lewis plays the perfect villian in this film. Except for the orgy scene, it's a pretty good movie and fun to watch at times, when we are not overwhelmed by the violence and gore.
Rating:
Summary: "AMSTERDAM.....NEW AMSTERDAM???"
Review: NO! Would never ring on the hit parade ...perhaps "New York - New York"? A loving tribute to the City of New York - the Eternal Phoenix - and covering a negelected period perhaps 'slightly' overshadowed by the Civil War [although the sad coffins weave their way into the tale] sans the frou-frou - this one cuts straight to the bone. The Art Direction, sets and costumes shine brilliantly - truly a monumental task considering the broad scope of the piece and its length [flies by in the theatre though]. Performances? The lesser characters - especially Henry Thomas as the tortured amour ..... 'nom' worthy; also John C. Reilly as the archetype 'crooked-cop' another fine piece of work. Camerin Diaz also shines as pick-pocket with the heart of gold [plated perhaps?] - but brave choices that work over and over again. Leonardo seems a little ill at ease here and there, but perhaps its the character - touches of Conrad Veidt here and there - especialy the look, quite indelible, and Daniel Day Lewis? Tortured performance close to a music-hall villian stereo - down to the trade-mark moustache, but so much more - and not a railroad track insight for the denouemont! Excellent score by Howard Shore. [Watch out for the cameo by Mr. Scorsese].
Rating:
Summary: A Beautifully shot movie.
Review: Gangs of New York is wonderfully acted, sometimes even brilliant. The set design is unbelievable. The story is interesting. But, I think the movies should probably been left at its' original run time, around 4 hours. This is an epic story and deserves ample time to show the depth of the characters and story. I understand that the average movie-goer will not pay to see more than 2 hours or so of a film. But, Gone With the Wind was long! I feel like the movie was CUT. You can almost tell that the story is moving along and then certain sub-plots seem to just conclude suddenly. It is a good movie worth seeing.
Rating: 
Summary: A Colossal Nothing
Review: "Gangs of New York" goes to show you...fantastic sets, costumes, and cinematography do not a movie make. The film lacks a coherent plot, believable and/or sympathetic characters, and thematic significance. (Not that a film needs thematic significance, but this one takes itself so seriously...) Lots of irritating details. To mention a couple...At one point, Daniel Day-Lewis reads a newspaper and doesn't know the meaning of "ghoul". Elsewhere he displays eloquence and vocabulary on par with an English professor. (And incidentally--how does a man with one eye toss knives, axes, and cleavers around with such pinpoint accuracy? I thought that required depth perception.) A larger thing. DiCaprio moves about with such subtlety nobody in the film or the audience can figure out whether he is out for revenge. Yet his plan, when (finally) launched, could not be any more stupid, hopeless, or cowardly. In general, the characters have few if any redeeming qualities. Instead we have violence for the sake of violence. It seems like Scorcese has made a morality play, but if I may be so bold--in a morality play it would be nice to have at least one character with a little morality. The only scene in the film that was remotely inspiring to me was the final one, where we see New York gradually morph into the city it is today. Yet...there's no way the butchery, wickedness, and hatred I had been watching for three hours could possibly lead to such magnificence. So what's the point of this scene? If Scorsese wanted to make a movie about the triumph of good versus evil, he filmed the wrong story. The more interesting story was the one about Liam Neeson and his struggle against Daniel Day-Lewis. That got told by Day-Lewis in a few minutes-worth of monologue, yet it was the only part of the movie that seemed halfway real to me. That story means something, but the one we actually see means nothing, and we have to endure it in a big way.
Rating:
Summary: Great film, but an hour too long
Review: I cannot vouch for the historicity of this film as I don't know enough about the period; all I know is that I enjoyed it immensely especially the intricate set that showed New York the way it was in 1840s. The movie really made you feel like you were really there. I do not give it 5 stars only because a few sequences could have been omitted without reducing the quality of the film one bit. An abridged edition 2 hours instead of 3 hours long would be perfect!
Rating:
Summary: Less than satisfied
Review: I found the Gangs of New York rather disappointing, especially after the numerous Golden Globe nominations and glowing reviews. Daniel Day-Lewis and Cameron Diaz saved the film. Leonardo DiCaprio's performance was far less admirable than his performance in Catch Me If You Can. The editing was terrible with many of the transitions between scenes rather disjointed and choppy. In addition, the mentions of the Civil War did little to enhance the film. Eliminating the ill explained and poorly tied in portions of the film would have saved at least 30 minutes and the movie. The cinematography left quite a bit to be desired. The scenery was obviously comprised of painted back-drops and poorly designed sets. Overall, I was less than impressed and rather disappointed as I expected far more from Martin Scorsese.
Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking
Review: This movie made me want to find out more about the history of New York City and the Irish in the mid 1800's. While there was a lot of blood and exposed flesh, I felt the character development was not lost in favor of sex and gore. I recommend this only to adults as there is content that may not be good for kids. They may see the glory of the fighting without the reasons for it at the time. The end is climactic and was not predictable. Don't leave early or you miss the best parts. And buy the popcorn before it starts or you may miss a key character development.
| 
