Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: An extraordinary film--but not quite a great one.
Review: "Gangs of New York," Martin Scorsese's epic about the Manhattan gang wars in the mid-1800s, is an attempt at a super-masterpiece to surpass even "Goodfellas" and "Taxi Driver." Scorsese comes very close; the virtuoso crane shots--such as the one showing in the space of two minutes the fate of Irish immigrants who were recruited for the Union Army right off the boat, only to return to New York harbor in coffins--are astonishing, and Scorsese crowds every frame of film with sordid yet exhilarating detail, buoyed by pulsating music, glowing camerawork and excellent performances. It's as if Charles Dickens met William S. Burroughs. Unfortunately, Scorsese lets the film slip from his grasp in the last hour, as he moves from the rich particularity of the denizens of Five Points to make some broader comments on the history and politics of 1860s New York. The broader strokes of the last third of the movie simply aren't as interesting as what came before, and staging the finale during the 1863 draft riots seems extraneous. (Scorsese also plays fast and loose with the true story of the riots, making them seem much bloodier than they actually were.) Nevertheless, filmmaking this bold and masterful merits five stars, even if the final movie isn't quite what it could have been. (If Scorsese had achieved his aims, there wouldn't have been enough stars to give this film.) Besides, the incredible performance of Daniel Day-Lewis as psychotic gang leader Bill "the Butcher" Cutting alone is worth the price of admission. Day-Lewis' performance ranks with the best of Cagney and Brando, and when you consider the astonishing variety of characters Day-Lewis has played throughout his career, his achievement here is all the more impressive. If there is a more versatile actor today than Daniel Day-Lewis, I don't know who it is. The performances of the rest of the large cast--Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, John C. Reilly, Brendan Gleeson, Jim Broadbent, Henry Thomas, Liam Neeson--suffer slightly in comparison with Day-Lewis', but are otherwise impeccable. "Gangs of New York" may be too violent and gritty for some audiences, but for those with strong enough stomachs and a passion for Scorsese's work, it is essential viewing.

Rating:
Summary: Science Fiction
Review: This movie is a perfect, textbook example of why Hollywood is so awful. It does everything that bad movies do: the plot doesn't make any sense, it is completely unrealistic as to time and place, the motivations of the characters are contrived, it is sickeningly brutal and gory, and it fails to present even the simplest human virtue. It is, in fact, a classic example of post-modernism, in that it imprints the cynical and jaded world-view of its creators onto subject matter of which they show absolutely no understanding.

The celluloid begins with a set-piece battle between two rival Irish gangs. Hundreds of grown men face each other--in broad daylight, and in the middle of one of the most civilized cities on the earth--holding axes, meat-cleavers, knives, clubs, daggers and pitchforks. They savagely attack one another and we get to see, thanks to the careful, loving attention of the filmmakers, the hacks, gashes, dead bodies, blood, gore and agony of the dearly departed. It is very touching. Except . . . c'mon. There is no way that this happened, in this way--without a policeman in sight--in New York City in 1846. It is stupidly unbelievable.

The plot then follows the son of one of the slain leaders, DiCaprio's character, as he returns to the scene some fifteen years later to exact his revenge on his father's killer. He becomes the fellow's trusted aide, and has literally dozens of chances to kill him--in fact, he even saves his life once--before he finally decides to do the job. Why he waits so long is never explained. Also unexplained is why DiCaprio's love interest would have a relationship with the bad guy, and why the bad guy doesn't seem to care, except that maybe he does . . . who knows? It also doesn't make sense that the bad guy, Day-Lewis, hates the Irish--he goes to the docks to curse at them as they come off the boat--yet nevertheless employs dozens of them as his closest lieutenants.

Here is what we are supposed to believe New York City was like in 1862: there are opium dens and they are frequented by city leaders; there are brothels where dozens of gorgeous women walk around nude, and where people fornicate openly on bar tables; there are catacombs, somewhere, where dozens of skulls are piled up and where Catholics can hide to get away from it all; the firemen set fires and the policemen are shake-down artists and murderers. All of this, surely, has some minor basis in fact, but to portray it so one-sidedly is just ridiculous. New York City, even with its vices, was not Rome, or Babylon, or Shanghai.

Then we come to the characters, not one of whom is shown to have even the slightest redeeming quality. All are thieves, murderers, thugs, pickpockets, or crooked politicians. All are unshaven, unkempt, dirty or clothed in rags. None have families--no mothers, no fathers, no sons, no daughters, no cousins, no aunts, no uncles, no grandmas, no grandpas--which is just plain absurd if one knows anything at all about immigrant communities of this country, even to this day. None of these Irish practice their Catholicism, except towards the end, and then only as a means of sewing revolt. In other words, there is no tempering influence on the barbaric behavior in which nearly all of these characters engage, a completely contrived, indeed laughable situation.

The love story is also typical Hollywood, which means of course that it really isn't love at all, but only uncontrollable lust, which is what Hollywood thinks love is. The DiCaprio character and the Diaz character practically shake in each other's presence, then finally mash their mouths together like a couple of demented inmates in a co-ed insane asylum. Please.

But the insane asylum analogy is an apt one, in that this movie much more resembles an insane asylum than it does New York of 1862. It may as well take place on another planet or for that matter, or a completely made-up universe. It is a worthless piece of revisionist trash, with nothing--characters, story, history or theme--to give it any value whatsoever.

Rating:
Summary: "It wasn't a city, really. . . ."
Review: ". . . It was more a furnace where SOMEDAY a city might be forged." This is one of the many profundities in Martin Scorsese's latest opus, *Gangs of New York*. Well, we can always count on Marty for literal-minded explanations of a movie's theme in voice-over narration (and for a lot of voice-over narration, period). Fortunately, we can also count on him to be next to none when it comes to showing us street fights, high-octane violence, macho one-upmanship, and all-around BLOOD. (You know, as in "a-nation-born-in-blood", etc. The director is pretty literal-minded with his symbols, too.) Scorsese's been doing this kind of thing for 30 years, but even so, we're hardly prepared for the kinetic STYLE of bloodshed, here: viscous drops of it from cut flesh; fine, misty sprays of it in the air; sudden gouts of it from stab wounds; occasional buckets of it that stain the ground; Jackson Pollock-like dribbles and drabbles of it when nothing else in particular is happening. It's fun, hyper, macho stuff of the highest order. *Gangs of New York* succeeds best as an action picture. It's less successful as "The Capstone To Martin Scorsese's Career". The problems are not so much numerous as they are dreadfully obvious: namely, Leonardo DiCaprio and especially Cameron Diaz. DiCaprio is a shrinking violet next to Daniel Day-Lewis whenever they appear on-screen together. Perhaps that's supposed to be the point, given the plot, but it makes for a lousy hero to root for. And even if Ms. Diaz WASN'T such an obviously limited actress, her role as the third point of a romantic entanglement between herself, Day-Lewis, and DiCaprio adds nothing to the basic story. If you've seen the movie, think back . . . and imagine the absence of this character. See? The character is unnecessary, and her tiresome development eats up a lot of time in a movie that's too long already. The good news is that DiCaprio and Diaz are balanced out by a ferocious, hilarious, and certainly Oscar-worthy turn by Daniel Day-Lewis as "Bill the Butcher", leader of a gang of bellicose "natives" who resent the wave of Irish immigrants arriving in New York during the Civil War. Day-Lewis cuts an instantly unforgettable villain with his proto-New York accent, Mad Hatter tophat, mix-and-match plaids, lavender broadcloth, and bushy mustache. The actual performance matches the wardrobe: outlandish, over-the-top, one-of-a-kind. When I think of how he was dragged out of retirement to play this role, I am the more astounded at both his bravery and skill as an actor. It's the kind of big risk-taking that will pay immortal dividends. -- Unfortunately, the movie itself is not immortal. Scorsese, perhaps afraid of flopping at the box-office (which, by the way, must explain the presence of DiCaprio and Diaz), isn't willing to patiently allow this story to delineate its themes in an intelligent manner. The movie just moves from one spectacle to the next . . . but in the final analysis, that's not such a bad thing, after all. Certainly much is atoned for by the inherently fascinating setting, amazingly recreated at Cinecitta Studio. *Gangs of New York* could have been so much better . . . but it also could have been so much worse. Split the difference -- 3 stars.

Rating:
Summary: A bloody celebration of tribal warfare
Review: GANGS OF NEW YORK, directed by Martin Scorsese, is perhaps a caricature of the time and place it ostensibly portrays.

The film begins in 1846 when "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson) leads poor, Irish, immigrant brawlers from the most wretched of New York City's slums into the street confluence known as Five Points to confront a mob of native-born, New York thugs led by Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis). In the resulting spasm of jingoistic violence, Bill kills Vallon while the latter's young son looks on, and the immigrants are soundly defeated. In the blink of a cinematic eye, the young Vallon then spends 16 years in a city orphanage before emerging in 1863 to take the name of "Amsterdam". At this point in history, the U.S. is convulsed by the Civil War, the Irish are still the main immigrant group flooding into NYC, and the Butcher remains the strongman leading the virulently nationalistic (i.e., anti-Catholic and anti-Irish) confederation of urban gangs. Now played by Leonardo DiCaprio, Amsterdam insinuates himself into Bill's service hoping for the opportunity to avenge the death of his father.

DiCaprio is presumably the lead in this visually arresting period piece, but his stiff performance is completely upstaged by Day-Lewis playing the vicious, charismatic, curiously rakish Bill the Butcher, who kills his victims with knives and cleavers. Daniel is the best - and perhaps only - reason to see GANGS OF NEW YORK. Cameron Diaz adds little as Jenny, Bill's moll who catches Amsterdam's eye.

For me, the most interesting aspect of the movie was the insertion into the plot of the New York City Draft Riot, those 3 days in July 1863 when perhaps 50,000 rioters, mostly Irish, protested Abraham Lincoln's conscription of men into the Union Army by burning and looting buildings, and attacking and killing Black residents. Perhaps 100 citizens died (although the film implies a more extensive massacre). Units of the army, fresh from their victory at Gettysburg, had to be brought in to quell the violence. By the film's conclusion, the confrontation between the Irish gangs and those led by the Butcher is submerged in the larger conflict. Indeed, were I to try and hypothesize the point of this epic, it would be that the tantrums of the federal government render inconsequential the squabbles of lesser mortals. Beyond that, GANGS OF NEW YORK seemed totally pointless except as a lengthy exercise in period costuming and blood-drenched violence.

Rating:
Summary: Day-Lewis stomps it up Clockwork Orange style in old NY!
Review: I have been waiting forever to see this film. I wasn't disappointed. Despite it's many flaws, storywise and historical, it is still a moving depiction of early New York society.

All the actors are wonderful. But no one could possibly hope to stand up to Daniel Day Lewis' volcanic performance. Even the sets paled when he entered scene. The movie lights up when he shares the screen with the naive DiCaprio. Day-Lewis' Bill The Butcher is a composite of every Scorcese villain and yet even more tragic. His character knows that he is on the wane. He knows that he isn't the smartest, the richest or the most handsome. All he has is his talent for racism and terror causing romper stomperism. Even that has begun to fail him. Then he adopts DiCaprio's character. You can see him begin to flower again only to be betrayed and destroyed. The last look of unconditional love he gives DiCaprio is all the more disturbing and heartbreaking.

The next actor to come close to Day Lewis is the sly Jim Broadbent, a wonderfully, deviously charming Boss Tweed. DiCaprio does the best with he can with his paper thin character. Poor Diaz has almost nothing to do with her role as a pickpocket. Although many reviewers declare that there is no chemistry between Diaz and DiCaprio, the lack does fit the story. These characters live in dire circumstances, sex and affection are taken anywhere possible whether or not they include chemistry.

The movie ends bittersweetly, much like Day-Lewis's Bill.

It isn't the best Scorsese film but it is worth watching.

Rating:
Summary: Powerful and thought-provoking
Review: I didn't expect to be impressed by this movie but was. The feel of the times was successfully brought out by the scenery, costumes and acting. Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely fantastic as Bill the Butcher, the leader of one of the major gangs. I expect to see him nominated for an Academy Award. Other performances were also good but not at the same level as his.

The downside to this movie is the stretching and, at times, ignoring of historical fact and the violence. Granted, the times were violent but I feel that the movie focused more on the action than on getting across the story, thus the 4 stars instead of 5.

What I found particularly powerful was the portrayal of the variety of prejudices rampant at that time and how few of them our country has successfully eliminated. It's rather sad to realize that we have not progressed more in the 140+ years since the New York Riots.

Rating:
Summary: Surreal, vibrating with the darkness of our past.
Review: Daniel Day Lewis possibly the best living actor of our generation in this role reminds me a of a Dicken's villin gone postal. Mr DeCaprio seems confused as to how to match the darkness that has haunted him and when given the opportunity to act upon his pent up hatred the story spins for a moment into a tale of morality and frustration.
Reminisent of Les Misreble in some comparison this film is not for all but a must see for fans of the director (wonderful work) & NY history buffs. I so wished for the scenes cut from film. Our country's Civil War effected and directed our direction as a nation on so many levels. God bless the Grimalde's for this production.

Rating:
Summary: Okay movie in a year of bad movies
Review: Aside from Daniel Day Lewis' emergence as an utterly convincing bad guy, this movie left a lot to be desired. The plot moved along nicely, despite the fact that the film was 3 hours log, but inexplicably rushed certain parts while idling in others. DiCaprio's "rage" at the loss of his father was totally uninspired (he should have spent more time watching Mel Gibson in Braveheart, or James Caan in The Godfather). The "love story" between Cameron Diaz and DiCaprio is bad too - are they in love, or just partners in crime? But you won't really care enough about the characters to wonder, anyway. I also thought the movie was a little too ambitious in its attempt to tie in to the Civil War. The time warp in the end to modern day NY (not actually modern, given the inclusion of the WTC) was kind of cheesy, in my opinion.

Daniel Day Lewis, however, was dazzling as The Butcher. Lewis seems to have a penchant for starring in mediocre period pieces but at least he proved in this one that he can act. I had my doubts after Last of the Mohicans. Kudos to whoever cast him.

In the end, when you compare it to such scintillating movies as Maid in Manhattan, or 8 Mile, it might actually be the best picture in 2002.

Rating:
Summary: I'd perhaps give this film a 3.75 for originality
Review: What makes this film interesting is the setting, New York City during the Civil War. What detracts from it however is that Scorcese has done better. It's a taut film, but somehow it seems to meander a bit. There is a great deal of violence which Scorcese claims has been toned down from the real riot that took place in the 1860s. The film has that glossy Hollywood look yet also has some gritty realism and one can't help but respect the great cinematography. The plot is a somewhat standard revenge story with the son attempting to avenge his father's death. That is obvious from the trailers anyway. The acting job by Daniel Day Lewis is nothing short of great though. He really becomes "the Butcher" and is both an abomination and a fascinating character study. Ultimately, he is a villain and a very memorable one. That was it though. I came out of the film thinking how good Lewis was, but the other characters I forgot quickly. Amsterdam is played alright by DeCaprio and Diaz is fine as Jenny the pickpocket, but nothing memorable as both actors have done better work. The film feels somewhat like a documentary type view of life in New York City in the mid-19th century and that is interesting to see. Life was hard and cheap and the gangs of Nativists (Americans born in the US) and Irish immigrants were all too real and fought bloody gang wars to control turf in those days. It's like Boyz in the Hood meets the Wild West in some way which is unusual to say the least. Scorsese's great body of work won't be hurt by this film, but it doesn't really enhance it either. It's a good film to watch, but not quite as great as I was expecting. The ending leaves you drained and strangely unsatisfied, but it is true to history apparently that does appease me somewhat. The standard that I measure Scorcese films by remains Goodfellas and this film falls short of being great, but I can see Daniel Day Lewis getting an Oscar for his amazing work.

Rating:
Summary: Daniel Day-Lewis Chews it Up and Spits it Out!
Review: I honestly don't know what I would say about Scorsese's Gangs of New York if it weren't for the ferocious, astonishing, mesmermizing central performance by Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "the Butcher" Cutting! It is an incredible turn wherein he makes this brutal and corrupt man, both human and understandable....even charming at times. This is the type of part that demands a superb actor with incredible power and range to carry-off and Day-Lewis is up to it...keeping Bill believable and real...AND amusing (he has all the best lines)! It is a virtuoso performance! Of course, you could say the same about DeNiro and Raging Bull, so it seems to me Marty Scorsese has once again found the perfect actor to hang his film on!

And Day-Lewis gets a good match with Leonardo DiCaprio and Carmen Diaz, both of whose work surprised me, and a strong supporting cast. I know Leonardo has the lead listing, and he would do well just to hold his own here, but he does very well indeed, as does Ms. Diaz. But Daniel Day-Lewis has the star turn, make no mistake, and the movie is worthwhile if for no other reason than to see him swallow this part whole and spew it back at us, taking and holding the screen like some mad, charismatic maniac!

There is so much more to like in the film, including the brilliant production design and the meticulous attempt to recreate time and place. There is Scorsese's always brilliant camerwork and editing. There is a lot of voice-over trying to describe and cram-in as much background history as possible, which some may find off-setting, but didn't bother me a bit.

I found it an interesting story set in a fascinating and little-known piece of New York and American history, beautifully crafted with one towering, riveting performance, amid very good lead and supporting performances. It is a long movie, but I was never bored. So, what's not to like? Well, as I was getting up a guy behind me said it was "The worst movie I've ever seen" so I will take that to mean, you're either going to love it or hate it. Me? I loved it.