Rating: 
Summary: Gangs of New York
Review: A Supurb Film. The only reason i didnt give it a 5 is because Gangs of New York tended to drag a bit during the middle stages of the movie. And also, i think we could've done without the romance. But still, there is more good then bad in this movie. Top acting throughout the movie, with special mention to Daniel Day-Lewis with his supurb effort with his character. He really played the part well. We all know DiCaprio looks like a nancy boy, but he got away with it. He isnt as bad in this movie, as everyone says he is. Im not a fan of his, but i think he deserves a little more praise then he is getting. Cameron Diaz is always good to look at. So she gets a passing grade too :) Its a very violent movie, so its not for everyone, but overall a thoroughly entertaining movie.
Rating:
Summary: Gangs of New York
Review: This was a very fun, interesting and violent movie. The acting was good. I thought Leonardo DiCaprio wasnt as bad as everyone is making out... but he did a good enough job to maintain his character in the movie in my mind. Cameron Diaz is always sexy in her movies, she was good to look at, and her character was a very interesting one. The best peice of acting came from Daniel Day-Lewis. He really got his character going the best, which was a joy to watch. The only problem i had with the movie, was that it seemed to lag a bit during the middle stages . It seemed that Scorcese was filling in the time with nothing scenes, but it comes out of the hole with a good ending. All the gangs in the movie are so different, which is cool. I also liked the firefighters :))) A very violent movie, but it doesnt go over the top. Very similar to the violence of Braveheart. Overall a good film.
Rating: 
Summary: think about it. . .
Review: There's a reason why "Gangs of New York" came up goose eggs at the Oscars. At first I liked only Daniel Day Lewis' role as Bill the Butcher, but now I hate the whole film altogether. Even Leonardo DiCaprio, who was phenomenal in the groundbreaking masterpiece "Titanic," can't save this hot mess. And getting Cameron Diaz is the worst casting decision I can think of. I mean, I was having these "There's Something About Mary" flashbacks whenever I saw her face. But worst of all is that Scorcese big time dropped the ball on this project. Sorry, but this film just ain't good.
Rating: 
Summary: Gangs of New York--I've Seen It All Before.
Review: Yes, Gangs of New York. A new Martin Scorsese film. Yes, Martin Scorsese made Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Casino, yes. Yeah, ten years ago. Kubrick was gone for over a decade after Full Metal Jacket, and, just before his death, he gave us Eyes Wide Shut, which completely lived up to and fit in with the others in his reputable collection. Gangs of New York, however, does not fit in with the likes of Taxi Driver and The Last Temptation of Christ. The plot, regrettably, reminds me far too much of Mel Gibson's Braveheart. I know that is a blasphemous thing to say, and perhaps even a little uneducated, but I cannot help but to see the similarities. In Braveheart, Mel Gibson was revenging the death of his wife, in Gangs of New York, Leonardo DiCaprio is revenging the death of his... father! You should see Gangs of New York for three reasons: [1] to witness the downfall of the guy who brought us such films as "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver" [oh, come on! that isn't fair!], [2] to witness the changing of an accent so many times that you, like the actors, are thinking, "Wait a minute. Where the hell are these guys from?" and [3] to witness Daniel Day Lewis's performance, which was awesome--he totally saved the film. I almost feel bad critiquing this film so poorly, since I liked him so much in his role. But, alas. I did like many of the sets, I guess, but Scorsese's directing is certainly not up-to-par here. I, for one, am quite fond of the part, at the close of the film, when we, the viewers, are greeted with a quiet, doleful shot of a bubbling river, and then, all of the sudden, U2 is blasting over the loud speakers. Wait, I thought music was supposed to create atmosphere in a film or further elucidate themes and points being made? U2's song eliminated all my hopes that this film would avoid tacky sentiment. Leonardo DiCaprio was well-cast in this film--he fit the "I am just appeasing my enemy--I really plan to do him in at the end" character right on the mark, but didn't act that well--kept on losing that accent and stuff. Cameron Diaz...I don't know why she was in this film. She did a really nice job in Being John Malkovich, but she just didn't seem to work that well in this one. The sets and scene designs were fabulous, but there was a little too much fighting--too much build-up, too much detail. This movie lasted at least three hours. I watched this in the theater, and I kept on thinking as I looked down at my watch, "Surely we've passed two hours now...forty-five minutes!" I like the idea, I like the setting, the director, I even like the name a lot, but I don't like the execution. This would have been wonderful at two hours, but the extra hour was totally unneeded. It just goes to show that a great director, big Hollywood names, and lots of Hollywood hype and advertising don't always add up to a winner.
Rating: 
Summary: How did this film get nominated for anything?
Review: With this cast and under Scorsese's direction, this film could have been great. It could have been a compelling period piece drawn on a sub-culture little known to Americans. There could have been tremendous insight into the struggles of an environment that contributes to gang life with subtle parallels to contemporary culture. Instead this is a 3 hour rock video peppered with historical facts made questionable by the historical hyperbole. The characters are flat and cartoon-like. Daniel Day Lewis became so immersed in his character that he lost touch with reality. DiCapprio's "on again, off again" Irish accent was laughable. Who was that cat woman who cut off ears? Give me a break! Frankly I wanted them all to die within the first hour, but thank you for the gratuitous sex and orgy scenes. For a movie that could have been so intelligent, it debased itself by appealing to the lowest common denominator. I wonder if Scorsese has ever seen "Mean Streets" or "Taxi Driver". He could have learned something from them.
Rating: 
Summary: Wow! This is some film and Daniel Day-Lewis is fabulous!
Review: Scorsese waited thirty years to make this film after reading 1927 journalist's (Asbury's) account of the bloody gang wars in New York. Sadly, this film is flawed, though the story is compelling and the cast excellent. Daniel Day Lewis lights up the screen as the evil "Butcher Bill", boss of Five Points, the most notorious neighborhood in New York. Even Boss Tweed from Tammany Hall stays grudgingly out of Bill's destructive way. DiCaprio does a decent job as the son of murdered leader Priest Vallon, and Cameron Diaz, not a real favorite of mine, looks reasonably good as a cutpurse tart. The script starts out strong, with compelling scenes, the cinematography is stunning at the Battle of Five Points. But after the first two-thirds of this long film, the gas runs out and you stop being impressed at the history and events and start wondering if this was a love story by James Cameron wrapped in a bloody taco shell by Scorsese. I'd like to see a director's cut of this film, as Scorsese intended it to be made. I have a strong feeling this film was studio-ized. If Scorses could make "Goodfellas" he certainly could have done better with "Gangs of New York." I would give it three and a half stars if there were half-stars here and say, yes, watch it. It's enjoyable, but it isn't the film it was meant to be
Rating:
Summary: Barbarian NY
Review: It's a truism that Roman Empire grew decadent and weak, and was sacked by Germanic Barbarians who nevertheless infused the decaying rot with new blood and vitality. Scorsese's vision of America as presented in this mid 19th Century NY tale is a civilization whose main strength is the ever present tension between order and disorder, between civility and madness. Scorsese, a Catholic director, has always been more interested in sin--rage, violence, greed, lust--than saintliness, but in all of his films the wanton passions of mankind are examined closely, with great insight and drama, having a purgative effect on the viewer(and presumably on the maker).
This movie is pumped little too much with steroids, perhaps to sell it to action movie crowd to recoup its expensive production cost. And, perhaps the movie's length is too short for its grand themes. But, it's one of the movies that makes you say, they don't make em this like anymore, as well as, they never made anything like this before.
Lewis as Bill the Butcher is awesome in his boisterous and murderous charisma. DiCaprio seethes with snake venom, a performance that slithers under the sensitive radar of Bill. Interestingly, the movie's much more successful in its quiet moments than with its outrageous violence.
Far from perfect but one of those grand follies.
Rating:
Summary: The first NY gang wars
Review: "Gangs of New York" stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Danial Day Lewis, and Cameron Diez. It starts out in late 1840s as the "Priest" (cameo by Liam Nesson) tries to lead a revolt against upcoming crime boss William "The Butcher" Cutter (Day Lewis). Priest fails and dies, and his son, Amsterdam (DiCaprio) takes up the mantel sixteen years later. There Amsterdam attempts a private vengence against his father's murderer. Then when that fails, he leads a revolt against Cutter's iron rule over the Five Points. There is great acting all over, but it is Lewis who steals the show as "The Butcher" who controls New York, but is not as purely evil as you think. A nice touch was to have him have a deep respect for his enemy. DiCaprio is alright; at least he isn't as smug as in "Titanic". Diez is just sort of there. The gangs are shown to be a precurser to todays gang wars of the Bloods and the Crips and others. The main conflict is between the Irish, German, and other immagrents aganist the second gereration American-English. But the problem of the rich vs. the poor is also prominant (the rich people are buying their way out of enlistment in the Army during the Civil War). All in all, this is probably best wacthed at home, where you can pause it when you need to (it's very long), but do wacth it.
Rating:
Summary: Titanic meets New York: and both sink...
Review: I've seen most of Scorsese's films. But I've seen none of his as dissapointing as this one is. On a film that should have been a perfect vehicle for Scorsece to shine yet again he fails in dramatic and pompous fashion. Rewind about 200 years back. New York is basically a battleground for gangs of different ethnicities, as everyone struggles for turf, survival, and the avoidance of a future in a casket. We are introduced into the rivalry of two such gangs, the Natives headed by the knife-happy Butcher and the Dead rabbits headed by the Priest. The Butcher slaughters the Priest in a daylight brutal battle as his gang comes out on top leaving tens of chopped up corpses on the fresh snow. "So far so good" but we're only 10 minutes into the film and it only goes downhill from there on. How so? Because from that point on the film traps itself into the following ill-advised choices:
-it focuses on the rivalry between the Butcher and the son of the dead Priest, Vallon or "Amsterdam" (played flatly by Di Caprio).It becomes impossible to identify with either of these characters, indeed as the film drags painfully on (close to 3 hours) you dont care who slaughters whom. You just want this film to end.
--It introduces us into a Titanic-like love affair between Di Caprio and C.Diaz which has nothing to do with anything as far as the plot of the film is concerned and further ties up the pace and development of the plot.
---Because the film tends to focus mostly on two people it has little time (and means) to actually get busy with what it's supposedly about: the history of the gangs of 18th century New York. It's really hard to understand Scorcese's choices on this one. To begin with, the cast. Di Caprio, predictably, is totally out of his league here. He looks in place acting out the sorry and insignificant love affair that kills the middle part of the film but is basically unconvincing for the remainder. Furthermore he's drowned by D.D Lewis who is the only character with any depth and the only played with any inspiration Cameron Diaz? Her part in the story looks like it was rammed in from another film. Titanic meets the Gangs is really not a good idea at all. But they are similar in a weird way: they both sink with few survivors. As if this was all not bad enough the script is a majorly poor job. Whereas Scorsece's films are usually noted for strong scripts this one isn't. Quite the opposite. While the script loses itself into the pointlessness of Vallon's love affair and the micropolitics of his plan for revenge against the Butcher it has no time and no space to narrate the story most of the audience will be looking for: the story of the gangs of New York that is. There are scattered references here and there, the draft riots, the corrupt politicians, the horrifying living conditions of the city inhabitants, but they are few and far in between. For anyone who doesn't have a knowledge of New York history before watching this doomed epic chances are small he'll emerge with more historical knowledge than before he saw it. It's hard to put together the pieces , it's even harder to extract any explanations, any historical explanations, as to why this is all happening. All in all, Scorcese fans will probably be alienated with this. This is not what this director has accustomed us to. Two stars are well in place because:
-of D.D.Lewis's performance which is the only one that stands out in this tragic affair of poor performances. Sadly he's the only pole of attention here. He basically goes it alone.
-of the stunning visuals, particularly the incredible reproduction of 18th century New York which is truly breath-taking. But even that isn't enough to salvage the "gangs". One of the rare occasions where Scorcese misses. On several levels.
Rating:
Summary: Scorsese doesn`t disappoint!!
Review: I`m a huge fan of Martin Scorsese. This movie is different from his previous work but does not diappoint. The acting,the scenes are very powerful and you are drawn in fron the beginning to the end.
|
