Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: Maybe I'm Not "Hip" enough for Scorcese Movies
Review: Too Long... too dark.... cinematography too "artificial" looking....characters were generally unlikeable....DayLewis over acts... my opinion, movie highly over rated.

Rating:
Summary: Attrocious
Review: I haven't seen a movie this bad in years. Yikes. You almost have to be doing it on purpose to get it to be this bad. That's what's scary. I couldn't even finish watching it, it was so horrible. And it had such pretensions of greatness. Oh! Spare yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Some powerful scenes but I just didn't like it.
Review: 2 1/2 stars.

I disliked this movie quite a bit, but I'll admit that it did have some powerful scenes that stuck in my head more than with most movies. It's not a bad movie and there are numerous quality components and performances (not nearly as many as the Oscar nominations would suggest, however), but subjectively, there was little that appealed to me even though, as a big history buff and fan of action movies, I would have thought this movie would be exceptional. I think the real problem with this movie is that most of its characters were caricatures and the plotlines have all been seen before. Furthermore, scenes happened and ended not because one might reasonably and logically expect the characters to perform those actions but because Martin Scorcese decided to end them that way for dramatic effect.

Let's start with the performances. I don't like Leonardo DiCaprio. I find him to be a spoiled, simpering, tentative, effeminate, brooding and pouting pretty boy. Now I actually enjoyed both his performance and the movie in Catch Me if You Can, but I think he was miscast here. He simply doesn't lend the physical or charismatic attributes to this role that the character of Amsterdam Vallon required and just seems to be juvenile and immature. There was nothing about him that suggested he actually could be a tough street fighter. There was nothing about him that suggested he could be a leader of much more than a small handful of minor criminals and certainly not inspire hundreds of people as a leader of a gang army. The role called for an actor who could actually project powerful emotions rather than just pout immaturely - a young Sean Penn would have been perfect. The character of Amsterdam Vallon, though, is really just Robin Hood or Luke Skywalker set in New York in 1847 and 1863.

I have mixed feelings about Daniel Day Lewis as Bill the Butcher. He is an extraordinarily talented actor and I very much enjoyed his performances in Last of the Mohicans and My Left Foot. His performance here left powerful impressions on me, but I couldn't quite buy his portrayal of Bill the Butcher. First, his appearance didn't quite seem realistic - he looked like an extremely lifelike animated character. Second, I found the mixture of pure evil and chivalric ideals to be unbelievable. For someone who cherished the memory of Priest Vallon as such an honorable warrior and praised his adversary in such a fashion, one would have thought he would have considered Monk McGinn in a very similar light; certainly McGinn captured the respect of the entire community and not solely for his prowess as the supreme street fighter of the Five Points. Bill's murderous sneak cleaver attack on McGinn's back was not consistent with the portrayal of respect for honor. Finally, there was just something about Day Lewis' tone and accent that just didn't strike me as belonging to a person from any American background.

Other characters were unrealistic. All of the police and firemen seemed comical and with the exception of the former Dead Rabbit gang member, didn't it seem peculiar that they were all inferior fighters compared to the other characters of gang background? The black member of the new version of the Dead Rabbits seemed to be just a lame attempt to be politically correct - "oh, I guess we need to have a sympathetic minority character in there somewhere."

I found a number of aspects about the opening battle scene to be incredible: the members of the Dead Rabbits gang at the beginning outfitted themselves unrealistically, as if they were in a science fiction-fantasy movie rather than an historical one. The character of the girl fighter with the steel claws - not realistic at all. The members of the two armies poured by the dozens out of the woodwork at that battle in a very theatrical but unrealistic manner. Upon Priest's death, someone blows a horn and then suddenly all of the fighting stops and the remaining Irish Gang members just trudge off?

I found some of the settings to be unrealistic. The main setting is in some very large building that is part multi-story tenement, part tavern and medieval/viking feasting hall with vast amounts of open space, looking almost like a medival version of the Mall of America. And rather than have a shop on the street, Bill cuts his meat and acts as his role as a butcher in some back office in this building. Furthermore, this large main building is connected with an underground series of caverns or crypts to the old church? It is the product of Hollywood. The expansive Chinese restaurant with the similar, cathedral-like feasting hall was equally unbelievable for such an impoverished slum.

I simply did not find the scene of Monk McGinn's murder to be credible at all. No street fighter as crafty and seasoned as McGinn would have trusted Bill sufficiently to have turned his back on him to walk to a "peaceful" meeting. No one who knew Bill that thoroughly would have seen any possibility of working things out reasonably and peacefully. I also found incredible the fashion in which Amsterdam allows himself to be taken in under Bill's wing as his apprentice/son to such an extent that he saves Bill's life from the assassin.

Finally, the level of violence in this movie was a bit too excessive. A bit more could have been scripted as being off-camera. For instance, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels has a lot of violent scenes, yet the worst of it happens off-camera, leaving it much more palatable. Furthermore, the violence was too theatrical - blood flowed and splashed everywhere as if the humans in this movie were just water balloons filled with blood.

Casting Leonardo DiCaprio as the protagonist, the excess brutality of this movie and the overall sense of a theatrical melodrama really just ruined the movie for me. If I was Ebert or Roeper, I'd have to give this one the thumbs down.

Rating:
Summary: Tastes great, less filling
Review: "Gangs of New York" starts out with much promise. The scenery is appropriately sooty and somber, the costumes look great, the opening battle scene-- though gory--does a good job setting the tone for the movie, introducing us to the tension between the immigrants and "natives" which was so prevalent at the time. That's the problem, though. The movie shows great potential but the ending is a HUGE disappointment, since there was so much tension building up to the final scenes.

DiCaprio does seem out of place here, much like he did in "Titanic," as does Diaz. Daniel Day-Lewis, Jim Broadbent, and Liam Neeson (in a small role) however, are all excellent in their roles.
Unfortunately neither these performances, nor the drama, the period detail, or the great cinematography can keep you from feeling let down. Overall, the film is enjoyable but for the extremely disappointing ending, which really keeps "Gangs" from being a satisfying viewing experience.
I found the extras, however, to be excellent. The disc includes a History Channel documentary on the Five Points, which is worth a look.

Rating:
Summary: Lots of flash, lots of action, and ... ?
Review: I know the point of this movie was to 'educate' the public about early US history. But to justify millions of dollars of effort, the millions have to not just recreate a time, but also express something really touching within it. Actually, the latter is much more important.

Scorsese didn't find anything touching. And I really think he was looking in the wrong place -- a very 'hollywood' place -- finding or forging big characters and contriving a big story.

I have a hope, that long after we're all dead, the majority of the population will see the first 100 years of movie-making as very clumsy and misguided.

Rating:
Summary: With Scorsese, take what you can get
Review: Any new film by Mr Scorsese is cause for celebration and Gangs of New York is no exception. True - Ms Diaz and Mr DiCaprio are well and truly out of their depth and cast for their "star' quality on the likely insistence of producers - but they are a minor distraction. The cinematic wealth in this film is considerable, not least the mis en scene, writing, direction, costumes and editing. But the exceptional cast of actors is quite special including the wonderful Mr John C. Reilly, Mr Broadbent and many many "minor" roles which add up to a delicious mixture of society as viewed through the prism of Mr Cocks et al. The film is, at the very least, a potent social portrait of mid-19th century New York. The praise for Mr Day-Lewis is well earned as he gives a rivetting, sustained and memorable portrait of Bill Cutting. The extras especially those involving Mr Scorsese are excellent.

Rating:
Summary: Who holds sway over the five points?
Review: I'm a sucker for a good historical film. It does my heart good to see movies like Master and Commander, The Alamo, and The last Samurai coming out this fall. I thought that the idea of Martin Scorsese stepping away from his usual fare of mobsters and lunatics (no disrespect meant to these films) to make a film about Civil War era New York City should prove interesting if nothing else.

The story of Gangs of New York begins in 1846 when two large gangs try to settle the score for once and all. The first gang is the Dead Rabbits who are led by Priest Vallon (in a short but fine performance by Liam Neeson). The Rabbits are composed mostly of Irish immigrants who are fed up with the hatred and discrimination they are forced to deal with constantly. The other gang is the Nativists led by William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis in top form). The ensuing battle leaves the snow-covered streets a deep red and results in Vallon's death. Cutting, now the undisputed boss of all gang activity, no longer allows any mention of the words "Dead Rabbits" to solidify his dominance. A young Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) witnesses his father's bloody murder, flees, and lives in exile for 16 years. Upon his return to a New York City that is torn asunder with racism, corruption, and a Civil War Draft that threatens to erupt into a conflagration of nearly Biblical proportions; Amsterdam has one thing on his mind: revenge. He seeks to infiltrate Cutting's powerful organization in order to "kill the king in his court".

The real strength of GoNY is its performances. As I said earlier in my review, Neeson and Day-Lewis are great as two bitter rivals. What I really liked was how Cutting always spoke respectfully about Vallon after killing him. A lot of people complained about Dicaprio being miscast. Many say he was awkward and had a dazed look on his face. Well, that's the point. Vallon was basically a young hotheaded punk who had a lot to learn about life. I say without shame that DiCaprio did a good job playing that character. Yet there is one wasted performance: Cameron Diaz. I think she was only in GoNY to provide a love interest for DiCaprio. It wasn't her fault that her character was so poorly realized. But other than Diaz, a fine ensemble with dialogue as sharp as one of Cutting's knives.

GoNY may look a overblown and pretentious when compared to other Scorsese films like Taxi Driver. Yet it tells of a forgotten and important chapter about New York City that to this day remains relevant in this post September 11th world in which we live. It tells of a city that survives and prospers in the face of corruption, hatred, and other calamities. Even those of us who don't live in New York City need to remember this and apply it to our own hometowns.

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

Rating:
Summary: violent, ugly film, just so disappointing
Review: This was pushed as THE film of the year. Since I love history, and this is based on historical fact, and it was loaded with a powerhouse cast, I thought wow...
Then I saw it and I said wow...but with a different inflection.

This film was brutal, an ugly film that was an exercise in wallowing in violence with nothing to redeem the film. Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio are miscast, completely. Diaz's role seems so unclear, like they said hey, let's stick Diaz in here for star power. DiCaprio, usually a very talented actor, looks like a little boy trying to play big boy and worse, his performance was so dull as if we walked through the whole film. At time, his efforts are near comical. Daniel Day-Lewis turned in a stunning performance, but nearly stomach churning at times. Liam Neeson, another fine actor is there for a thankless near cameo role.

Sorry, for the money that went into this film, it's such a disappointment.

Rating:
Summary: An O.K movie
Review: Daniel Day Lewis. This man was what salvaged this film for me, it would have turned into a flop had he not been cast as the butcher. What was Scorsese thinking when he turned what would have been an excellent film about honor, revenge and life in the early days of New York into a chick flick? Diaz and Di Caprio gave the film a Hollywood feel, and whenever a film has Hollywood stamped all over it, you can kiss goodbye to reality.

However the film was not all bad. The plot was entertaining, and the set was wonderful. They did a great job in trying to recreate the look of the Old New York. The fight scenes were OK, no Brave heart but still quite realistic.

The subplot of the draft riots tended to shift the focus from the main story and instead of making the movie more interesting, it made it unnecessarily complicated. It was like one of those things that directors add to get marks for historical accuracy. It didn't fit in too well with the main plot and they would have done better by giving it less emphasis or excluding it altogether. For a movie of its length you expect there to be a gripping story, and a memorable theme. "Gangs" fails to impress on both counts.

Overall it wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't one of the best either. Definitely not a must see.

Rating:
Summary: Gangs Of New York-Great Movie!
Review: I saw this movie a few days after it's release on DVD. I was thrilled. Great music too. I love movies and books that focus on the 19th century. Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor. The story: 19th century New York City, in an area known as the Five Points. A battle between the Irish gang, the Dead Rabbits, and the "Native Americans" leaves the leader "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson) of the Rabbits dead at the hands of Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis)and his son, Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio), is sent to a boarding school. 16 years later, he returns to the Points to kill Bill the Butcher. Amsterdam falls in love with Jenny Everdean, (Cameron Diaz)a girl pickpocket who knows Bill, personally. Not only does the film focus on the Irish vs. the "Natives", but it also shows the draft riots that took place at that time. I don't want to go into every detail, but see this movie if you love movies that focus on this time period. This is one of the greatest films of the 21st century! Two Thumbs Up!