Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: Daniel Day Lewis for best actor
Review: Daniel Day Lewis shines amidst a wrenching, brutal film that focuses far too much on violence. Violence in itself is really not that exciting; seeing someone beaten to death with a cudgel is not my idea of a good time, especially after the third or fourth time in the same movie. I had unpleasant nightmares about it afterwards. Instead, they should have treated Di Caprio as Reeves was treated in "The Matrix", and let Daniel Day Lewis rule the film. He is to Gangs of New York as Johnny Depp is to Pirates of the Carribean; so far into character as to be indistinguishable from the role he plays. Not many actors can be so convincing, but Day-Lewis pulls it off with effortless charm. He is one of the great actors of the day. The rest of the film would be pointless without him, and it treads on the edge of inconsequential faux-historical fiction far too many times. Scorcese is a master, but you wouldn't know it from this film. Watch this for Daniel Day-Lewis.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing Shakespearean Here
Review: I give the DVD set high marks for including the Discovery Channels' story of the New York gangs. I also credit the film for what seems to have been an effort to infuse historical accuracy in the characters and atmosphere of those times. But, I don't understand why the movie was split between 2 disks, why it was as long as it was, or why anyone still thinks that DiCaprio can act?

Daniel Day Lewis' performance was excellent. Scorsese would have done well with more subtlety and editing. Apparently, he believes that viewers are too dumb to connect the dots on our own. The blood scenes are stomach turners, and the sex orgies were gratuitous. The scenes of prayer before the climatic violence was lifted out of the Godfather, and Cameron Diaz looked too clean and pretty for a character from that neighborhood. I liked one reviewer's attempt to analogize the plot to Hamlet, but DiCaprio lacked any of the Hamlet inner turmoil. Overall, it was only satisfactory and not one that I will revisit.

Rating:
Summary: Morally Adrift in Method
Review: A troubling movement persists in art these days that invests brutality and depravity with a patina of panache. Apparently, if perversion is presented with enough flair, the professional critics and the viewing public can be conned into thinking it edifying.

This is how sociopaths, murderers, and parasites achieve glory. In an older simpler age, they were dismissed as the scum of society. In our more sophisticated one, they are elevated into New Age Philosophers, spouting pearls of "street" wisdom, feral insight and anti-heroism. Where we once honoured "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", it is now "death, nihilism and the dregs of despair".

This movie is about death, nihilism and the dregs of despair. As such, it is sadly appropriate to our brutish times. The characters are psychopathic prima divas addicted to the sound of their own voices even more than they are to killing. There is such a profusion of soliloquies, oratory and high-flown rhetoric that Scorcese is clearly playing to Shakespeare. He manages to achieve a pale success: imitating the Bard's method while failing his larger purpose.

This is a revenge play. A son tries to avenge the death of his father, but must first overcome his own reluctance, a reticence that stems from self-doubt and concern about usurping the natural order. Sound familiar? It should. Shakespeare dealt with this thesis in one of his greatest plays. But unfortunately, this movie isn't Hamlet, hard as it may try.

And that is the essence of its failing. Hamlet's vengeance exists within a larger moral framework, and comes at a high price. "'Vengeance is mine,' saith the Lord", and Hamlet pays for his presumption with his life, daring to appropriate to himself a justice reserved for the divine. But this film panders to vengeance. The anti-hero kills and then walks off into the sunset with the girl. In contrast to Hamlet, there is no moral cost. "Go thou and do likewise", says the film, and in saying it, exposes the corruption that claims its soul.

There is a scene in this movie where the antagonist tells us how he lost his eye and both the protagonist and the audience are spellbound by the quality of the telling. Daniel Day Lewis embodies his character so consummately and Scorcese films the scene so masterfully that we watch mesmerized as this psychopath, with a lyricism verging on poetry, embarks on a long soliloquy describing his fight, his disgrace, his self-styled atonement and his eventual murder of the man who spared his life. It takes a steadfast moral sense to reject the depraved philosophy of a man whose twisted idea of honour necessitates the killing of the one who let him live. "I buried him in his blood," says Bill the Butcher. "Of all those I have killed, he was the only one worth remembering." Later, he is himself killed in a pool of his own blood, and only after he too first spares the life of his future killer. And of all those whom Amsterdam Vallon kills, we suspect that Bill the Butcher is also the only one worth remembering.

A marvellous device. The killer's code comes full circle. But there is something wrong here. Isn't this an affirmation of the Butcher's philosophy? Doesn't Vallon, in the act of killing the Butcher, validate what the Butcher stands for?

The power of this film comes from such technique: psychopaths are given heroic stature; anti-heroes are so anti-heroic that they are beyond redemption; lives come full circle, then spiral inward into destruction; the most accomplished of storytelling techniques are used in the service of the most deplorable of human specimens. It goes on. I am sure film buffs can cite dozens of perfectly executed samples of the filmmaker's craft: technique turned on the clever lathe of genius. But what is all of this genius dedicated to? The advancement of a philosophy expounding death, nihilism and despair.

The anti-hero should have died in this film. That would have saved this story by giving it a moral heart and allow it to partake of tragedy. Like Hamlet, Amsterdam Vallon would have achieved a standing in death unattainable in life. He could have symbolized the understanding that vengeance exacts a price and leads to a cycle of death. Instead, we are given a moral perversion. Scorcese tells us that vengeance belongs not to the Lord, but to he who wields the longest knife. It's okay to kill, so long as the man I kill is worse than the man I am.

Judged by its technique, this film deserves five stars. Not many films achieve such mastery of method. But judged by its purpose, it is a failure. Speaking to nothing, it deserves nothing. Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you value its virtuosity over its degeneracy.

Rating:
Summary: Moral: "White Guys Can Be Gangstas, Too." Give Me a Break!!
Review: I agree with whoever said that the entire purpose of this big-budget three-hour movie was to reassure white boys that they can be gangsters, too, and in fact the entire gang culture in New York originated with them. What an honor...NOT! BIG friggin' deal! I am NOT impressed. Since Eminem exploded onto the music scene, it's suddenly cool to be immoral gutter trash.

This historically inaccurate, boring, plotless, chaotic MESS is THE MOST OVERHYPED movie of all time! Save your time and money!

Rating:
Summary: It Had potential too
Review: I can Not put into words how much i wanted to like it but, Scorsese just didnt show how life was like in that period and the movies plot was too cliche. the charachters had no charachter and dont get me started on the accents. the only decent performance(and this may be due to the director) were Daniel Day-Lewis and Liam Neeson.

Rating:
Summary: Scorsese's compromised epic
Review: Gangs of New York has a lot of problems. (1) Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio are miscast. They have no chemistry, Diaz' role is confusing, and DiCaprio appears to be stoned in almost every scene. (2) Their love affair is a needless distraction from the revenge plot. (3) The set design is amazing, but it seems to take up too much of the screen. It's anything but subtle. In Scorsese's other films, he creates a world to surround the characters, but he doesn't call attention to it. (4) The movie is split over two DVDs. There's no reason for it. I have other films of the same length on a single disc. The extras could have been placed on the second disc, and the entire film on the first. (5) There was a lot of controversy about the production of this film, including cost overruns and fights with the producer. That story is not mentioned anywhere on the two DVDs. It's a whitewash.

And then there are the good things. (1) Jim Broadbent and Daniel Day-Lewis are great. I could watch those two guys all day. They work the scenery, they work the costumes, and they know when to overdo it to keep the story fun and colorful. (2) All of the historical moments are well-done. Scorsese has a knack for cutting away from the plot, giving you background, and then getting back to his characters. The best example is Casino, whre he spent the first 45 minutes teaching you about Las Vegas. Here, he shows you everything from immigration to racism to corrupt politics and draft fees. (3) The movie is packed with stunning shots, such as the moment at the beginning when Bill's gang silently emerges from between the houses to form a mob in the snow. Or the climax, with cannons firing into the city and looters storming the mansions. (4) Scorsese's audio track is worth listening to.

Overall, Gangs of New York is a "chocolate cheeseburger" --- a movie that tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. Scorsese should have edited it mercilessly, cutting out the romance (as much as possible) and paring it down to an ultra-violent 2-hour epic. He would have lost a few casual viewers, but they ended up offended or bored anyway. I recommend this to anyone who likes Scorsese movies, simply because its an important part of his body of work. But for those of you who stayed away because you thought you wouldn't like it --- well, you probably made the right choice.

Rating:
Summary: Down with Miramax
Review: I hate Miramax. They never deserve the oscars they win, or get nominated for. On occassion, a performance is worthy, but that's it. ALL they make is shameless oscar ploys. They never take risks or try anything that isn't guaranteed to succeed. God forbid they make a single picture without big, famous movie stars carrying the film. You shouldn't be able to purchase Oscars. That's not the way it should work. Again and again they steal the Oscars right out of the hands of deserving filmmakers, actors, and films. Not with talent or brilliant filmmaking, no, but with cash. Their campaigning is what gets them their acclaim, their awards, their success. Miramax is ruining the Oscars. Last year they made 3 out of the 5 Best picture-nominated films. None of them deserved to be nominated, in my opinion. It's time Hollywood gave some recognition to films that don't buy their way to success.

This review really isn't telling you to see Gangs of New York or to not see it, so I'm sorry if that's what you wanted to read.

Rating:
Summary: Blew me away!
Review: I don't understand any of the negative reviews. I loved this movie. The acting was amazing accross the board. Lewis was perfect, as was DiCaprio and Diaz even did a very good job in the movie.

The movie has a simple and personal story in the center of everything that is going on in the movie. At the heart of the movie is DiCaprio seeking vengence for the death of his father.
Scorsese has this simple story to tell and put it in the middle of this epic movie about a time in history many no little about.
This made the film feel original and vibrant.

The movie never feels overlong or slow. This movie is filled with life. The action is exciting. The visuals are awe inspiring. and the acting is as good as it gets.
In my opinion Martin has created his greatest masterpiece with this film.

I loved this movie

Rating:
Summary: Now Here's My Serious Review
Review: (Note to censors: How can it possibly be offensive to suggest that Scorcese's obsession with violence is almost "sensual"? Is the word "sensual" not allowed? Are you joking?)

This work is a minor picture with a major attitude. The story -- which revolves around a time-honored but massively cliched revenge motif -- is largely without bite. The film, which stars Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio -- is grossly miscast (albeit I shouldn't harp too much on that point, since it seems that without the presence of those two less-than-stellar "actors," the film probably would never have been made). The history behind the film is distorted to the point of nonsense: the screenplay telescopes too many real historical episodes into one cinematic Mulligan Stew; in addition, the power relationships depicted, where the machine-leader mayor of New York, "Boss" Tweed, is made to seem like an underling of gangleader Bill "the Butcher" Poole, is preposterous. Finally, there is much violence in this picture, which in and of itself would be fine, since the action takes place in a violent environment amongst brutally violent people. What I object to,however, is that the violence is depicted quasi-erotically, rather than with clinical detachment, which is no doubt indicative of the proclivities of the director, who has shown himself to have an erotic, almost pornorgraphic, fascination with carnage in many of his other films.

On a positive note, this film features a lot of glorious historical touches in its scenery which, unfortunately, amounts to very little because the story is without bite and, after the movie is finished, leaves the viewer with VERY LITTLE to ponder. In the end one walks away from this film lamenting what might have been, along with the bitter taste of Daniel Day Lewis' majestic performance as Bill the Butcher, for Lewis, in the end, completely steals a picture that probably wasn't worth stealing in the first place.

I give the film three stars: two for the film, one for its unflinching political incorrectness.

Note for those who responded to my other review of this film: I was being ironic!

Rating:
Summary: Good, but Scorsese's done better.
Review: Gangs of New York is a film that is overcome by it's own ambitions. Scorcese definately has a way with actors and setting and getting you to feel like you really understand what it's like to be amidst the lives he is illustrating. However, this film is just too grand and Scorcese tries to have his cake and eat it too. The personal character studies that he is so good at, the revealing of characters souls is overshadowed by this films epic reachings.

It seemed to me that Scorsese wasn't focused on this film, which is ironic considering it is his pet project that he's been developing for years. I think the first half is terrific, but then just looses steam ulimately to conclude with a lackluster ending. Do we really care about Amsterdam after all this? Does it really matter?

If Scorcese was trying to show me what life was like by painting a picture of New York at this time period, I'm impressed. It doesn't need to have stark realism to me. That is not the point of drama. But Scorsese doesn't focus on this they way say Steven Spielberg did with Saving Private Ryan. He in his usual style keeps the camera focused on the characters rather than the events. This takes away from the film's impact as a story about New York.

If Scorcese was trying to show me who these people were that inhabited his world, I'm impressed at that as well. Bill the Butcher may be cartoonish, but it is done just right. I for one am glad that he isn't completely real. Who wants to watch real people? Again, the art of drama gives us larger than life characters. But Scorsese doesn't succeed here like he normally does due to juggling this epic vision at the same time. As wildly entertaining any of the performances are, we don't feel like we really know any of these characters the way we do say Jake La Motta in Raging Bull.

I like Gangs of New York. But I'm not overly impressed by it. I think the screenplay could have used some refinement. I think Scorsese should have picked a path of direction for this film instead of trying to do it all.

For example, take Michael Mann's The Last of the Mohicans. Mann, like Scorcese is a director who likes to focus on characters and bringing them to life (see The Insider), but unlike Scorcese (in GoNY), he shows an understanding that different types of stories need to be approached in different ways. Mohicans would have been a mess had Mann approached it the way he did The Insider. In Mohicans it's the events and the story itself that is driving; the caracters less so.

Scorsese tackles a completely different film than he's used to, but he doesn't really alter his approach to storytelling. Gangs of New York puts me in awe about this fascinating story about the events in this time period but doesn't let me revell in it because it gets too bogged down in the lives of these characters. But I can't be compelled by the lives of these characters because they are constantly overshadowed by the grand ambitions of this epic storyline. I feel like the film can't make up it's mind what it's about. It's a good film that stutters and fails to be great.