Rating: 
Summary: Ridiculously long and over-rated.
Review: I didn't like this movie at all. It was at least 2 hours way too long and so boring I almost fell asleep a bunch of times. I do agree that the visual effects of the movie are amazing, but that doesn't save the movie at all. I can't believe that this movie earned all the hype that it got. The story is basically Leonardo Dicaprio grows up to avenge the murder of his father which he witnessed. The movie could have EASILY been made into a two hour film - it didn't have to be an "epic masterpiece". I was really disappointed. I won't be watching it again. Huge waste of time.
Rating: 
Summary: Sweet Mother OF GOD
Review: Oh my God. I watched this movie and thought I was in rioters heaven. The movie casting the plot the EVRYTHING was perfect. Leonardio DicaPrio did an excellent job with this film. DOWN WITH THE UNION!
Rating: 
Summary: Preposterous and boring
Review: No plot; overdone in all respects; poorly cast; ahistorical; rediculous survivals; but most of all utterly pointless. A waste of a precious evening.
Rating: 
Summary: Historical, yet hits home
Review: I didn't want to see this movie at first. However, working in a movie theatre as a projectionist, I couldn't help but see a few clips of the movie, and came to realise that this was going to be a 'must see.' When first I saw the film of the three times I watched it in the theatres, I was stunned by the sheer brilliance of this great movie. History blended with a kind of reality that brought it all home in a way that I never could have imagined would happen. The portrayals of Bill the Butcher by Daniel Day-Lewis and of Amsterdam Vallon by Leonardo DiCaprio are outstanding. The thoughts and the feelings emenating from these characters really showed a lot about the history of the time, and brought the reality of the wars going on in New York at the time straight home. Set at the beginning of the civil war during the first draft, this movie speaks a great deal of the trials of those who came off the boats from Europe and the way that they were treated. It speaks a lot of our own American History and the culture of the time, and should speak to the heart of anyone who has a close connection to the draft and to war in general. I found the thoughts presented by both Bill and Amsterdam to be phenomenal, the acting to be superb and the directing to be outstanding. The one drawback in this film is Cameron Diaz. I feel that she was selected for the part based on her pretty face and not on her acting abilities (or lack thereof). The scenes in which she starred detracted from the overall feeling of the film and resulted in a removal of atmosphere from what could have been some of the best sections, especially in her relationships with the two leading men in the story. A better actress could have been chosen, although truly I have no recommendations which I ca make at this point in time. Additionally, I feel that there were parts of this movie where the blood and the sex was somewhat distracting from the historical setting. On the other hand, these elements added to an alternative view of the history we have come to know through our textbooks and in school, and perhaps, viewed objectively, these elements actually added quite a bit to the film itself, although I fear not to the plot. My recommendation is to watch this movie yourself and see what you think; while I can't gauruntee that you will enjoy it, I must say that it is worth the viewing, if not once, then many times.
Rating: 
Summary: Gangs of New York - Brutally realistic!
Review: "Gangs of New York" is the brutal tale based loosely on the real life events and people of New York City in the mid nineteenth century in which "natives," or at least those born in the United States at the time, rebelled against immigrants and more specifically Irish immigrants who were coming to America in hopes of escaping the tyranny and famine there. What greeted them here in the "land of the free" was poverty, dissent from the "natives" and forced enlistment in the Union Army to fight against the Confederacy. In a city in which there was entirely too many people and the poor were forced into specific areas where those with money and the brawn to match it could easily take control and did, crime ran rampant, political corruption easily bought and open murder in the streets went unpunished, gangs were formed by groups to help stave these things off. Ultimately, the gangs themselves became more the problem than the solution as they would wage open war upon one another in the streets and behind the scenes they were the masters of the corruption that made things worse for everybody but themselves. While this film has been nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award for 2002 and it may very well win it, I would probably look elsewhere to give this award. On the whole, this story carried fairly well and the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis was exceptional, I felt that this movie was more a series of displays of life in New York City at the time as opposed to carrying a compelling dramatic plot that drew the viewer into it. As mentioned before, the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis as the "Bill the Butcher" was nothing short of an Academy Award winning performance in which he totally became the character he was playing. Leonardo DiCaprio has finally grown up and is no longer the skinny little kid from "Titanic" and his performance was "adequate" to the role, but again, there was little that compelled the viewer to his character. Cameron Diaz, what can one say, she's the "girl next door" and her performance was "right on" with what I've seen of her in past films. Liam Neeson makes an appearance at the beginning of the film that was classic Liam Neeson! Director Martin Scorsese who has brought so many pivotal films to the silver screen over the years did a wonderful job of bringing this film to print with the story he had. The score for the film matched the mood of the film exceptionally well. The premise: This film of vengeance and survival centers around the Five Points section of lower Manhattan in mid nineteenth century New York City. Several gangs have been formed for the protection of its members. In 1846, the Irish gang known as the Dead Rabbits, was led by Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) who was doing everything he could for his people here in the new world. As he leads his gang into battle against the "Native Americans," led by Bill the Butcher, his son, Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DeCaprio) watches from the sidelines as his father is brutally murdered by Bill the Butcher. Young Amsterdam is taken off to be raised in incarceration and it is now 1862, and the United States of America is no longer "united" but embroiled in the bloody civil war. Amsterdam is released from his incarceration and he heads home to the Five Points to exact his revenge for the death of his father. What follows from there is, as stated above, a fairly decent movie that, for me, didn't quite live up to all the hype it received, but was still worth watching, if only for the "historical" value of it. {ssintrepid} Special Features: Most interesting of all of the Special Features for this film is the Discovery Channel "Uncovering The Real Gangs of New York" - Costume Design Featurette
- Set Design Featurette
- History of the Five Points Featurette
- Exploring the Sets of "Gangs of New York" with multiple angles utilizing 360 degree shots of the sets
- U2 Music Video "The Hands That Built America"
- Discovery Channel "Uncovering The Real Gangs of New York"
- The Five Points Study Guide: Luc Sante Introduction and Five Points vocabulary
- Feature commentary with director Martin Scorsese
- Theatrical Trailer
- Teaser Trailer
Rating:
Summary: Over The Top Cliche-Ridden Film
Review: Tale of survival and vengeance in the ethnically divided burroughs of 1860s New York where Leonardo DiCaprio seeks to avenge his father's killer and gang chief played by Daniel Day-Lewis. Certainly Scorcese brings out the smell of the tensions of the time, however, the acting and backdrops fail to bring any flavor to the story. The latter are too melodramatic and two-dimensional to bring the movie out of its Hollywood stereotype formula. Daniel Day Lewis plays his role well but the script and character is more archetypical than anything else; the characters psyche and motives aren't well explored. With so much of the film focusing on gangs and strife, one wonders why Cameron Diaz' character is included the story. The movie also has serious historical flaws as to events and the prevailing attitudes of the day. In the end, you feel as if you just watched an average blood-fest movie and not much else.
Rating:
Summary: Great New Epic
Review: Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" is a sweeping epic of historic fiction as well as a magnificently crusty film. The recreation of the mangy Five Points sector of old New York coupled with the authenticity of costumes, makeup and other sets offers a genuine smorgasbord for the eyes. A smorgasbord that has been dumped in the dirt and stepped on a few times - but an undeniable visual delight none the less. Aside from this amazing attention to detail the film also offers a stellar cast with excellent performances by one and all. Daniel Day-Lewis, however, is by leaps and bounds the obvious standout in this group. His portrayal of the despicable and bloodthirsty Bill "The Butcher" Cutting is one of the most bone chilling I have seen on film since Anthony Hopkins' first gave us the shark-eyed Hannibal Lector. This epic gives us a peek into a very dark and desperate time in the city's history - a time I am very happy not to have lived through. Set before and during the Civil War, it tells the tale of the effects of poverty on both downtrodden immigrants and the so-called "native born" American citizens. We see their struggle to keep their heads above water as they daily deal with the effects of pig-headed prejudice and injustice in world that is so violent, bloody and squalid that it makes most of our lives look like life in a palace. Though it is based on actual riots and problems of the time, the story probably had as many facts involved as the tales found in "Titanic" and "Braveheart". But, since my main purpose for going to the theater is to be entertained, like the two above mentioned films, "Gangs of New York" certainly did not disappoint.
Rating:
Summary: possibly the best of 2002
Review: I consider this to be one of the better films of 2002, a list which possibly might also include "The Pianist", if you ignore the violence, and even the stylish World War II thriller "Enigma", a (relatively) unusual choice. It comes close to being a Hollywood Epic, perhaps falling a little short. It is highly dramatic. In its emphasis on the impoverished living conditions in New York's Five Points district and on the gang warfare between Nativists and Irish immigrants, it resembles a Charles Dickens novel. It has the quality of an expose or of muckraking;it appears to be a film with a social conscience, a fact which may be lost to the viewer because 1)it is also an expensive Hollywood film that seems to glorify in its excesses of violence and expensive sets and costumes, which presumably also give it greater entertainment value. Bill "the Butcher"Cutting's collection of knives, which he carries on every part of his body, and which he uses to kill his victims and to frighten pretty girls,is another example of Scorcese's willingness to bow to the dictates of mass appeal. Cutting's personality which I would describe as "WASP"(White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) may be historically accurate. 2) The script also contains considerable quantities of racism and prejudice,including lynchings (not only of blacks but also of other ne'er- do- wells), which presumably give it historical authenticity. Based on #1 and #2 above, I would say this is not a serious film, certainly not a documentary about squalid living conditions, though the film has plenty of that, too. It's more like a musical, a historic "West Side Story", perhaps. The rich only appear rarely in this film, and usually in an unfavorable light, to provide contrast with the life of the common man and of the immigrant. In its no-holds-barred, masculine approach to political corruption and to the Draft Riots of 1864,when poor young men were sent to the Civil warfront like pigs to the slaughter, it almost resembles a Hollywood Western, perhaps "The Wild Bunch". It is ostensibly the story of one man's personal vengeance for the death of his father, but the sights and sounds and violence of this film paint on a larger palette, which really detract from the social message, if there is one. DeCaprio might be considered somewhat miscast in this film as a boy trying to do a man's job. The film, in the final end, is quite entertaining and also instructive about an important if sometimes ignored aspect of American history, and is quite closely related to the excellent novels of Caleb Carr: "The Alienist" and "The Angel of Darkness"
Rating:
Summary: It'll be forgotten in ten years.
Review: You know how every year, there are usually a few best picture nominees that are completely forgotten and when you look back on them you wonder why they were even nominated in the first place. Well, Gangs of New York is one such picture. I have yet to see The Hours or The Pianist (heard nothing but great things about the latter), but so far, I've been quite disappointed by the crop of 2002 best picture nominees. The plot to Gangs is really quite simple. Leondardo Dicaprio plays Amsterdam Vallon, whose father was murdered in a gang war by Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis) for control of the Five Points in lower Manhattan. Vallon, as a young man, returns to avenge his father's death, but becomes conflicted when Bill takes him under his care. There's also a lazily inserted love story that's purely on auto-pilot. Gangs of New York is a film that's hard to categorize. Primarily, I'd say it's a drama, but a drama about what? The titular gangs are hardly given much depth or development, a surprise coming from director Martin Scorcese, the man who gave us Goodfellas. Almost as damning is the fact that Vallon's burning desire for revenge is hardly touched on (yup, after the prologue, we skip several years later). Instead, the movie often gives way to Dicaprio's love story with Cameron Diaz, and the two share the flattest romantic chemistry I've seen in recent years. Any scene just featuring these two is a pain to watch. The opening battle sequence, while sufficiently brutal and violent, is a mess of a scene, looking more like a setpiece suitable for MTV than an epic drama. I'm talking about headache-inducing quick cuts, herky-jerky slow motion, cheesy wide angle shots, and extreme close-ups. Almost all the power of the scene is sucked out by Scorcese's odd directing choices. Keeping the movie afloat and semi-watchable are Day-Lewis' performance as Bill and the production design. At least the film captures the look of the time period, if not necessarily the feel (in all honestly, I'm not sure what the "feel" would be like, given that I've never actually seen a movie about gangs of new york set in the 1860's). Day-Lewis is fine in his role, shining comfortably while most everyone else tends to slink into the background. Scorcese hasn't done much worth mentioning lately, his last solid film being Casino, which was a virtual remake of his best work, Goodfellas. Running at nearly three hours, Gangs of New York feels even longer than it is, probably the harshest criticism I could give to a so-called epic.
Rating:
Summary: Sucktacular!
Review: This is probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I went into the theater, expecting to see something with a storyline . . . but I walked out not only feeling dissappointed, but violated. Not only should you not purchace this DVD, you should write to the director and demand the US public's dignity back. This movie sucked. Don't buy it.
| 
