Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: America was born in the streets???
Review: If America was born on the mean streets shown in this movie then all the history I ever learned is wrong.
The only saving grace in this movie is the attention to detail on the various settings and the DVDs special features. The plot is simple - bad guy kills kid's dad, kid grows up swearing vengence on bad guy, bad guy gets paid back at the end. Not even a gripping twist to keep interest up. The romance scenes are heavy handed, uneven, and not very believable. In general, the acting by all the major players is very stiff. And at 167 minutes the movie was far too long. It was very tempting to quit after part one - leaving the second disc and part two in the box.
My recommendation? Leave it on the shelf.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing from Scorsese.
Review: I came to this film prejudiced in it's favor. It sounds tremendous: Martin Scorsese directs an epic of the violent history of his New York 'hood, complete with class and religious wars, all-consuming corruption, and the potential for moral crises galore. It may be that the film we're seeing is badly comprimised due to Scorseses' celebrated conflicts with producer Harvey Weinstein (there's an hilarious in-joke where one man stabs another while explaining "I wish you would stop making that noise, Harvey.") But even if a much better 3 or 4 or 5-hour director's cut of this finally surfaces, I doubt it will prove to be the "masterpiece" that many of the commentators here are declaring this film to be.

While the film has it's pleasures--I don't mean to suggest it's a total dud--the narrative energy sags badly, the film's themes are not very richly developed, and the performances are surprisingly weak. [Note: I'll mention a few incidents in the film below, so if you don't want any of the plot "spoiled," stop reading here.]

Daniel Day-Lewis is clearly the star of the show, doing a Robert DeNiro impersonation much of the time, but his scene-stealing doesn't really seem to activate the fictional world around him. Leonardo deCaprio is terribly miscast, and what seems to have been intended as the epic core of the film--DeCaprio's twisting and tormented journey from priest's child to thug to immigrant emancipator and avenger--never gathers much weight. The lightweight unreality of it all (despite frequent gore) is enhanced by the movie-star treatment given deCaprio and Cameron Diaz, both of whom remain implausibly pretty in these environs. There's a scene where deCaprio's face is deliberately mutilated and burned by the most brutal character in the film, and the resultant injury amounts to a pink beauty mark on his cheek. Sheesh.

Almost any other film by Scorsesce deserves recommendation above this one. ("Goodfellas," "Casino," "Taxi Driver" and "King of Comedy" are all excellent, for a start.) For a similar subject and scope, both "The Godfather" and the restored "Once Upon A Time in America" are clearly superior to "Gangs of New York".

Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly boring, despite all the violence
Review: This movie is set in the 19th century at Five Points, a New York neighborhood where the battles between the Irish and Italians in New York took place. The film is supposed to show the bitter fight to the finish between the Catholic and Protestant groups, with the corrupt politicians waiting in the shadows. Unfortunately, it fails to capture the tension between the groups despite all the blood and gore it shows.

We are introduced to Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), a pickpocket, and Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio), the son of slain Irish leader Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson). Amsterdam, whose friends call him "Dam" for short, has just been released from an orphanage and has come back to Five Points to find and kill Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis) because Bill is the man who killed his father, Priest Vallon. Priest Vallon represented the Irish immigrants in New York while Bill represented the Nativists. Bill was interested in keeping the Irish hordes out of America while Priest wanted the Irish hordes in America. They fought and Priest lost, though the hordes kept coming.

Sounds like a good story with a lot of interesting true-to-history details, doesn't it? But...it isn't. In addition to no tension, the characters lack depth and the story just goes on and on and on and....

The history of this period of time isn't captured very well either. It's hard to believe a movie this long lacks the historical details it should have....but it does.

Don't bother with this film. It's a shame that it was as bad as it was, considering Scorsese's emotional attachment to it and all the time that went into getting it to the big screen, but it is a stinker!

Rating:
Summary: Martin is the best-but he only does alright with this film!!
Review: I don't care what no one says, but Martin Scorsese is the greatest American director ever (lots of people agree with me on that one)!! Having said that, I don't think "Gangs of New York" is one of his best films. Its quite messy and his decision to hire Leonardo DiCaprio and Camerion Diaz was a terrible mistake. Also the script is rather uneven. But as always, Martin shines with his direction. But that's the only bright spot in this film. One star for the costumes, one star for history, and one star for the great Martin.

Rating:
Summary: Mixed Feelings
Review: Like many of the other reviewers, I had very mixed feelings about this film. I have enjoyed Scorsese's movies over the years but I think in this one there were too many misses and not enough hits. The biggest hit is of course Daniel Day-Lewis, whom I have admired in many other movies. The biggest miss is Leonardo DeCaprio, who I can't stand. BIG mistake in casting here - he pales next to Day-Lewis. He is just not convincing and I can't really say that I cared about what happened to him. It's also too bad there wasn't more of Liam Neeson in the movie (now there's a great actor as well). This movie is definitely worth seeing, but Decaprio's weaknesses take away from the film in a major way. By the way, Day-Lewis should have gotten the Best Actor Oscar (Hollywood strikes again!) Also, 1 star off for having to change discs to watch the whole movie.

Rating:
Summary: Visually stunning at times, but ultimately very weak plot
Review: The promos for the theatrical release made Daniel Day Lewis and the film seem very "cartoonish." Daniel Day Lewis comes across as the villian in a Dudley Do Right cartoon in the commercials. I was surprised to see that Daniel Day Lewis and the film did not come across this way upon viewing the entire thing. However, I think that "cartoon" feel may have hurt box office receipts.

Anyway, back to the actual film. I agree that Daniel Day Lewis did a great job. I disagree that he had a great New York accent. At times I wondered what kind of accent he had. It seemed "New York" at times, but at other times it came across as Irish. The scenery, Cameron Diaz, and even Leonardo DiCaprio were all very good. People, get over the whole Leonardo DiCaprio thing. His youthful appearance is no reason to criticize him the way everyone does. Just watch him in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape," and you will get a sense of how truly gifted an actor he really is.

I felt the film had a very weak and often confusing story. What exactly happened at the end? I watched this film with a German friend, and he was absolutely clueless. I tried to explain the Civil War and people being against the draft. However, I honestly was very confused myself. Scorcese failed to get the viewer "emotionally involved" in the story. The ending battle was extremely anticlimatic.

I believe the best part of the film was in the middle when the "Butcher" discovers Amsterdam's true identity and throws knives at the Diaz character. When he gets Amsterdam on the table and the audience is shouting, it truly comes across as very brutal and grotesque. However, even this scene winds up missing the mark.

The film can be visually stunning at times, but the story (if it really had one)left much to be desired.

Rating:
Summary: overrated
Review: The best part of this movie was over after the first ten minutes. If you should feel compelled to ever view this exceedingly uncessesary film, then as soon as Liam Neeson dies, by all means turn it off! You have officially seen the only good part of this entire movie.

Now I know all you Martin Scorsese fans out there are going to reach for the "this review was not helpful to me in any way and in fact I hope lighting strikes the unintelligent reviewer" button right about now, but hear me out.

I like Martin Scorsese too. He is a genius. So is Daniel Day-Lewis, who redeems several entire minutes of this flop. However, Daniel Day-Lewis is only one guy, and, let's face it, Martin Scorsese is not who you're looking at on screen. (Well, except for his pretentious two and a half second long cameo, but why split hairs?)

Who you ARE looking at on screen is Leonardo DiCaprio, hopelessly miscast and sporting an on-again-off-again possibly Irish accent and seeking to avenge his father's death. Of course, the length of this movie should be an indication that DiCaprio's indecision with HOW to avenge his father rivals that of Hamlet, and the audience is meanwhile suffering through endless dialogue-- none of which is Shakespeare. Or even close.

So here you have it. A very (very, very) convoluted plot that meanders so far from what appeared to be the point three hours ago, that by the time the end of the movie finally arrives you barely have the energy to care anymore. Also, intensely gratuitous violence that even for brawling street gangs of the 19th century appears a little unncessesary.

I actually saw this in the movie theater and it is the only movie I've ever seen in theaters that I felt like walking out of: not in outrage or righteous indignation, oh no... but most certainly out of sheer boredom.

Save your money and let's hope that Scorsese's next epic will be less Cecil B. DeMille and more George Cukor. More wit and originality and less banal bloodshed.

Rating:
Summary: A worthy epic!
Review: The only thing I had a problem with in the entire picture was Cameron Diaz. Sure, she's great to look at but what was the point of her character? The movie would move along much more nicely without her.

Great performance by Daniel Day Lewis and Irish actor Brendan Gleeson (28 DAYS LATER).

Overall, a good, worthy epic from director Martin Scorsese. I've seen it more than once. That's gotat say something right?

Rating:
Summary: What a stinker...
Review: This film aspires favourably as the all-time worst movie that I have ever wasted time watching. One big mess of unbelievable casting, acting and action - set in equally untrustworthy locations, with a non-existent storyline. Overall impression: "The Pirates of Penzance" meets "Spiderman" w/o the music.

The weirdest thing is, that the film is barred of morality. As a consequence, it conveys no feelings to the spectator. There are no villains and no heroes - all characters are "bad" to some extent. The violence becomes senseless gore without empathy or sympathy, and the "romantic moments" are reduced to showing of bare flesh in paparazzi style. You're not involved in the action, but are prone to wonder how on earth 2 hours and 45 minutes can feel like an eternity.

Rating:
Summary: Not Up To Expectations
Review: This was a so so movie with just a lot of star actors and actresses. Their perfomance was not poignant, touching, or emotional. There was nothing thrilling. I had no idea if the director wanted to make the evil character really evil or a good man with a justified reason for what he did. The ending was incomplete and left me unsatisfied with the movie.