Rating: 
Summary: Your time would be better spent counting tiles
Review: Terrible, which is sad because it had so much promise. The beginning has a compelling hook, but the subsequent story falls exponentially downward. By the end, you are so far in the pit of apathy that you wonder if doing dishes would have been more exciting. The plot takes so many twists with no real adhesive theme that every half hour it feels like a different movie, and the writing is both cheesy and boring, making the characters completely unbelievable. DiCaprio and Diaz did a decent job of making their pathetic characters somewhat realistic, but honestly there is no saving this movie. The only better-than-average aspect is Daniel Day-Lewis' acting skills. He miraculously portrayed layers in his role and he was almost always believable, despite the writing. I suppose the cinematography, costume design, graphics, and other technical aspects were pretty good as well. Maybe they figured that super cool fighting scenes with lots of blood would keep people from realizing that the screenplay is devoid of any real quality. However, I firmly believe that this film proves the point that brilliant directors can make mediocre movies and still receive more credit than they deserve only because of their status. At the same time, truly innovative directors, because they don't have funds or access to well-known production corporations or large-scale PR gimmicks, are often overlooked. Don't get me wrong, I think Scorcese has done some excellent work in the film industry and I don't want to undermine his credibility. However, I don't think movies that look like they are scotch-taped together should get more praise than they deserve because they are attached to a well-known name. Bottom line: don't waste your time or money on "Gangs of New York" when you could spend a more productive 3 hours feeling the stucco on your wall.
Rating: 
Summary: Not much of a plot for 3 hours worth of viewing
Review: The question came to me over and over again as I sat watching this movie: How in the world did this movie receive 10 Oscar Nominations? It's a good thing it didn't actually win any. Gangs of New York depicts the violence that erupts in New York between the Irish Americans and the "Nativist" Americans in the mid 19th century. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Amsterdam Vallon, who witnesses his father die at the hands of the leader of the "Natives", Bill Cutting (aka The Butcher, played by Daniel Day-Lewis). The prologue shows this bloody scene between the two rival groups, and, afterwards, we cut to 15 years later with Amerterdam returning to New York amid the chaotic scene of gang violence. He eventually comes into contact with Cutting again, who is one of the leaders of the New York scene. The film lacked any deep conviction by its leading stars. For one, we don't really sympathize with DeCaprio's character because he seems to lack the substance to take action at any of the right points. Cutting comes across as a true villain, but there is something irking about the way Day-Lewis plays him. Maybe it's the Al Capone (a la Robert DiNero) style of tough boss that he tries to exert in a movie set in a different time period. Cameron Diaz' character really didn't even need to be inserted in the script, as she had no bearing on the real story taking place. Not only were the characters flat, but the movie lacked any real substance. For a three hour movie, there really wasn't much of a point other than revenge. The "epic feeling" didn't ring forth; it seemed like an overdramatization of violence to me. Some of the scenes are so long and drawn out that it kills any power they might have had. Recommended instead of this: Casino
Rating: 
Summary: watchable, but what it might have been...
Review: Not a terrible film, as some may have you believe, but equally not the grand epic that Scorcese seemed to think he was making. Day-Lewis' performance is grandiose but, at times it seems a little like he is just mimicking de Niro at his most caricatured. Still, it is as if he is 7ft tall given how he dominates the screen at every appearance. The cinematography and set-pieces all looked fantastic, as did the costumes, but the movie played over-long and the plot ambled to a somewhat predictable conclusion with a series of characters for whom i failed to generate any real sympathy. DiCaprio should probably avoid roles like this, his talents (and he does have some) are not suited to this role and i couldnt help but think that he represented Oliver Twist more than he did a young gang leader. And a gripe over the fight scenes and general violence - all far too sanitised. The opening fight scene plays as almost comic-book stuff and not the life or death battle it should have been. And what a shame Liam Neeson played such a small role, he could have offset Day-Lewis perfectly. Overall, a visually stunning film with grandiose ambitions and one fine performance, but lacking cohesiveness and not sufficiently engaging. A slightly wasted opportunity, but watchable nevertheless.
Rating:
Summary: A Missed Opportunity
Review: GANGS OF NEW YORK strives for greatness, but falls short. The original screenplay drafts for this film were basicallyl a Civil War-era version of GOODFELLAS. While that might or might not have worked better, what ended up on the screen is a unfocused and unbalanced mish-mash of ideas and themes that never add up to a full movie. Scorsese tries to shove Irish immigration, the Civil War, street gangs, political corruption, Protestant/Catholic conflict, a romance story, a revenge story, a father/son story, and several other ideas into one 3-hour movie and winds up with a massively overproduced history lesson. The film seems to be trying to say so many things, but winds up saying nothing. The characters are throwaway (save Daniel Day Lewis) and the storyline is so sloppy that it's a challenge to remain interested. The elaborate sets, initially impressive, start looking cheap and low-budget since they're continuously rephotographed from different angles throughout the film. And the editing is absolutely awful, a sure sign that they were desperate to make this film work but couldn't. Scorsese lived with this project for over 20 years, with several different storylines and plots that changed radically (the 1993 script, like I said before, was basically GOODFELLAS....it was all about the gangs, with little emphasis on Irish immigrants) and in the end, I think, lost all sight of what he wanted.
Rating:
Summary: Dissapointed.
Review: A MOVIE WITH CHARISMA AND PASSION will normally help a movie. While those characteristics are no vice, they did not help this movie. The Butcher is an incredible actor, and very convincing, but neither Leonardo nor Cameron Diez were. The plot also was quite predictable and shallow: the first scene is a good indicator that revenge will be the central component of the movie. I have nothing against revenge, but if a movie goer could expect it, then it probably isn't exciting, eventful, or filled with much meaning. I think most people will be dissapointed with the movie considering the amount of hype that surrounded it.
Rating:
Summary: It's..."Okay"
Review: Not great, but good enough. With all the stars, the money, and especially the hype when this movie came out, one expected LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DR. ZHIVAGO, and GOODFELLAS all rolled into one. Sadly, it's not even up to par to one of those films. It's passable as a minor epic -- but just passable. I expected a grand sweeping historical drama. Instead we get action up front, some historical perspectives through the middle (and frightenly close to being morphed into a chick flick), and finally culminating into the climactic riot and fight scene at the end. This last scene is the New York City draft riots of the American Civil War. The movie has no real buildup to these historical riots, but that's OK -- as they are a letdown here anyways. I believe the riots lasted about 4 days, and here they're condensed into one. They're used more as a backdrop for the fight scene between Amsterdam and Bill The Butcher. There is one bright spot: Daniel-Day Lewis and his characterization of Bill The Butcher saved this movie. He does an excellant acting job; and if he wasn't for him, this movie would have been a bust. I liked the movie, but it's not great. Ted Turner's GETTSYBURG was more mesmerizing.
Rating: 
Summary: A Slice of Americana
Review: Wow! Martin Scorsese has a cinematic vision in "Gangs of New York" and sticks to the storytelling no matter how graphic, how violent, how revealing of the sometimes brash side of human nature. We like to think of Americana happening somewhere in the Heartland with corn stalks, faded red white and blue from the harshness of the summer sun and winter chill. What Scorsese shows is that the heart of America may not lie in Nebraska far from civil war battlefields, far from epic wars. There may be a seedier side born of violence, a country carved out of war, but then not many countries are born of else. Let me tell you what I mean. "Gangs of New York," has a deeper message than the simple retelling of a time in the mid 1800's in New York City. It has elements of the forming of a country in mid-stride. It has elements of America as the great melting pot or a country fought and "died for" by those feeling worthy of the term natives. But then the natives led by Bill the Butcher Cutter (played brilliantly by Daniel Day Lewis), aren't really natives on these shores are they? On the other side of the pitched fight, is Amsterdam Vallon (played less brilliantly but still compelling by Leonardo DiCaprio) as the leader of the immigrant Irish gang. The battle between the two is broader than a personal vengeance, broader than a family feud despite Amsterdam seeking justice for his father's death at the hands of the butcher. It is more about a fight for the soul of the country, a pitched battle where both sides suspend reason and turn to violence. Each feel God is on there side so take the "by any means necessary" approach to prove that might makes right. There are parallels to the Civil War ongoing but largely out of the picture in the gang war in Five Points slums. There are even more modern parallels as in the closing scenes we see the New York skyline burning, in the fore frame a graveyard where Amsterdam's father "The Priest" is buried. The New York skyline is time sequenced as the Brooklyn Bridge remains the constant, the graveyard grows weathered and unkept, the Empire State building appears, and finally in the closing scenes the Twin Towers stand. There is a parallel to a battle currently raging in the present and New York again seems at the heart of it. "Gangs of New York," has a feel to it. There's some Citizen Kane, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and Braveheart all intermingled therein. It is made to be an epic. There is good and evil and then there are humans that display all shades of that continuum. The final battle between the natives and the immigrants is waylaid by the pressure of the Civil War and draft riots. The final battle becomes clouded and I feel is a misstep in the film. It leaves for slight disappointment. In the end "Gangs of New York," will go down as one of Scorsese's more powerful movies and that says a lot.
--MMW
Rating:
Summary: Just So So
Review: After all the hype I thought I'd give this a viewing. The film was entertaining, but certainly not earth moving. With its share of violence and odd characters this is worth a viewing, but nothing classic by any means...
Rating: 
Summary: Leonardo's best present
Review: If you like Leonardo Dicaprio, you cannot miss this movie, cause in this one, Dicaprio's acting skill is just amazing. Never forget the end of this movie, very cool, and never seen in any movie before^^
Rating:
Summary: Whatever
Review: Why did you people yank my other review of this film? The review was sarcastic, but was using sarcasm to make a serious point about the film. In other words, it was IRONIC. Go back to high school!
|
