Rating: 
Summary: For the WWF crowd, unintelligent, obvious, unrealistic
Review: First, the script. It was heavy handed, overdone, obvious, spoon fed to you at every step in case you might miss something if it wasn't told to you five times. Awards for subtlety this film will not receive. It's as sutble as The Three Stooges, and will mostly appeal to people who enjoy story telling at that level.Second, the violence. It was absurdly violent, I mean, just ridiculous, cleavers and swords and guns and clubs and lynching and blood everywhere, at times the whole screen was red. Third, realism. It was NOT historically accurate. The film took details and blew them up to make them the whole of New York City. If this film is historically accurate then there were 15,000 murders per hour in NYC in the 1800's. Fourth, the cinematography, editing, and music. The film starts with a huge gang war, accompanied by some sort of techno house music. It was horrible and not fitting for the 1800's. Not only that, in this fight scene and periodically through the film, action would be sped up for a few seconds at a time, seemingly randomly. It was extremely disconcerting and unintentionally humorous. I don't know what these filmmakers were thinking. Scorcese has, perhaps gotten too big for his own good. He gets what he wants even when he's totally off the wall. Fifth, the DVD. In what must be the worst decision in DVD history, they decided to put the film itself on two discs, parts 1 and 2. This even though the movie is only 2 1/2 hours long. I do not think that length warranted cutting it in two. Though it gives people the option, which I think many will take, of giving up after part one. Basically, this film appeals to all the baser instincts, lots and lots and lots of killing, and lots of naked ladies too, but short on ideas and effective drama. If you liked Night of the Living Dead and if you're heavily into WWF, and if youreidea of an artistic, intellectual experience is extreme fighting, and if you prefer talking books because reading is too difficult for you, then you might find this film appealing, but if you have the equivalent of a fifth grade education or higher, you will likely be disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: Fiction Yes History NO
Review: This movie is the usual overblown attempt to try and rewrite history by using MEGO tactics not fact.
First of all the so called "Draft Riots" were RACE riots led by the Irish against the Blacks whom they despised. Of the 500 people killed in those riots 100 were Black and most of the rest were business people and Protestant missionaries.
Furthermore the "hands that built America" is a joke.
This nations economic, political base were established long before these folks came here fleeing the oppressions of Europe and wanting to take ADVANTAGE of our oppertunities. Period.
As fiction this is passable as HISTORY it is a laughing stock except to Socialists.
Real Hard core American history? HA!!
Rating: 
Summary: Freedom doesn't come free
Review: This movie proves it. Freedom always has a price tag. The people who've said that they don't like this movie are too ignorant and short-sighted to see why this film was made. Scorsese set out to reveal a part of our history that many Americans do not know about. It shows how immigrants had to fight to earn their place in America. Men like Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting(to say that Daniel Day-Lewis gave an excellent performance would be a gross understatement) despised all immigrants, especially Irish, and wanted to see them suffer, or leave on the boat they came in on. The immigrants had nowhere else to go, so they had no choice but to fight the 'natives' to earn their freedom in the land of the free. It's a stuggle we still face today. Racial and ethnic tensions are still prominent in 21st century America. This movie is important, because it shows how America became the melting pot of cultures it is today. The movie isn't violent for the sake of being violent. It shows how freedom's price tag is measured in how much blood is spilled. I am a descendant of Irish and Albanian immigrants, so this movie is really special to me. This movie is based on actual history, so for those who don't know much about 19th century America, I recommend digging into the supplements on the DVD. It'll help you understand the history depicted in the film, and it'll help you enjoy it even more. Scorsese's previous films, such as Goodfellas and Raging Bull, are excellent films, but Gangs of New York may be his best film to date. Scorsese was robbed of another Oscar, as was Day-Lewis. DiCaprio and Diaz were great, but Day-Lewis steals the picture. There are a lot of elements in the film, such as the corruption of Tammany Hall and 'Boss' Tweed, the Civil War draft riots, the deplorable conditions of the Five Points, as well as the struggle between the immigrants and the natives, but it's not that difficult to digest all of that information within 3 hours(the film doesn't feel too long, since there's not a single piece of film that lags). There should be more movies like this, which aren't the norm of brainless popcorn 'fun.' There should be more movies like this which are eye-opening and uplifting. Bottom line: Watch it! You won't regret it.
Rating:
Summary: A realisitc portrait into the world of 1840s-1860s New York
Review: The 1800s - when New York was really wicked. I read this book in 1997 and thought "this would make a great movie." As a native New Yorker, I've read many books on the history of NYC. I also took a senior level course on the History of NYC in college taught by Thomas Kessner (who just released an excellent book called Capital City), so I would consider myself qualified to comment on this movie. The movie packs about 30 years of history into 2 hours (or into the 16 year span of Amsterdam's life featured in the film). In terms of historical accuracy, the movie is off on many aspects; however, I think it does an excellent job of capturing the essence of what life in the infamous Five Points was like during this period in American history. Definitely a movie worth having in your collection!
Rating:
Summary: Give the film the credit it deserves!
Review: Despite some horrible reviews, this is clearly a great film that anyone would do well to have in their collection. Without doubt, Daniel Day Lewis steals the show as the almost insanely evil Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, but DiCaprio plays well in a role that shows the true meaning of requiring patience to exact revenge. The one negative would be the role that Cameron Diaz plays in the film because it really is a non-descript part. However, it does not detract from the overall greatness of the film which clearly did not receive the credit it deserved. Great dialogue, great sets and certainly worth the wait. An excellent 2 disc set that has some fantastic extras and will certainly not disappoint.
Rating:
Summary: 3 Hours of pure hell
Review: What a truly terrible film , poor acting except from Daniel Day Lewis and an awful script make for a truly terrible film , no wonder it didnt win any oscars. If you want to see a good oscar nominated film see The Pianist or Chicago or The Hours because this is terrible.
Rating:
Summary: The newest cult film.
Review: This movie is the most "weldon movie" in the last 20 yrs. A masterpiece sculpted by Martin Scorsese. You get drawn in to the characters; you feel there hate, love, racism, and music. The dvd does it all. It's in superbit and takes up two disc for the whole movie. Colors glow especially when there throwing vegetables at the theater, that's HDTV 480 progressive. The fireworks, and the vivid clothing. It's the best video and bonus material on a DVD. The audio is up there with Attack of the Clones and Moulin Rouge. I bought it for 15 at Ciruit City. A must for your DVD collection.
Rating:
Summary: Much better than it might seem...
Review: ...I saw "Gangs" in the theatre in late December when it first premiered, and will confess to some initial disappointment, mainly due to the casting, in particular Leo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz. Both roles, I felt, could have been better cast, and you can pick and choose whom you'd have to play Amsterdam and Jenny, of course. But some of the casting was surprising--I didn't even recognise Daniel Day-Lewis at first (he'd been out of the movies for a while, apparently, before taking on the role of Bill Cutting) nor Henry Thomas, who plays Amsterdam's closest friend, but both did an excellent job with the roles given them. Day-Lewis should, in fact, have won the Oscar for his role, as he stole every scene he was in. Martin Scorsese's directing was, as it nearly always is, just amazing--one of my favourite sequences would have to be the ending, wherein we see the evolving New York City (following Amsterdam's line "No one will ever know we were here"), from the smoking rubble of the draft riots, through the turn of the century, all the way up to the final, heart-wrenching shot with the Twin Towers standing above it all as if 9/11 had never happened. As another reviewer said, Scorsese doesn't gloss over NYC's darker history here; the gangs, the riots, the treatment of the Irish immigrants (racism, conscription into the Union Army for the Civil War)...it's all here, in squalid detail. Definitely recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: can we edit out Leo???
Review: that would be a great DVD feature for this movie. to totally remove the useless characters of Leo and Diaz. much like Titanic, his lack of cinematic charisma drags down what could have been a much better movie. the sets were gorgeous. Daniel Day Lewis is one of the best anti-heroes in movie history.
Rating:
Summary: No Woner It Was SHut Out Of All 10 Oscar Nominations
Review: This is what happens when a brilliant director trades in intelligent storytelling with trashy MTV style substance. What should've been a fascinating look at the 19th century street thugs of early Brooklyn (An element Sergio Leone achieved with the superior Once Upon A Time In America) is instead a bloated 3 hour examination of gratuitous violence, bloodshed, sexual nudity
and racist dialogue. With the exception of Daniel Day Lewis, everyone is either ill defined or miscasted. DiCaprio and Diaz belong in the latter category. Their laughably atrocious acting ruins some of the film. The opening battle scene lacks excitement
and is vastly inferior to classics like Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, and Gladiator. Spielberg saw this and said the violence is more implied. what a joke, he calls this implied. When I saw this, a couple of big Scorsese fans I knew were throwing up in the movie theater. Scorsese also said the bloodshed was implied. Don't belive that. This has so much brutality that it makes Mean Streets, Goodfellas, and Casino look like Disney movies. With the exception of this one, Kundun, and Bringing Out The Dead, all of Martin Scorsese's other films are classics that were far more worthy of it's oscars than this piece of junk. Despite Lewis performance, I hated his character.
THe only words that came out of his mouth were racist stuff. His
character is overly violent that he makes Joe Pesci's Tommy Devito look like Prince Charming. Robert De Niro and Willem Dafoe were originally going to take Day Lewis's role, but they rejected it. Now the two of them look like geniuses despite the fact it was oscar nominated. When Raging Bull lost best picture and director to Robert Redford's Ordinary People, I was upset cause I wanted Raging Bull to win. When Goodfellas lost best picture and best director to Kevin Costner's Dances With Wolves,
I was upset, I wanted Goodfellas to win. When Gangs Of New York was shut out of all 10 oscar nominations I was happy. His other films should've gotten all those nominations cause they were better than this film. THe only nominations Gangs Of New York should've got were Best actor, Best Art Direction/Set Direction,
and Best Costume Design, but since the movie is a disappointment
I still would've shut those nominations out. Thank you Academy Awards for giving the best picture to Chicago which is a film that deserved it is more entertaining than Gangs Of New York. Gangs Of New York is an example of why Hollywood is falling down. Two reasons. 1. This is over hyped. As it was in Windtalkers, this one dosen't talk about what it was supposed to. 2. Unlike the 70's, 80's, and 90's where films would have character development and intelligent storytelling, to put in other words, it has everthing you want including violence that is
never never and triple never gratuitous. Now that were in the new millenium films have turned away from all that and the violence in films in the 21'st century (not all of them), but in over hyped films like this one are gratuitous. Scorsese's a brilliant filmmaker and he deserves a best director oscar, but not for Gangs Of New York, he deserves it for his other ones like the all time classics Raging Bull and Goodfellas. Shame on the Golden GLobes for giving the best director to him when he has done other great films. Well at least the oscars didn't make that mistake. Thank God. Gangs Of New York is and always will be inferior to Scorsese's other films.
|
