Rating: 
Summary: Gore Instead of Lore
Review: I HATED this movie! It starts with brutality, extreme violence, bloodshed and plays that theme over and over again throughout the movie. The killing is drawn out and overemphasized. The costuming for the first scene was also outrageously stylized and inauthentic with too many people wearing them. Nudity and sex is also overdone. Breasts all over the place, triage, women hanging on men over and over again. Too much of everything, except story. The only two positive things I can comment about this movie is that Daniel Day-Lewis put in a wonderful performance as "The Butcher" and that I learned that Five Points was abysmally poor, a violent and iniquitous place. I suspect this movie does not fully represent all the population. There had to be poor immigrants who were desperately trying to live honest lives and had some sense of decency. I suspect this movie wants to emphasize the violence and corruption, which it does to overplay.
Rating: 
Summary: EXCELLENT FILM but unfortunately lacking final climax.
Review: I have nothing actually negative I can say about the movie. It was...EXCELLENT!!! I have Irish pride and the Dead Rabbits are [the best]! I was although really expecting a rather more spectacular finale fight scene that the whole film basically made you anticipate. Interrupted by those damn cannons!!! Great movie none the less, Leonardo, Diaz and definitely Daniel Day-Lewis as the villain all played out excellently with each other. Great acting and overwhelming atmosphere all throughout this great film of a depiction of the first gang wars of the US.
Rating: 
Summary: May be Scorsese's greatest work.
Review: Perhaps it was inevitable that Gangs Of New York would recieve such a cold shoulder from critics, the Academy, and the viewing public. Every time Martin Scorsese has presented us with one of his greatest, most personal films, he has been shot down, his vision dismissed as hogwash, only to be accepted as a great film years later.Case in point: Raging Bull was widely panned by many upon its first release, and Scorsese was passed over for Robert Redford's Ordinary People, a good but far inferior film. Raging Bull is now recognized as one of the greatest of all American films. When Scorsese released his most personal film, The Last Temptation Of Christ, it was met with controversy and disdain. Again he was passed over come award time, and now his Jesus bio is seen as one of the greatest films to tackle the subject of Jesus Christ. I felt that Gnags Of New York was a fantastic film, and upon seeing it, I walked out of the theatre feeling that I had seen a film that would immediately be accepted as one of Scorsese's greatest films. How wrong I was. Yet I don't understand the cold shoulder in this case, because there is so much to like about Gangs Of New York. We've all said great things about the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis, but his great performance overshadowed Leonardo DiCaprio's, which wasn't all that bad. I personally think we all need to get over Titanic; this kid can act. Cameron Diaz is fine in her role; note the scene in which she and DiCaprio discuss her abortion. She shows that she is just as good a dramatic as she is a comic actress. The costume design and art direction is impeccable. Scorsese and his crew perfectly captured the New York of the Civil War era. Reviewers have argued that New York couldn't look that bad. As a history student, I can assure you that it did. Finally, no one has seemed to notice that Scorsese has made a picture that combines the greatest of his influences. Gangs Of New York captures the best of Italian neorealism and grand classic Hollywood spectacle. In combining the two, he has made what may be his greatest film: a melding of De Sica and Fellini, John Huston and D.W. Griffith, into a style that is uniquely Scorseseian. Gangs Of New York rushes along in its two hour, 45 minute running time. Never once did I find it boring or slow moving. So to those who have said it is a bad picture, I pose this challenge: How would you change it? I've heard lots of criticism but few solutions. Perhaps there are so few solutions because Scorsese has made a picture so perfect that it is impossible for many of us to comprehend its depth.
Rating:
Summary: Where is the director's cut?!?!
Review: One of the big controversies surrounding this film was that Martin Scorcese was forced to cut nearly an hour of footage from his final vision in order to get the studio to release it. That's understandable, as not many people will be willing to sit through a 4 hour movie in theatres. So with the release of it on DVD, we should get the complete version, right? Well... it doesn't seem so. The details on this DVD mention nothing about extra footage. Isn't one of the benefits of the DVD format that we get to see what the director intended before politics and marketing step in? I for one would like to see the COMPLETE movie, the movie that Scorcese wanted to make, rather than the movie which was released, even though that movie was quite good. I have a feeling that the studio is just doing the usual DVD [trick] of releasing the theatrical version as soon as possible to catch people while they are still hyped on this movie from the theatrical release and post-Oscar boost. After a few months, hopefully they will release a director's cut, causing many people to go back and buy the DVD a second time. I, for one, will wait as long as it takes until the full version comes out. I'm sick of getting [tricked] by these studios into buying one version, and then seeing a "special edition" with all sorts of extras come out a few months later. Not gonna happen this time, buddy-boy.
Rating:
Summary: moving
Review: I loved the movie The acting was great great story an original idea.
Rating:
Summary: Most Boring, Over-rated Movie of the Year
Review: This is the most mind-numbningly boring movie I've ever seen. The only redeeming quality is Daniel Day-Lewis's performance. I don't think I can say much about this movie that hasn't already been said, but it bored me nearly to tears and the ending was disappointing. It's one of those movies you watch and you think, "I sat through three hours... for THIS?" I suppose it's worth seeing, as it is a very ambitious movie, and it had a lot of potential, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to own it.
Rating:
Summary: gerate
Review: i liked totoataly logved this flfick. it waz like totoalsy awesome. marrtin scorsese firtst flivkck is a movie that wile turn him into a gerate dircetopr soemdyay. thsi waz one fo the best flcikds made in 202002. everynone should see dis movies. it haz gerate actinga nd dircetor and the cmaera look really nice. buy it todaye. peace out
Rating: 
Summary: Not One Of Scorsese's Best
Review: Considering the thirty five years director Martin Scorsese spent
on this big sprawling historical epic, one might would have expected a masterpiece or a way better movie especially from one
of America's greatest filmmaker. Well that is certainly not the case here with this throughly disappointing adaptation of Herburt
Asbury's book, which examines how bigotry, corruption, and violence lead to 19th century New York's destruction. The deeply
flawed plot focusses on a young troublesome Irish immigrant (Leo-
nardo DiCaprio)teaming up with violent hoodlums in order to kill
a cutthroat gang leader (Daniel Day Lewis) for murdering his father in a battle when he was a little kid during the 1800's.
If their is anything the film should be remembered for it's for the visually impressive set designs and the exception of one electrifying performance by a wonderfully flamboyant Daniel Day Lewis, but the rest is just forgettable and tedious including the
laughably horrible acting by Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, who are miscasted and their performance are partly to blame for this wreck. I was extremely mad at the Golden Globes that they gave Scorsese the best director for this obnoxious junk when they could've given it to him for his other films that are more
deserving and excellent, for example- Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull. Instead the Golden Globes gives it to him for this
garbage. At least the Academy Awards did the right thing. They gave Chicago the well-deserved best picture oscar and one I was voting for. Chicago deserved it and that film has more class than
Gangs Of New York will ever have. I usually vote for Scorsese when he is nominated but he did not deserve the oscar or nomination for Gangs Of New York. I am glad that Gangs Of New York was shut out of all 10 categories, it was justified. If you
people want better Martin Scorsese movies see Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Mean Streets, which are way better Scorsese movies and classics that have far more class that Gangs
Of New York will ever have. See Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Mean Streets you will be way better off.
Rating:
Summary: AMAZING!
Review: This was hands down the best picture of 2002, and so far 2003. Chicago was okay, but compared to this masterpiece in cinema it doesn't even come close. I happen to think Martin Scorcese released this movie at the wrong time. If he had waited,perhaps people would have been a little more accepting of what he was trying to explain, and not just think of it as a blood and guts movie. Though it had a lot of violence I believe it was his way of convincing you that this was a terrible time in American history, the time they don't teach you about in High School history classes. Scorcese completely got robbed by all of the members of the academy, simply because they are obviously shallow minded and not willing to realize that these things actually did happen and we should never forget them. Instead of chosing an actual best picture worthy movie they must have gotten blinded by the bright lights of Chicago. All of the actors that participated in this wonderful movie were incredible, especially Daniel Day-Lewis. How amazing was he? Though Adrian Brody did do a really good job, Daniel just blew me away. Hopefully someday people will understand what Scorsece was trying to tell use, unfortunately by that time, it might be to late.
Rating:
Summary: An amazing film
Review: I have never like Leonardo DiCaprio. To me, he has never been what I would call an actor. They certainly could have found someone better to play his part. But he did an alright job. I'll give him that. 2. Daniel Day Lewis stole the entire film. Now there is an actor. I walk away from all of his films feeling satisfied. I wish he would have won that oscard but Adrien Brody did do a good job in the pianist so I can't complain I thought this film had a well rounded cast. I even thought that Cameron Diaz did a good job but that is also because I have had a big crush on her since Theres something about Mary. Finally, Martin Scorcese. What else can I say about him? Aside from spielberg, he's the best director around and this film just comfirms it. I would recommend that you be your own judge when you see this film, don't go by what other people are saying. That's why they invented chocolate ice cream. Because not everybody likes vanilla.
| 
