Rating: 
Summary: Scorese fans will be satisfied, if not blown away.
Review: This film is bloated by at least a half an hour. Leonardo DiCaprio is woefully miscast. Cameron Diaz's character is not only extraneously adrift in this male-orientated film, but also jarringly contemporary. The film's ploting is eye-rollingly obvious; Henry Thomas' character's true motivations are laughably blatant from his introduction onwards, and the 'fever-pitch' resolution and its denoument are soporifically dissapointing, containing an alarmingly high 'Oh, get on with it!' quotient. The film does redeem itself somewhat by its sufficiently grandiose pretensions, although striped pants and bowler hats and a parade of silly period get-ups have never looked particularly menacing. The political allusions are murky as well, drawing rather tenuous parallels with contemporary New York. Proceed, but watch furtively.
Rating: 
Summary: Frohni
Review: Great epic film
It's true there are some flaws in the structure of the screenplay and some scenes could use a little polish in the editing, but hey, gimme a break: it's Martin Scorsese. And it's a hell of a show. It's one of the most breathtaking and stunning epics ever made. The scenery is just overwhelming. The camerawork by Ballhaus portraits accordingly the mood and the atmosphere inherent to the story and time. Scorsese's direction is, as usually, risk taking and in a brilliant way modern and classical at the same time. But above all: You will never forget the haunting performance of Daniel Day Lewis as Bill the Butcher. I could watch this guy acting for hours. The voice, the body language, the awkward costume and the archaic characterization make it one of the great mythical characters of film history. This is great stuff. It's archaical and mythic. It deals with fatherhood, loyalty and betrayal and above all: the survival of the fittest. It's one of the quintessential American stories and Scorsese has the directorial power to film it in the most intense images. What a shame it did not get any Oscars. I would have deserved them all. Thanks for this film.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Film of 2002
Review: I saw this movie the day before it was released with a bunch of theater workers at an advanced screening. It was my most anticipated movie of 2002, and I was not disappointed. The film was magnificent. Martin Scorsese is a true artist, he knows how to make movies, and he knows how to entertain the audience. The story is familiar, but told beautifully. Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent, everyone was good, but the real star of the picture is Daniel Day-Lewis. Playing Bill the Butcher, Daniel Day-Lewis is miraculous, his performance is one of the best I have ever seen. This man is one of the best actors of our time, and this is quite possibly his best performance. Though he seems Bill seems like villain, he loves his country. The set is brilliantly made, I was in awe by how real everything was. The costumes were top notch, and the score was hauntingly beautiful. U2's song "The Hands That Built America" fit perfectly with the film, and it's a great song. I'm very disappointed that Gangs of New York didn't win any Academy Awards, but that doesn't take away the greatness of the film. I believe Scorsese deserved the Oscar. I believe Daniel Day-Lewis deserved the Oscar. I believe U2 deserved the Oscar. But though it went away Oscarless, Scorsese should be proud. He made a remarkable film that will be remembered. Just like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, GoodFellas, and his other films, Gangs of New York will stand the test of time and will be known as one of the legendary directors gerat achievements.
Rating:
Summary: A Brilliant Movie!
Review: A long film, but without a doubt, the best movie of 2002-2003. The screenplay, the direction, and the acting are top-notch. I'm not a big Leonardo fan, but he definitely holds his own in this flick. Daniel Day Lewis displays why he was nominated for Best Actor honors, and Cameron Diaz does a great job as well. Some parts are a bit graphic, but it gives the true feel of that time and place during the mid 1800's... Truly a masterpiece!
Rating:
Summary: Masterful performance. Epic finish. Average everywhere else.
Review: "Gangs of New York" will sit amongst "Donnie Brasco" and "Casino" in the modern male film library, in the not-quite-great category. There are great things in this movie," enough for some wishful critics to declare it one of the best films of the year. But the it's either too long or too short, depending on how you look at it; it's the kind of film, quite frankly, that should have been two films. As it is, the movie is 2 1/2 hours and it still feels painfully rushed. You can sense director Martin Scorsese wanting to linger, but feeling the pressure to keep his oversized story on the move. It just isn't quite the work the master's fully capable of -- it could be, in fact, one of his most uneven directions ever. There is one incredible thing in the movie, and that is Daniel Day-Lewis, who swallows whole the character of Bill The Butcher, the criminal boss who runs the Five Points neighborhood in 1861 New York. Day-Lewis is a beast; he could stalk DeNiro's shadow any day of the week. Bill is a brilliant, emotionally ravaged monster -- a Jack the Ripper type, really -- with only his sense of honor and his enjoyment of power to stave off his enraged impulses; his moods are held together by the thinnest of threads. Not so good is Leonardo DiCaprio, who simply lacks the toughs for a role like this. He looks like a model posing as a middle-of-the-century meany; on certain occasions, he rises to imbue his Amsterdam with shades of greatness, but not enough. You just can't buy the kid as a reasonable adversary to Bill. I'm not sure what young actor might have succeeded -- Colin Farrell, maybe? -- but DiCaprio is too much a movie star to ball up his fists convincingly. Cameron Diaz, similarly, is miscast. Nope, not her in this movie, as a young pickpocket who must choose to stay loyal to Bill or love Amsterdam. Not enough fire. Diaz, at best, is emotionally unstable, a la "Vanilla Sky." But gritty? Huh uh. Too much "prim" in her "prim-lookin star gazer." Scorsese tears the movie in too many directions. The final battle sequence is incredible, but a lot of viewers aren't really going to understand it. Scorsese never paints the broad strokes of a new America honing in on Five Points very well; a lot of people I saw the movie with thought the ending was a mistake. Actually, it's rather well-conceived thematically -- the government using the guns the gangs swore to keep at home -- and the images are outstanding, but its connections to the larger scope of the film remains on the page. Here we were, screwin around with all this gang nonsense, when all that was going on outside the Five Points? The ending is cool, but it feels like an intrusion we didn't want. You see my point for two movies. The first, obviously would have ended with the first battle for the Five Points, which could have freed up the second movie to focus more on the growing America. As it is, jamming it all into one film, with some jarring edits, makes for an incomplete film experience; I fear "Gangs of New York" was slightly doomed in conception. it's a testament to the talent of the parties involved, especially Day-Lewis, that the movie nonetheless feels spectacular in parts.
Rating:
Summary: An Age Not So Innocent
Review: Before I start my review I want to note that I do not feel this movie is a 5 star film. Moreso a 4 star film. I am only giving it 5 stars because I want the avg. costumer rating to be higher. Now, on with my review. Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" is a movie I'm sure many will argue about concerning whether or not it's one of his best. Well, lets for the moment say it's not one of his best. Then I feel, it is his most impressive and visually stunning movie. It's probably his most ambitious. "Gangs of New York" does have a grandioso feel to it. It's one of the rare times when a Hollywood movie wants to tell a story and actually be about something. That though is not unusual for Martin Scorsese. To many he is the greatest living filmmaker. "Gangs of New York" starts off with a "war" sequence that is as harrowing as the opening moments in "Saving Private Ryan". It's not for those with a weak stomach. Make no mistake about it. This is a violent picture. Many might say it has too much gore. But, to these people, what exactly were you expecting? Here's a movie dealing with 19th Century New York. A time when people were at a civil war. Hate filled the air, and were you expect a nice good hearted fairy-tale? I'm sorry but you'll be disappointed. In the opening scene Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) leads his troops of Irish Americans against "Bill the Butcher"'s (Daniel Day-Lewis) troop of "real" Americans. As the Butcher likes to say. Vallon has a son, Amsterdan (Leonardo DiCaprio) who witness this war. At the end of it, Priest Vallon dies. What's to become of Amsterdan a small boy, without a father? He is sent away, but, naturally can never forget the sight of seeing his father killed. He plans revenge and will wait as long as he has to. This is the set-up. When Amsterdan does get older he will of course head back home to find "Bill the Butcher". Things have changed since he was a boy. It's a new world, and it seems like it's "Bill the Butcher"'s world. He seems to rule to five points of New York. It's when "Gangs of New York" hits this part of the movie it reaches the tone that will be played throughout. "Gangs" is really a very impressive movie. There is such craft clearly seen. The movie was done with such passion and understanding by a man who truly loves the history of New York. If you can't appreciate this movie strickly on those reasons alone, than I doubt you have any real love of cinema. It's those things besides acting that make the movie what it is. The cinematography, the art direction, the costume designs, & the production designs. All of these things added together give the movie what it is going after. Is "Gangs of New York" for everyone? Of course not. Nothing in life is 100%. But, I do feel people should make an effort to see it. Even if you didn't like the movie at the very least you can say you saw it and explain why you didn't like it. Most I think will enjoy the movie. And maybe as time passing on, people will have a kinder reaction to the movie. The movie also stars Cameron Diaz, in what I felt was one of her best roles. She has really surprised me. I honestly felt the woman can't act. But than she does a movie like this or "Vanilla Sky" and shocks you. She plays Jenny Everdeane. John C. Reilly plays a small role "Happy Jack". And Jim Broadbent plays William "Boss" Tweed, yet again, another small role. Bottom-line: One of the best films of 2002! A movie of craft and ambition. So, it might not be Scorsese's best, it is still one of his most impressive films.
Rating: 
Summary: The Other Side Of America.
Review: When I left the theater after seeing this movie, I didn't like it at all. I still think it's not a good movie, because it's very violent. However, it made me think, what Scorsese tried to say, and here's my conclusion: Scorsese took the most heroic and tragic time in America's history, the Civil War, and shifted the attention from the war itself, to an almost forgotten, or unmentioned event: the draft riots in New York. He shiftted the attention from "America" or "American soldiers" to the immigrants, that were draffted with no choice.
He is basically showing the other side of the civil war: how could the north be united if even New York wasn't united? There wasn't a general agreement about going to war, and the soldiers didn't volunteer to draft, they didn't have a choice. Yet, it doesn't make the war less tragic or less heroic. I think he's also trying to show us the other side of America: America represents Democracy, Freedom, Equality, Justice, and yet, in this movie, it represents it as the exact opposite. It shows Violent, unequality, forced draffting and no justice. Americaof this movie is corrupted, ignorant, selfish and opressing, and yet, it's ok. A country can't be perfect, all the countries have skeletons in their closet, it just seems that America or the Americans had forgotten the dark sides of their past, and without admitting the truth, one shall never be free. It's irellevant how historical this movie really is, because it is not telling us about history, it's telling us about America today, and how it remembers. In the end of the movie the hero said "As If We Were Never Here", and that is the essence of the movie- America rathers to forget the darker sides of it's past, and this movie is a remindment.
Rating:
Summary: Wrenching New York History a la Scorsese
Review: An antidote to "The Age of Innocence", another Martin Scorsese masterpiece about New York in second half of the 19th century, "Gangs of New York" takes place in what would later become the Big Apple. Both films sport Scorsese's fingerprints --deal with humans in the throes of deep struggle. But while "The Age of Innocence" describes struggles within the New York upper class and only a perceptive viewer is able to understand what ordeals the characters are through, "Gangs of New York" is based on cruel, often brutal fights of the lower class -- this is certainly no film for children. Interestingly enough, Daniel Day-Lewis stars in both of the two movies -- and his performances are equally brilliant, although different like day and night. A historical action movie, similarities to "Gladiator" come to mind. With one exception -- while "Gladiator" turned his many Academy Award nominations to several Oscars (including best picture and leading actor for Russell Crowe), "gangs" had no such luck -- were snubbed in all ten categories in which the film was nominated. Maybe also due to the aggressive policy of its publisher, Miramax studios, prior to the Oscar show in 2003. Daniel Day-Lewis shines as 'Butcher Bill' in his merciless brutality. His adversary, the main character Amsterdam Vallon -- who embarks on a gruesome journey to revenge his father's death -- is played by Leonardo DiCaprio, and his soulmate, pickpocket Jenny, by Cameron Diaz. The two Hollywood stars try their best, but doubts whether they were the best picks for their roles (especially DiCaprio) remain. However, the chemistry (in the script) between the two is one of the few positive moments in the film, which (like "Gladiator") is rather dark and focuses on things like politics and civic violence. The music by Howard Shore is not particularly memorable, but some understated parts are truly magnificent, mainly in romantic scenes between Amsterdam and Jenny. The believability of the romantic plot pales a bit in comparison with the film's history-based focus on political events. The end of the movie (when the fight of gangs is virtually obliterated by government power) and, in fact, the film as a whole -- offer a lot to think of on how humans are unable to handle their affairs well. "Gangs of New York" have its flaws -- predominantly a lot of physical violence, albeit disguised by splendid editing, as in the opening section. Yet the message is lofty, the freedom and justice in human history are redeemed by high price. Sometimes too high.
Rating: 
Summary: Maybe we'll get to see the director's cut some day...
Review: Martin Scorsese, 19th Century New York gang warfare? I thought it couldn't go wrong. It does. But, being a student of New York history and fan of Scorsese's brilliant work, I saw this film three times to determine just what was so wrong.
This movie fails because of the skeletal revenge story, and just basic storytelling flaws. It seems that nothing is at stake--except for Amsterdam Vallon's (Di Caprio) desire for revenge against the man who killed his father. I got no sense of the individuals in the minor gang Amsterdam joins on his way to his big Destiny; they come and go without anything binding them together. For instance, we hardly get to know the sole African-American character in Amsterdam's gang. He's in about three short scenes. This is strange, considering the chaos the Civil War draft produced in New York and which is presented at the end, and the nativists' unrelenting racism throughout the film. The Irish and African-Americans were fighting a common enemy--those who believed America belongs only to those who came before. Daniel Day Lewis's outsized character, Bill "the Butcher" Cutting, is the major reason to recommend this film. I can't recall a more vividly realized character in cinema. His malevolent, blinking squint with that eagle-emblazoned glass eye, the slouching walk, and stylized insults will haunt you afterwards (he's kind of like Albert Spica the Thief in Greenaway's famous film--another truly memorable villain--a pretender to some notion of an elevated American culture, and brutal in enforcing his pretensions that that culture is his birthright). Mid-century New York was full of rogues and villains like Cutting, most of them local politicians. And Jim Broadbent's Boss Tweed is good too, although doesn't get enough screen time. (it would have been a much more interesting story if Amsterdam Vallon had been taken under the Boss's wing, instead of the Butcher's). Amsterdam's singular revenge tale is not woven successfully into the larger picture of New York political corruption and the historical minutiae we get almost non-stop instead.The editing, too, is wildly uneven and actually works against the thrust of the minimal story most of the time. For instance, the (what should be emotionally moving) scene where Amsterdam retrieves the blade his father gave him on the day he died is intercut, in wildly inappropriate fashion, with a scene between Bill Cutting (Day-Lewis) and Boss Tweed (Broadbent) discussing politics. This annoying trait involves about a quarter of the scenes in the film, as if they are not let to stand for themselves, as if Scorsese (or Weinstein) thought these scenes would drag. Instead, it drags precisely because we can't get involved...And as a fresh spectator to the film, at first I wasn't sure how to feel about the depicted horrendous draft riots--perhaps because Scorsese himself wasn't sure. But now I think it ludicrous, because the tone is presented as somewhat triumphant. The troops fresh from Gettysburg were right to fire upon the rioters, who lynched dozens of African-Americans and even tried to attack the Colored Orphans' Asylum. Scorsese presents it as some kind of impersonal natural disaster, like a hurricane. Some reviewers thought it strange to include the Twin Towers in the final shot, but if you look closely, the Bell Atlantic building next to the Brooklyn Bridge is missing. Thus, this shot is meant to depict a period between 1973-1980--when Scorsese's Mean Streets and Taxi Driver were set, establishing a link through his films. I'm amazed that this DVD contains none of the deleted scenes (Scorsese's cut was three hours and a half, and probably had more character development, which is what this film sorely needed.) I think Weinstein had a major hand in the final cut, and he succeeded in depleting the narrative thrust of what could have been one of Scorsese's best.The window-dressing aspects of the film--sets, costumes, etc.--are indeed quite amazing, but nowadays the big-budgeted practitioners of these arts are so skilled that it almost unnecessary to point such a thing out. And it's a shame that a single actor's performance and its technical milieu are the only two things a Scorsese film has going for it. Apart from this, the film can be recommended only for its evocation of the period. What a disappointment.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I am a huge Scorcese fan and I was looking forward to this film for a long time. I saw it on openning day and I was very disappointed. The directing, soundtrack, cinematography, and Daniel Day Lewis' performance were spectacular and it is worth watching for those qualities but overall the film was mediocre.
What I didn't like...
1. The story builds up with the premise that Amsterdam (Leonard DiCaprio) will avenge his father's death but turns into a semi-documentary. If I wanted know about the history of New York I'll watch the History channel. When I go to see a Scorcese film I want to see mob violence. 2. Miramax's influence shines through. There is only one short trademark bloody Scorcese scene and even that may be edited out of the home version. Leonardo DiCaprio and Cammeron Diaz? Directors just don't have the control over production that they once did.
|
