Rating: 
Summary: Gangs Of New York
Review: "Gangs Of New York" was a movie that started out good but then got confusing and very much idiotic. It started showing blood and guts and this movie totally got pointless. I do NOT recommend you go and see the movie "Gangs Of New York". Its dull! And it has been nominated for eight Academy Awards!? Ha! Critics must be dumb!
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed...
Review: I've always loved Scorsese because of his unique understanding of "timing and pace" in film. Taxi Driver, Casino, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, The Age of Innocence... need I say more. I never look for anything deep or "intelligent" in his work. Compelling and engaging best describes his films. Scorsese seems out of his league with this type of historic epic however. I've read professional reviews that heap tons of praise onto Daniel Day Lewis for "saving the film". At the same time those reviews give Jim Broadbent and Brendan Gleeson thumbs up while claiming that DiCaprio and Diaz were miscast. How is this? Perhaps... but I tend to think not. Perhaps Day Lewis was miscast... for he runs over Broadbent and Gleeson with the same runaway train that crushes DiCaprio and Diaz beneath its wheels (I read a Snidely Whiplash reference somewhere that was very befitting the comical portrayal of Bill the butcher and its hammy actor). Considering Scorsese's lack of focus and the film's grandiose themes maybe I'm being too tough on Day Lewis. It's just that damned fake New York accent... like listening to a hundred cats being thrown against a chalkboard... annoying as hell. He even makes Columbo sound like British royalty. I wonder what would've happened if Scorcese's film had found its focus, developed its characters (thus allowing for Dicaprio and company's attempts to give depth to and bring out the subleties of their respective roles), toned down Bill the Butcher and hired a decent dialect coach for its actor? The world may never know...
Rating:
Summary: Daniel Day-Lewis: the only reason to see this film
Review: This film is too long, and drawn out, and its central theme... the fruitlessness of acting on hate for those nearby... is so obviously acted out, that I forgot what the theme was during the movie... it seemed like a pointless movie most of the time, with one exception: Daniel Day-Lewis plays an outlandish, extremely violent and bigger-than-life character. Lewis's character develops throughout the film, and we learn more and more about just how given over to violence and extremism, he really is. Yet, we can't help liking him for his moments of tenderness and understanding that his character shows at rare intervals, and for the strength of his convictions, even though they are bad convictions. I went into this movie thinking that Lewis could never pull off playing such a rough character... I just kept thinking of his performance in "My Left Foot," which I thought was basically garbage ... but Lewis pulled this role off to a tee ... he is absolutely compelling, and his performance is the only reason to see this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: A decent candidate for Best Picture...
Review: Last year was an average year for movies and the list of Best Picture nominees this year is proof of that. I saw "Gangs of New York" only because it was nominated; I had initially been scared away by the thought of another highly reviewed epic starring Leo DiCaprio; horrified chills of "Titanic" remembrance still take over me at times. Thankfully, this movie was directed by Martin Scorsese, not James Cameron, and the script spares us lines like "Teach me how to spit like a man!". And, "Gangs of New York" has the cutest elephant butt shot I've even seen on film. But, I digress. This story may be just as legendary and fabled as other epics, but it has a little more meat on its bones. The cast has a nice chemistry and not entirely distracting bad accents. Leo and Cameron fare well as street urchin lovers; Daniel Day Lewis is suitably creepy as the man who takes them both on in a caregiver role, and the triangle that develops between them is entertaining. The movie does drag at times, but overall it was decent. I wouldn't put in even among the 20 best movies I saw last year, but I didn't regret shelling out the matinee price.
Rating: 
Summary: Definitely Best Picture of 2003
Review: Gangs of New York is by far the BEST movie of the year. People who hated this movie or thought that it was to far fetched or fictionous must not have read the book or reasearched the time period. It is telling the story of Amsterdam when he was growing up in the "New York Underworld" it is based on a true story we are not sure of the persons names however the gangs in New York we could find actual names the gangs actual titles were: The Plug Uglies, and The Dead Rabbits. To Prove this to all of you ...people read the book intitled: The Gangs of New York by Herbert Asbury! (If you go to the history section of a bookstore you should find it there!)
Rating:
Summary: A Movie Masterpiece
Review: You have to have guts to make a movie like this. And there is only one director on the planet who could possibly tackle such an immense project and complete it so well that it turns out to be one of the most vividly stunning films of recent years. Martin Scorsese's brutal American biopic GANGS OF NEW YORK is one of the most astounding films the master of cinema has ever directed. The grand spetcacle, the savage battle scenes, the lurid yet truthful portrayal of what NY life was like back in the 1800s, every facet of the film is as extremist as it is compelling (Ears taken from the losers of battle are used as trophies, sordid affairs and savage battles showcasing the stunning cinematography carry on throughout the film). Written by Ken Lonergan, Steven Zallian, and Scorsese, the story is written so brilliantly it deserves the award for best writing. Scorsese's masterful direction and undenying talent make the experience fascinating. One of the many aspects of the film that I was amazed by was how much effort and detail was put into the production. Set in New York City, 1840-1863, a young man named Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) seeks vengeance against Bill "The Butcher" Poole (Daniel Day-Lewis), the man who killed his father. Though he secures the help of pickpocket Jenny Everdeane, the task at hand may be more dangerous than Amsterdam ever imagined when he realizes that his father was murdered as a result of gang warfare between the powerful Manhattan gangs. Day-Lewis's portrayal of the gentleman/killer is amazing, proving again why he is one of the best actors in film history. He shows total commitment and dedication to the character, and DiCaprio proves he can act gritty. Being a Scorsese devotee for so long, I was amazed when I saw this in the cinemas. Breath-taking, marvelous, wonderful, heart-fealt, tragic, compassionate, yet brutal. Even Howard Shore's heroic score adds to the film's strength. The whole thing builds up to an amazing final battle that has to be seen to be appreciated for all it's marvelous dedication to telling a story, and telling it well. Bravo, Mr. Scorsese, bravo.
Rating:
Summary: The Dead Rabbits...
Review: This is a great, strong movie. Acting, plot, and everything. I'm not gonna tell all that it was about. "Some of it I remember. The rest I took from a dream." That's exactly how the movie starts. But it took place in a time period from like 1846 to 1863. Many immigrants were coming to New York, and especially Irish. More and more people were getting off the ships everyday. They were trying to draft for war and so on. We really get a look at how many Gangs there were in lower Manhattan. Dead Rabbits, Swamp Angels, Nighwalkers, Tammany Hall Boys, The Natives. Street wars went on for who would hold power over the 5 points. I'll stop right there. But I'll say that there aren't many actors as convincing as Leo. Boy can act. He knows what he's doing. Check out this movie. It's worth all your time.
Rating:
Summary: A Theatrical, if sometimes Trite, Treat
Review: Nothing says Irish like Sorcese, DiCaprio, and Diaz; that being said, and all joke sin cluded, this is the director's attempt (largely successful) to put an over-the-top production of a New Yokr Play into a film while mainitng the close, tight conditions of aplay. Any doubt to the movie being filmed as a play should see the knife throwing scene with The Butcher and Diaz's thief: puttignan elevated stage on his already elevated stage heightens the theatricality of a very theatrical movie. True, this movie does fall into the Cliff Notes version of Hiberno-American History at points, with Irish violence and drunkenness, women fighters, oppression from natives, and symbolic speeches all reminiscing, somewhat unsuccessfully, with Braveheart and Rob Roy. Too, true, are the somewhat static if characters; but htese can be seen as a group attempting to break out of their "staged" roles into something better (i.e. a true American dream). Daniel Day-Lewis deserves two Oscars for his role, which makes him one of the top three movie bad guys of all time. From first to last, despite a hundred and fifty year difference, you fear Bill the Butcher more than any Mafia Don, supernatural entity, sci-fi overlord, or military dictator ever portayed on the cinematic screen. Scorcese, as I have said, often uses a cliff ntoes of Irish history, but he manages to protray them warmly, depsite his noted Italian roots (this maybe his attempt to branch out to non-Italian ethnic groups in his film). He also uses the film to chastise both ethnically marginallizing gang/down-and-out films (Empire, Any Spike Lee Movie, Training Day) which attempt to claim that only a certain minority has experienced true violence and oppression, and also to attack white homogenous suburbanites for rejecting such movies out of hand instead of allowing such cinematic pieces to be judged as art.
Thus, the viscious cycle of marginalized filmmaking is used as basis for Gangs, where a marginalized society, which also has its Uncle Toms to the more powerful gangs, ultimately explodes in cinematic (there's a pun) violence. Does Scorcese succeed in all his endeavors? Doubtful, though there is hope--although Spike Lee is certainly too hardheaded and untalented to heed the call. But does Scorcese make a movie that, though flawed, is a worthy Best Picture? Absolutely. Here's hoping the Academy makes up for Halle Berry's horrendous and embarassing best actress award and give Sorcese a best director, Lewis a bets actor, and the film a best picture award. The film ultimately is a clever pun on film and theater, their intertwining, and the state of modern American theater, both cineatic and live.
Rating:
Summary: One extraordinary performance in an average film
Review: I have always been a big fan of Scorcese but I have to say that I think this film is quite poor when judged against the great man's other masterworks.
I feel that the film suffered because Scorcese's artistic vision was compromised by the film distributors who got cold feet when they learnt that Scorcese intended to release it in its 5 hour entirety.This resulted in a huge row between the director and producer Harvey Weinstein.Finally Scorcese relented and made substantial cuts to edit it down to official release time of 2.5 hours.
Well, what are you left with after this compromise ?
A film that has a fantastic start, which sags heavily in the middle and where the climactic ending happens too suddenly and then is over.
The casting is all wrong also.How Scorcese could let Leonardo DiCaprio or Cameron Diaz near his film is beyond me.Both deliver sub-standard performances and the romantic subplot of the film only serves to dilute the story instead of enhance it.
As for Daniel Day-Lewis, what can I say ?
He has been accused of taking method acting to ridiculous extremes for this film e.g. he refused to talk to DiCaprio during filming because they were screen enemies (I don't blame him for that !),he learnt how to throw knives like his screen character and he also insisted that people call him Bill off-camera like his screen character Bill 'The Butcher' Cuttings.
All I can say is that whatever lengths Day-Lewis went to to ensure that his character was convincing are thoroughly worth it.I feel he is a prime candidate for the best actor statuette but I don't think he will get it because of the tendency to snub Scorcese's work.
So overall this film is like a violent version of 'Far And Away'
with its awful attempts at Irish accents and its unpleasantly laboured story.
Day-Lewis is the only one to shine in this mess.
I feel that the biggest butcher in this film was not Day-Lewis's character but the film's editor !
I await the unedited 5 hour version which should be available on DVD soon before I deliver my final verdict....
Rating: 
Summary: Meanders endlessly
Review: Fans of revenge take note: We wait the whole movie for Leo's revenge. Innocent people are made to die so Leo can pick the time for revenge. The movie takes a clumsy stab at revenge. Fails - both at revenge, and at continuing to suspend our disbelief - and never recovers the entire second half. All that, and it looks staged. For Leo's comeback, see Catch Me If You Can, with Tom Hanks, fine fun. Not so this flop.
|
