Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: Dregs of New York
Review: In one of the many scenes in Gangs of New York, we are treated to an appearance by an actor playing the infamous PT Barnum. I took the very mention of Barnum to be symbolic of the messy circus Scorsese has created. This film is Martin Scorcese's worst film. I will even go so far as to say that all of his previous films are good and worth watching. This one is bad.

In the films first frames, we are guided through a passage of sentimentality between a father and his son. The father, Priest Vallon, delivers a couple of pretentious one liners that we are sure to hear later. It is clear to us that the kid is supposed to be a young Dicaprio. It is also clear to us that his father will....die. Next, we are guided through a passage of a lair of warmongers with apparently no money. A troop is being formed with Priest Vallon leading them. As they get closer and closer to the seemingly never-ending chasm, more and more warriors join them. Very dramatic...but to what end? The following scenes build into a volcano of a conflict between what we can only tell as being the rich, and the poor. (Later we find out that it is the 'Nativists', against various immigrant misfits that helped build New York. The warring scene is very bloody and brutal, and full of cool music. I tried not to think that violence is "cool" while I watched this battle, but I couldn't help it. I wanted to be slashing a machete around in slow motion, into people's sides, causing fake-looking blood to spurt out like a fountain, beautifully staining the white snow that surrounds me, on a mock movie set...in Greece.

After the battle, we are thwarted into a history lesson, mostly through the eyes of our now grown up avenging son, Amsterdam Vallon (played by Leo Dicaprio). His object of vengeful obsession is William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting (played incredibly by Daniel Day Lewis). The guy with the cooler name gets the better lines, and consequently acts circles around everyone else.

In the midst of the film, which is the part of the film that is supposed to hopefully sustain our interest until Leo gets his revenge, Leo happens upon a pickpocketing beauty (Cameron Diaz). The second time he just happens to run into her, she takes his dad's medal from his pocket. Of course, he can't just run after her to get the medal back. He has to follow her, and watch how she filches from the rich. Why did she even bother with Vallon, clad in his fashionable torn up rags of an outfit? Maybe it was to help the plot along. She also happens to have a deeper connection to him. Wow, it must be providence.

Just for good measure, I should also mention that John C. Reilly makes his 85th appearance in a film this year. His abilities as an actor were undermined in this film. He sure looked the part though. Kudos to the costume designer. Brendan Gleeson, another fine actor, stars in this film as a cop with a heart of gold.

I should point out that the production design was stunning. I found that the last half hour of the film (which involved the New York draft riots), were superbly done. I'm usually a sucker for riot scenes, and this one was great. All the different conflicts in the different parts of the city are documented with news headlines, and the reading of the wire by a frantic journalist. Unfortunately, the rest of the film doesn't hold up. My interest dwindled consistently. A lot of the scenes felt like fluff. There were even times when I felt like the director explained things too much through sentimentality. The explanations got to the point that it was assumed that I was a moron. In the trailers of movies coming soon, that were displayed before this film, there was a preview for Quentin Tarantino's new film called Kill Bill. Throughout Gangs of New York, I kept wishing that Amsterdam would just hurry up and do just that.

Rating:
Summary: excellent story of old New York
Review: Yes I have heard of the mayhem after watching the documentary Rick Burns "New York". I have always wondered how bloody and barbaric those days were during that infamous period. Well, here it is on-screen finally. I personally didn't mind the blood bath and the graphic violence. It's a Martin Scorcese movie so you would expect that. But as he always does Scorcese doesn't over do it. It was fitting for this period piece in New York.

I absolutely LOVE Daniel Day-Lewis' performance! To me this was one of the best performances in a movie. He certainly made this movie and perhaps his more memorable performances. The OSCAR should go to him most definitely. The Butcher the first bad-ass "New Yorker" character? He is such a great actor and probably is one of or the best in the world today. DiCaprio I agree did a fairly good job but he may as someone had said was probably miscast in this movie. His personality didn't convey enough passion and spite. Perhaps he was just busy with Gisele during filming of this movie. Overall this was a very good movie. My recommendation is to watch and hear the movie very loud. It will come right at you!

Rating:
Summary: Simply The Best
Review: Plain and simple this movie is the best movie made in a long, logn time. If you like violence a little bit of history or just a movie about gangs, this movie is for you...THE BEST!!

Rating:
Summary: BEYOND AMAZING STORYTELLING
Review: There are only three words to describe this movie: DANIEL DAY-LEWIS. I see every movie released, and I watch the Oscars religiously. I can honestly say, however, that there are no performances to EVER match the passion and intensity of Daniel Day-Lewis's performance. If he does not win the Academy Award, it will be devistating. Of course the Academy will decide to go with the favorite, being Nicholson, but the fans of this movie know without a doubt that Danny boy was a million times better. The Butcher was not the villain at all. It's sad most people see that he was supposed to be evil, but really, he was just a person with villainous characteristics. He was charming and funny, brutal and commanding. He fought for what he believed and respected few. Daniel is certainly one of, if not THE most talented actors of his generation. There are no words to describe the talent this man possesses. And, he's not bad on the eyes either. A lot of people complain about this movie: it's too long, Cameron Diaz was miscast, Leo was a waste, etc....I beg to disagree with these statements. Perhaps I am biased; New York is the BEST city in the world, and Marty has always been one of my favorite filmmakers. I just don't understand how some people can't appreciate the beauty of this film. It's a story of a boy becoming a man, at the same time that a city was maturing as well. Scorsese most definitely deserves the Academy Award this year, not like he hasn't deserved it in past years. New York is his baby, or as Bono said, his "muse." It is certainly obvious just how much he loves New York, and the city itself is a separate character in this film. This truly is a work of art, flaws and all. See this movie, if for no other reason than Daniel Day-Lewis. Bravo! How can you actually call Julia Roberts an actor, when Daniel Day-Lewis BECOMES his characters.

Rating:
Summary: NOT AS BAD AS THE OTHER REVIEWS THINK....
Review: What are these other reviewers thinking? I am not sure. But they must work for other studios. The movie is not perfect but it does capture the feeling of the times.(i.e. - The squalor and filth that people lived in NYC.) The Five Corners area was known for its lawlessness. So much so that famous people the WORLD over knew about the Five Points. De Toqueville and Charles Dickens both visited the area when they came to the US. Many of the events in the movie DID happen. The draft riots, the attacking of rich peoples houses, the buying of votes, and brutal murders all happened. There were many gangs in the Five Points area. Obviously these other reviewers have trouble following a complex plot. Or they are not aquainted with film language. This is a good movie. P.S. The top 500 reviewer mostly reviews books.

Rating:
Summary: What 's the point of this blood bath?
Review: OK - so we had some good fight scenes, some ok actors, splendid costumes and an historical reconstruction (and for that and the hugh effort I am giving this movie 3 stars). So? what did you want to say? what was all this for? Sorry - but I did not understand the purpose of this movie. Maybe my understanding was a little blurred after watching a 3 hours blood bath (in some points it reminded me of the Schwarzenegger grade D movie "Commando" where after 10 minutes of the movie you already have about 20 dead people) but for me it was really boring. I did not get the point, besides showing the geniusness of the director and his great ability to use every aspect of film making (besides having something to say that is).

Rating:
Summary: Day-Lewis Rocks, but the movie takes a beating!
Review: Okay I've been impressed with Day-Lewis' performances before and this one was deffinantly not an exception however. The movie was so flawed it made me sick. How bad can one person screw up our nations history. Um, well, according to this movie. REALLY BADLY! Half the main characters were not that way in history, and Day-Lewis' character was a composite of 3 people over a 50 year span of history.
Not to mention for all you conservative and well mannered people the idea of "violence is okay because our country was founded on it" may really rest uneasy for you. I found this movie to be so sick and twisted that when it was over I could have gone and watched Se7en, and felt like a normal human being.

Rating:
Summary: A gory and bloated ... violence.
Review: "Gangs of New York," Martin Scorsese's long awaited epic of New York in the 1800's, is one of the most blood-soaked movies that I have ever seen. It seems that New York was not always the "civilized" place that it is now. Back in the nineteenth century, gangs roamed New York, killing and maiming one another at will. New York at that time was rife with racial hatred, prostitution, theft and corruption.

The hero of this film is baby-faced Leonardo Di Caprio, who is miscast as Amsterdam Vallon, the son of Priest Vallon. When he was a young boy living in Five Points, Amsterdam saw his father brutally murdered by Bill the Butcher, played with demonic glee by Daniel Day-Lewis. Bill is a racist who hates blacks, Irishmen, and anyone at all who disobeys him. Sixteen years pass since Priest was murdered. After a stint in an orphanage, Amsterdam comes back to the Five Points to avenge his father's death. He becomes Bill's protege in crime and waits patiently for his opportunity to destroy the man who killed his beloved father.

Di Caprio is not believable as Amsterdam Vallon. He seems uncomfortable in the part, which requires an actor with more of a tough and bitter demeanor. Daniel Day-Lewis at least has fun with his over-the-top character, Bill the Butcher. Day-Lewis pulls out all the stops, whether he is cutting up a carcass, fondling a prostitute, throwing knives at Cameron Diaz (who plays a pickpocket and love interest for Amsterdam), or attacking blacks and Irishmen. Jim Broadbent is effective as the slimy Boss Tweed, one of the most corrupt politicians of all time.

Scorsese shoots the movie on a grand scale. It is an expensive-looking production, with teeming tenements, hundreds of extras, and battle scenes that are so vivid, you can almost smell the blood. Unfortunately, "Gangs of New York" is too sprawling and too large. Scorsese missed the forest for the trees. If Scorsese had paid more attention to character development, "Gangs of New York" would have been a far more entertaining and memorable film.

Rating:
Summary: A brilliant technicolour extravaganza !!!
Review: I truly enjoyed munching on my oversized refillable tub of generously well-oiled popcorn and hollering rebel yells at the silver screen whilst digesting Martin Scorsese's sprawling androgynous musical, 'Gangs of New York.' That said, I found it difficult to overlook the unfortunate and uncritical impact that film school may or may not have had on this otherwise illustriously overrated wunderkind uberdirector, whose past excursions into film and television have proven to be either downright disastrous or deservedly unprofitable. Might I humbly suggest that Mr. Scorsese take a most overdue hiatus, wherein he or she might rethink his or her approach to effectuating such epically miscalculated cinematic blunders. (or, to quote an 'unauthored' internal Miramax memo to MS, 'Not every scene need represent an emotionally bipolar event, i.e., life or death, orgasmic or impotent, grandiose or contemplative.') In his sentimental, confused, and perhaps DeKooningishly senile twilight years, Mr. Scorsese apparently feels that he has established a certain weighty artistic inertia, unworthy of superficial studio challenge, which entitles him to nostalgiacally recycle the cynicism of his youth such as in "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" (which was little more than a cheap, gimmicky remake of Robert Altman's slightly less exciting "McCabe & Mrs. Miller"). Sure, Leo and Danny sort of look the part in expensive grubby tuxes, but it doesn't take the brains of a perverted babysitter to cast current and popular stars and have them play dress-up. Why digitally saturate the colour blue? Was there a really severe drought in New York in the mid 1800's or only in Rome just last year? Who if anyone back then manufactured flawlessly reflective bubble-free panes of regular window glass? Mr. Scorsese should have also taken a cue from the producers of Bumfights by casting of some thick-skinned homeless extras who wouldn't mind a little uninsured cinema verite on their resume. Marty, get a real job, like teaching film school!

Rating:
Summary: Interesting film which lacks a creative storyline
Review: I too was excited once I heard about the release of this film. Being a fan of Scorceses films (Casino is one of my favorite movies), and reading a lot about the hatred, lawlessness, and corruption that plagued America during the 19th century, this was an exciting movie for me to go see. Once it came out, I wasnt necessarilly dissapointed in the film, but it had a few flaws to say the least. I was mostly troubled with the storyline. Which, from what I read, is what everybody is complaining about. It follows an Irish-American named Amsterdam who is out to revenge the man who killed his father, the feared nativist leader Bill The Butcher. And in doing this, what better way to kill a guy, then befriend him? So, he befriends Bill and develops a love interest with a robber, whose name in the movie isnt important enough to remember. Once Bill finds out that Amsterdam wants to kill him, the couple goes off in hiding. And where better to hide than a Catholic Church in the 1860's in the middle of the Civil War?

There's a lot to complain about with the storyline. But what the movie lacks in a story, it truly makes up for in setting. Scorcese does a unique job of placing you in New York City during the 1860s. Much kudos for Scorcese for pulling this idea off. We havent watched very many films that showed America's largest city during the time of our greatest war. The costumes were excellent. And the music really places you in another time.
I must say that Daniel Day-Lewis deserves an Oscar nomination for a superb performance.

I will say, however, that this isnt necesarilly a masterpiece. There are some flaws, but if you are interested in seeing a completely different America, this will be great to watch. I would watch it again alone just to pretend im in the 1860s again.
B+