Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: Day-Lewis is brilliant.
Review: Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal of Bill the Butcher as an blood hungry, beyond-twisted, knife-throwing crime lord with a sense of entitlement and a perverse respect for his adversaries practically steals Martin Scorsese's film. He's one of the best villains ever put on film. The movie itself is an involving, violent epic. It's ambitious, important and a departure from Scorsese's usual takes on New York's mean streets. The central scene involving Day-Lewis, Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz and a knife-throwing stage exhibition is the most tense one I saw this year, and the final scenes involving the Draft Riots, though historically inaccurate, are a startling and fitting conclusion. Because Scorsese is so good, this film will probably not go down as one of his best, yet, if anyone else had made this film, it'd be hailed as a complete masterpiece.

Rating:
Summary: ***** FLAWED MASTERPIECE *****
Review: Gangs of New York is the much vaunted, much delayed and long awaited Martin Scorcese 19th-century gang warfare epic. Breathtaking in its scale and attention to detail, it boasts wonderful sets, an excellent screenplay, flawless direction, an excellent supporting cast and top-notch acting from Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz and (in particular) Daniel Day Lewis as the villainous, barbaric Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting. Yet masterpiece as this undoubtedly is, it still has its flaws.

Much of the pre-release media attention for 'Gangs' has chiefly been about speculation surrounding stormy clashes between Miramax producer, Harvey Weinstein and Director Martin Scorcese (who despite being currently Oscarless is considered by many critics to be America's greatest living film Director). The core of this speculation is that, although Gangs of New York weighs in at a healthy 168 minutes, Scorcese would have preferred that as much as an extra hour of film had been kept off Oscar-winning editor Thelma Schoonmaker's floor. Perhaps as a result of the nasty butcher's work (Weinsten not Day Lewis if we are to believe the rumours), the second act of the film has a more rushed feel to it, with a lot more jumping from scene to scene and a large increase in the use of voice overs to explain to the audience what they are witnessing. It would also explain why in one scene we see young master DiCaprio about to have his face horribly scarred by Butcher Bill Cutting's white hot knife, yet almost miraculously two scenes later said scar has faded to almost nothing and young Leos face, previously mashed by headbutts, has made a miraculous recovery. You can almost imagine Harvey Weinstein's horror at the suggestion of Leo's famously handsome face being disfigured and the effect this might have on any potential female teenage audience; "no, not the face Martin, please not the face" he may have exclaimed.

Quibbles aside, Gangs of New York is 168 minutes of top drawer film-making that continuously excites and holds the audiences attention, so much so that it actually feels about an hour shorter. Opening in 1846 with a battle for the streets of New York in the slum-like Five Points district in an ironically titled Paradise Square, between two rival gangs. Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) is head of the Dead Rabbits gang whom he leads into armed conflict against the Natives led by Bill Cutting (Day Lewis) and a brutal and bloody battle it is, with much crunching and slashing of flesh and bone. Sixteen years later Priest Vallon's son, calling himself Amsterdam (DiCaprio), returns to the Five Points to seek out revenge for his father's brutal death at the hands of Bill the butcher, who oblivious to young Amsterdam's heritage adopts him as a surrogate so. 'When you kill a king you do not stab him in the back, but before the whole court so they can see him die,' explains the young master Vallon.

Central to the success of this film is Daniel Day Lewis's towering performance as the charismatic psychopath Bill Cutting, who considers himself a native American (although clearly not of Indian heritage). As part of this belief Butcher Bill is disagreeable to all things foreign but in particular the ever increasing Irish Immigrants, with their Catholic faith, flooding off the boats in search of a new life away from the potato famine and poverty of their homeland. A hypocritical bigot of the first degree Bill proclaims to his young Irish protégé Amsterdam; "On the seventh day the Lord rested. He squatted by England and made a mess there called Ireland - no offence." This is Daniel Day Lewis's first movie since 1997's "The Boxer", after apparently deciding to retire from acting to apparently become a maker of shoes in Florence, Italy. Whether this is totally true or popular myth is inconsequential for with this performance Day Lewis once again reminds us of his enormous talent which previously brought him an Academy Award for his portrayal of Christy Brown in "My Left Foot". According to Martin Scorcese it took months of persuasion to tempt Day Lewis out of retirement but once Day Lewis took on the role he remained in character throughout the whole film shoot, even to the extent that everybody addressed him as Bill even when the cameras were not rolling. However, Day Lewis's portrayal of Butcher Bill is not the only performance worth mentioning with both DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz both faring reasonably well in such illustrious company. There are also excellent supporting performances from the likes of Jim Broadbent and Brendan Gleeson both perfectly cast in their roles as William 'Boss' Tweed and Monk McGinn. May I also add that it was nice to see ET's Henry Thomas making an appearance in a supporting role as Amsterdam's friend (and would-be Judas) Jonny.

This ambitious movie is a magnificent spectacle, wonderfully acted, beautifully Directed and a wonderful triumph for Martin Scorcese, which will hopefully be recognised with a long overdue golden statuette come March 23rd. Although the heavy editing of The Gangs of New York robs us of some of the character development and background to the young Vallon building up his own gang of reformed Dead Rabbits, it only makes me all the more enthusiastic at looking forward to the hopefully inevitable Director's cut. When after watching a 168 minute movie you still wish for a longer version, then you know you must have just witnessed something special.

Rating:
Summary: Did anybody else read Ashbury's book?
Review: I heard about this movie a couple of years ago and knew that Scorsese would direct and that Leo DiCaprio and Day-Lewis would star. Years past and I saw some clips from it on tv. Some time after that when I knew it would be released sooner or later (which would become later) I picked up the book by Herbert Ashbury. The introductory written by Jorge Luis Borges was informative and the book was interesting to read. It told in some detail about one hundred years of history of New York City and focusing on the history of the gangs that lived there. Later having seen the movie it gives me mixed feelings. There are things I like with the movie, the beginning is powerful in every meaning of the word. Martin Scorsese takes a little time to put us in the position of "Priest" Vallon and his son before they prepare to go to war and in this short opening scene the movie is almost without any sound (no underscore) and then Scorsese pulls us in to the tribal anthem of the irish gangs and later the carnage between them and the native gangs lead by Bill "The Buther" Cutting is played to a remixed score of a Peter Gabriel song. The fight is one of the things I like but at the same time when I saw it I first recognized the score (I like Gabriel's music and Scorsese has used his music before on The Last Temptation of Christ) and to the fast paced editing and some of the blurred images of the battle I couldn't help to feel that maybe Scorsese will later regret how he put it together, I might be wrong. It starts out great anyway so I will not complain too much because most of the gangs are noticed and I got to see characters like "Monk" and "Hellcat" Maggie that did exist. Liam Neeson as "Priest" is the best actor in the prologue but Day-Lewis gives an extreme presence in his role of "Bill The Butcher", some times too close to overplaying his part. The movie moves forward from 1846 to 1863 and we get to see the grown son of Vallon, named Amsterdam and is played by a slightly beared DiCaprio and how he has now returned to New York to claim his vengeance upon Bill "The Butcher" for the murder of his father.
The story is then thrown between the corrupt Boss Tweeds agreement with Bill to rule the city, the father-son relationship between Bill and Amsterdam, Amsterdam's love-hate toward pick-pocket Jenny Everdeane and his plans of murdering "The Butcher". All of this together with some sub-plots and historical facts ending too quickly with the Draft Riots. All of the men that couldn't buy themselves free for 300 dollars had to enlist to go and fight in the civil war. This and the poverty turned the people into an angry mob that went into a rampage on the streets of New York burning houses and killing the rich and imigrants, mainly african-american. In all of this the irish and the natives face of one last time and this is what the whole movie has been building up to and nothing happens. The demise of "The Butcher" and Amsterdam's vengeance do get some emotion to it and it was worth seeing but I didn't know what to make of the military fighting down the crazied mob. The riot was one of the longer chapters in the book and it mearly lasted for fifteen minutes in the film while it is said to have taken four days in reality. It's not the length that I care about but it's the cause of what is shown. In the book it portrayed how the ravaging mob had to be fought down and how bravely the police force, national garde and military fought for their lives. I think that Jay Cooks, who wrote the story and made this Shakespearean father-son revenge drama, has to take some critic. For such things as making up totally new characters and a different timeline while taking characters that did in fact exist and changing them (maybe just changing the last name to have the freedom to do whatever he wanted with the character). To get native gang leader William "Bill The Butcher" Poole from being a bragging, violent but honest and fair fighter into the evil but still emotional bad guy Bill Cutting. There did exist someone with the name Vallon but he was surely not "Priest" or Amsterdam. "Monk" existed and seemed to me in the book being a more ruthless and brutal man then "Bill The Butcher". I felt they turned the table on these two characters. The story goes that "Monk" in his establishment just went up to a guy and bashed him over the head with his club. When people asked him why he had done it he said; "I had fourty-nine markings on my club. I wanted an even fifty." And what happened to "Monk's" 1200 men gang?
If somebody else have read the book and seen the film can't you e-mail me and tell me what you think of the changes between book and film and how you think it worked?
I am sure what to think about the first fifteen or thirty minutes. I do like the movie up to a certain point but I am confused about the changes and the writers using so little of the book in making the film.
I think that maybe Scorsese would have made a superior film and probably a masterpiece of cinematic achievement if he would have done it sooner, say twenty years ago with Robert DeNiro in the part of, I think it was "Bill The Butcher". Though I like Day-Lewis and I think he has much to offer as Bill I can't stop thinking about how DeNiro would have played it when he was still young.
Wanting to know what others think?

Rating:
Summary: Umm, no.
Review: GONY is a big beautiful mess. I know Scorcese dreamed and wanted to do this movie for ages but some dreams just don't work out. Daniel Day Lewis is great as Bill the Butcher. Liam Neelson is great as Priest Vallon--we should've had more Liam--that would've been a neat stroy. Leo DiCaprio is okay with what he has to work with and Cameron Diaz can barely walk and talk and the same time. GONY is NOT historically accurate. The riots were not a mass uprising of all the oppressed immigrants. It was an attack of the oppressed and angry about it, Irish on NYCs black population. The is no scene in GONY of the Colored Orphan's Assylum being attacked, nor are there scenes of the lynchings and multilations that were carried out on unlucky blacks who got in the mob's way. I'm sorry but that's sloppy work on Scorcese's part. It's obvious that his writer's barely cracked a history book. I know this is historical fiction and not a documentary but if you're going to talk about the consription riots tell what really happened. By the way, in America wasn't born in NYC's streets. It was born in Colonial Virginia and got on it's feet out West and came of age after WWI.

Rating:
Summary: A fine film, but I'd like to make a prediction
Review: Some general comments, and then I would like to make a prediction.

First, this is one of the finest evocations of an earlier historical period I have ever seen in film. The extent to which Scorcese recreates a lower New York City that no longer exists is nothing short of stunning. The amount of detail is almost overwhelming, and there was obviously a huge amount of research that went into it. That doesn't mean that the film slavishly recreates history. There is considerable artistic license, and the draft riots were presented as being far more violent and deadly than they actually were. Nonetheless, it was refreshing to see so many aspects of American history dealt with that have been neglected in the past.

Secondly, while the cast as a whole was quite excellent, Daniel Day-Lewis absolutely steals this movie. There is a chameleonic quality to Day-Lewis. I know of no modern actor who can so consistently alter and transform himself from role to role. If you place several of his better known roles beside each other, the range is almost inconceivable. Compare his effeminate dandy in A ROOM WITH A VIEW with his Tomas in THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING with his tunning performance as Christy Brown in MY LEFT FOOT, or his Hawkeye in THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS to Gerry Conlon in IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, and then compare all of them to his turn as Bill the Butcher, and you are confronted with and actor whose range seems to be unchartable. My only complaint with Daniel Day-Lewis is that he simply doesn't make enough films. He is one of the greatest actors of his generation, but unquestionably one of the least active. I will be very surprised if he doesn't win his second Best Actor Oscar for this performance.

OK, my prediction. This is a fine film, but I have a deep suspicion that this is not the film that Scorcese would have liked to have. While the film is filled with great scenes and many stunning moments, most of the scenes do not seem to transition well from one to another. Many sections of it feel a bit unfinished. Was this a concession to length? Was the film kept shorter than it needed to be in order to meet the needs of movie theaters? This is not at all an unusual situation. I predict that within the next year or two we will see this film rereleased in an expanded version, with a dramatically increased run time. I might be wrong, but I suspect a lot of this film was left on the cutting room floor, and that the studios insisted on a shorter film. If ever a movie cried out for a Director's Cut, it is this one.

But even if I am wrong, even if this is the only version of THE GANGS OF NEW YORK that we ever see, it would still be a flawed masterpiece. It lacks a completeness and cohesion, but it also contains many magical moments, arguably the most complete recreation of a historical moment in the history of film, and features yet another stunning performance by one of the great actors of our time. All reasons to see this film.

Rating:
Summary: A Masterpiece
Review: After watching "Gangs" I was left feeling overwhelmed by it.
I felt as if I had been transported back to 1846.The film is a true epic and New York itself is wonderfully detailed.

The acting is superb.Daniel Day-Lewis is the true star as William Cutting,while Brendan Gleeson,Liam Neeson and Jim Broadbent are all excellent.Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz
are avrerage with unconvincing Irish accents

Scorcese does an excellent job.He brings alot of energy to the directing.The opening battle is unforgettable.It is the best piece of film-making I have seen in years.Scorcese deserves this
year's oscar

Rating:
Summary: Revisionist History <> Intense NYC Anti-Draft Riots
Review: ..... Similar to the 19th Century novels about London by Charles Dickens (like Oliver Twist), this movie by Martin Scorsese goes into gory detail about the seamy underbelly of the great American metropolis of the same period, New York City. "Gangs of New York" has been called revisionist history because it is the opposite of the Victorian Era portrayal of the earlier part of the 19th Century as the "Good Old Days". Unlike cinema of past decades, most actors here do not wear clean clothes or serve as role models.

..... Far from the notion of the Good Old Days, this saga of the Five Points ghetto of NYC's Manhatten around 1844 and 1863 shows the horrow of the squallor where Natives battled Immigrants over turf in the tenements.

..... This portrayal of the events leading up to the NYC anti-draft riots of July 1863 uses the method of historical fiction whereby the lives of unknown individuals are mixed into known histories. Gangs of NY superimposes the deadly conflict between two people (Leonardo DiCaprio as Amsterdan Vallon and Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting) as the spark that ignites the anti-draft riots.

..... The film gives an insider's view of 1863 Manhatten with inter-gang battles, corrupt Boss Tweed of Tamanny Hall, and wealthy uptown scoundrels. The real heavyweight is the Union army, trying desparately to conscript soldiers for the nation's first mandatory military call to arms.

..... I recommend this movie for history buffs who follow the civil war, and other conflicts of past centuries. It shows graphic blade and bludgeon combat, which is not for the faint of heart, and a few love scenes with mild nudity. It you want to feel happy this week (January 2003), go see "Maid In Manhattan". It you have young kids, "The Wild Thornberrys Movie" is for you.

..... The ending cannot be called happy. Lets call it a fitting end to a bitter conflict that would take more than a century to end. As long as Irish versus English rivalry persists, the ethnic groups involved in this saga will continue to have bitter hatred. Martin Scorsese is a master director, and Leonard DiCaprio is a top star. They only pick screenplays they want to take part in.

..... This is another intense choice by these artists, and history teachers should thank them for making history come alive. Critics may dispute this saga's authencity, but that should spur them to delve into the books that are the best judge of this epic's authenticity.

Rating:
Summary: Scorsece's Best
Review: Okay, first let me say that this was by far Scorsece's best work. All the reviews I've read so far are extremely negative, citing the graphic violence in the film as a reason not to like it. Can I please just say that it's a movie about gangs in the 1800s, one of the most violent periods in America's history? Did all those reviewers expect roses and pleasantries? Yes, it was violent, exceedingly so in some parts, but that's how life was in NY at the time and it suited the tone of the film perfectly. As well, Leonardo DiCaprio was outstanding in the film (except for the sporadic Irish accent). He hasn't been this good since What's Eating Gilbert Grape.
Go see this movie. It was breathtaking and shocking and utterly spectacular.

Rating:
Summary: Amazing Movie
Review: This movie may have its flaws, but its an amazing piece of history that most people don't know about.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Amsterdam Vallon, sent away after his father is killed, he comes back from reform school to advenge the death of his father, killed by Bill Cutting, aka. Bill the Butcher. Amsterdam takes his time, gets into Bill's crowd and learns the ropes, falls in love on the way, but finally Amsterdam finds the moment to avenge his father killing on the anniversay of this killing. He gets beaten up by Bill, left scarred, but rises again to finally find a way politically to put a stop to the ways of the Butcher, with the killing of the Irish elected offical the "Monk", Amsterdam decides the only way to get rid of Bill the Butcher is to get the gangs together and have an out and out battle, but the Draft Riots get in the way of this battle and the Army steps in, but Amsterdam does get his revenge in the final analysis. Leonardo's character wasn't as flamboyant or colorful as Daniel Day Lewis's, but Leo's character tells alot by eye expressions, you care about what happens to Amsterdam and Jenny, not about Bill the Butcher. I think a lot of Amsterdam got edited out, but all in all, this is an amazing movie, right down to the sets, costumes, etc. beautifully photographed.

Rating:
Summary: Messy Melange of a Movie
Review: Creme brulee, Nebraska steak, a good Merlot, a Guinness stout. All wonderful but put them together in a bowl and you get a mess. That's how this movie played out to me. Story components ("Tribal" warfare, Tammany, draft riots) with a lot of potential but which, as told, made no sense together.

Then there were foreshadowings that didn't, stock scenes, and undeveloped plot facets -- Conspiratorial meetings between Leo and the Chinese that are never explained. Hate me love me meetings between Leo and Cameron that seemed more worthy of a Sandra Bullock movie. A disgraced Leo's ability to attract Tammany's attention and unite the Irish in under 5 minutes...

It all leads up to an anti-climax that had many in the audience letting out chuckles -- Bill and his ninja attacks on Leo (that's honorable fighting?), McGloin bullrushing 5 soldiers with rifles aimed armed only with a knife?! Made no sense to me or some of the other folks in the theater

Sorry to all those playing this up as Oscar material but I just don't see it