Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: We've come a long way
Review: Perfectionist Martin Scorsese unleashes another opera of carnage just in time for awards season. Many have commented on how it was too violent, that they didn't know how brutal it would be going in, etc. One of the few things I liked about "Gangs of New York" was how much of the violence was implied. Yes, it could have been a lot bloodier. Reading accounts of some of the horrors that went on in the real New York draft riots of 1863, you understand that Scorsese does an adequate job of giving an impression of what went on, but doesn't go too far.

It's at this ending that I'll begin sizing up the legendary director's work. New York's Lower East Side is a firecracker waiting to be lit, something that the film up to this point has tried to illustrate. Lincoln's Draft Conscription Act, passed by Congress in April 1863, lit the fuse. The city of the nation's largest port and largest immigrant population, already torn apart by racial violence, took out their hatred on draft officials, then police (because of their support of the draft officials), then the city's upper class (for their ability to buy their boys out of the draft for a 'commutation fee') and worst of all, African Americans. This group suffered by far the brunt of the violence.

Scorsese's aim seems to be to open people's eyes about this period of history. Americans have taken a largely one sided view of the Civil War. Like many of its historians, filmmakers like Scorsese want to provide reminders of how we came to arrive at where we are today. The North was not as unified as many believe. Lincoln may not have been the saint that elementary school history books make him out to be. History's perception of him has rested on his political actions and their outcomes--not his private conversations. It's rested on the ends he reached, not the means. We need to hear the messages of "Gangs of New York" very much right now. It's time to face the facts of history. Scorsese paints a grim, but at its core true, picture of late 19th century America. Trouble is, Scorsese's main narrative here fails to deliver the most important elements of the messages. There are too many. I found "Gangs" to be more educational than entertaining. I was fascinated by the history--not the story or the characters.

Daniel Day-Lewis' William (Bill the Butcher) Cutting is one of the most interesting, colorful characters I've seen in a film recently. Day-Lewis is nearly too good. He about acts his co-stars right out of every scene he's in. Leonardo DiCaprio's body of work has demonstrated he is a talent to be reckoned with (see "Catch Me If You Can" for example), but his Amsterdam Vallon is too thin a character to make much of an impression. This story, of a boy growing up with a vengeful heart, then siding up to his worst enemy just for the opportunity to set up the Butcher's public, humiliating, death at his hands, is just so familiar. It's possible to take an overdone (the you-killed-my-father-so-now-you-must-pay) story and breathe new life into it, but Scorsese doesn't--there are so many other interesting things going on that the main narrative of Amersterdam v. Cutting can't possibly compete, let alone the useless love story between he and Jenny Averdeen. Most of the film is devoted to the story, but not enough, and it's not the part of the film that you care about the most. I hate to make this comparison, but 2001's "Pearl Harbor" had the same problem. I wanted the history, not the drama. The history IS the drama. Other things just get in the way.

What we need, then, is a good documentary on New York before and during the Civil War. Who better to make such a film than Scorsese? You say no one wants to go to theaters for documentaries any more (exception: "Bowling for Columbine"). With Scorsese's name on it, maybe people would go. I will say though, that if I'd seen a documentary on the Five Points gangs and the draft riots, I'd think to myself, this would make a great narrative feature. And that would be fine, because the documentary would have come first.

So Scorsese's thirst for a great story and his thirst for historical comment compete against each other and the film loses. It's a shame. "Gangs of New York" is a film I really wanted to like but, in the end, could not. Maybe it's a signal that all is as it should be, though. The director's work has never been universally praised or understood by everyone. For the most part the film will be loved by his fans because it fits the Scorsese mold well. He's one of those directors whose work is tagged a masterpiece before anyone lays eyes on it--until proven otherwise. With each passing film, we wonder, will this be the year this guy finally wins an Academy Award. Hey, Alfred Hitchcock never won. Neither director has won an Oscar OR a DGA award. And who cares about awards anyway? Certainly not Scorsese and certainly not his fans.

Rating:
Summary: AMERICA WAS BORN IN THE STREETS
Review: This was an awesome spectacle of a movie, a sprawling epic that left me breathless. "Gangs of New York" perfectly captures the dark, unglamorous side of American history. The corruption, violence, and almost unbearable chaos that reigned in mid-1800's New York is displayed in all its horrific glory. Old New York is brought to life; kudos to the set and costume designers. From a purely visual standpoint the film is a glorious piece of eye-candy. However, that's only one facet; a true pulse-pounding epic, there's hardly a dull moment in "Gangs". The pace is frenetic and the scenes explode with emotion and energy. Director Martin Scorcesee is obviously a master in his natural element, effortlessly handling a movie of this proportion with the precision of a surgeon.
One standout performance is from Daniel Day-Lewis as the main antagonist, the mob boss Billy "the Butcher" Cutting. Lewis OWNS the screen whenever he is on, bursting with style, personality, and screen presence. Day-Lewis' "Butcher" is a bigger-than-life yet ambiguous villain who is not wholly evil; he's easily the most intriguing character of the film, and the most thrilling to watch. We see that truly, it is the villain that makes or breaks a movie.
Make no mistake, this movie is exceedingly violent. Scorsesee is unapologetic at showing American history raw and uncensored, in all its brutality. Yet the violence is justified, and I wouldn't have it any other way. It is indispensible to bringing the grisely history of that terrible yet beautiful city to life. And yet that history is seductive, not in spite of, but because of its brutality. More than anything, this movie is about the birth and the making of America, away from the glamour and the sugarcoating. "Gangs of New York" never lets us forget that America was born in the streets.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but a very overrated "epic"
Review: Why are movies overrated? Why are there some movies that just don't deserve the ratings it gets? Why is Gangs Of New York considered to be "the best movie of the year?" I will tell why. This movie is only rated so highly because Of its "legendary" director (Martin Scorsese) and because of Daniel Day-Lewis's performance and because he is in it at all. Gangs Of New York is a good movie, but not the greatest thing to come out of cinema like a lot of people think. Gangs Of New York is a very mixed bag, here is why:

PROS
1. The Visual Splendor
I think the sets of Gangs Of New York are very well done. They do give the illusion to 19th century New York City. The cinematography is well done too. And Cameron Diaz looks stunning (like always).

2. The Acting (Daniel Day-Lewis)
Daniel Day-Lewis should be nominated for an oscar, let alone win. I believed that Bill "The Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis if you could not tell) really was brutal and was fearsome. Day-Lewis also does a commendable job on the accent.

3. The Score
The music was done by Howard Shore (the new Lord Of THe Rings movies) and it sometimes is very good. The song for when the immagrants are walking to go to battle with the natives is very good. It is very "militaristic" and sets the mood with the drums and the flute in the backround. Alot of the other music fits well with the corresponding scene except during the first fight (really the only one), where near the end this cheesy electric guitar slips in unoticed. This is a period picture, not an Arnold Schwarzeneggar movie! The only other problem is that the music is sparse too. Oh wait, these are the pros! It proves there aren't very many.

CONS
1. The Acting (Everyone Else)
Leonardo DiCaprio is trying to bombard us with bad acting this holiday season, Catch Me If You Can and now this! Leo is more stale that a 2-year old piece of pizza. Cameron Diaz is really just there for eye-candy. I don't think she has ever been known for her "acting ability". The supporting-cast does okay, but there is nothing spectacular here boys and girls.

2. The Story
The movie is about revenge, and we all know how it will turn out. If you are still puzzled about the done-way-too-often- ending, I won't tell you. Bill Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) hates the immagrants coming into New York. Why? Probably because he thinks that America belongs to, well Americans. But it would be nice if the filmakers would tell us. A nice back stroy would flesh out the story. Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) wants to get revenge for his father's death. He saw Bill Cutting do it (not a spoiler folks) and meets him again 16 years later and he looks the same. Yet it takes him and hour and a half to finally WANT to kill him.

3. The Length
I'm complaning because it IS 3 hours, because it IS BORING for 3 hours. My favorite movies are 3 hours (Braveheart, The Fellowship Of The Ring, The Two Towers, and The Patrio) but this is just boring. The movie is about The Draft Riots besides the mediocre revenge story, and they happen in the last 20 minutes of the movie! The whole movie is just Amsterdam respecting Bill Cutting, then hating him, then The Draft Riots happen, and finally Leo makes a group of immagrants to face the natives. The last 3 happen in the last hour of the movie. The movie has barely little action. And it is very anti-climatic.

Gangs Of New York is good, not great, not utter ..., just good. It is overrated and boring, but still is somewhat entertaining. For those who want to know, the movie IS NOT that violent. There is only like 3 parts with blood, 2 of them for 1 second. But if you want to see this movie don't expect a big breathtaking battle scene like Braveheart or The Two Towers, just expect a lot of talking. Overall I reccomend this to people who have 3 hours to spare, because you might like it. But if you might be skeptical about it, don't see it. Your money will be better spent on seeing the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd viewing of The Two Towers: the best movie ever put on film (Citizen Kane is not THAT great).

Rating:
Summary: Release the Original Director's Cut!
Review: Director Martin Scorsese's eagerly awaited "Gangs of New York" is a flawed masterpiece. It's obvious that the film should have been longer than 2 hours and 45 minutes. The first two-thirds are brilliant, highlighted by Daniel Day Lewis' bravura performance as The Butcher. Unfortunately, it soon becomes apparent that a few subplots have been jettisoned. The supporting performances of fine actors such as John C. Reilly and Liam Neeson are pared down to virtually nothing. By the time we get to the film's chaotic climax, the careful buildup of the film's narrative has been cast to the winds. Flaws and all, it's a movie worth seeing. Hopefully, Miramax will release the original version on DVD, which should be a definite improvement.

Rating:
Summary: Gangs of New York
Review: [...]I think DiCaprio plays the part just right,with such sensitivity.Bill the butcher is superb and dominates with his persona but I think they compliment eachother just right.The film is thought provoking and enjoyable something worthy of seeing .I would like to see the full film,perhaps it will be brought out on DVD in an uncut version.

Rating:
Summary: very disappointing
Review: In spite of all the hype, this false, laborious, simple-minded, and underfelt behemoth may well be Scorsese's worst movie. The flashy editing seems heavy-handed, more music video than serious story-telling. The plot is poorly presented, often hard to follow and the characterization is next to non-existent. Even the most basic narrative skills are shaky here. Daniel Day Lewis and Cameron Diaz are wasted and DiCaprio is seriously miscast. The sets are fake looking, the performances unconvincing, and the camerawork self-conscious.
But I did learn something--about the amount of dishonesty among professional reviewers and various other media types (the execrable Charlie Rose) who heap dishonest praise on dishonest movies merely because of the clout of certain actors or directors. If only Pauline Kael were still around to proclaim to the ears of the lazy and pretentious that this emperor has no clothes.
Only think of the number of worthwhile projects that could have been made by less well known writers and directors for the cost of this hollow mess.

Rating:
Summary: Oscar For Lewis
Review: Very entertaining movie. I think those of us who read the book got a lot more out of the movie. Daniel Day Lewis WAS Bill the Butcher, what an outstanding performance, his part in this movie was on par with his performance in "My Left Foot". Although Leanardo DiCaprio is a very good actor I found him to be a little "soft" for a part like this, it seemed that Johny Dep or a young Sean Penn would have been a better fit (the bad boy thing) Leanardo is better suited for Catch Me If You Can and Titanic type movies. Directing, cotumes, story, and set people should start picking thier Oscar Night outfits now as they have an outstanding chance of making an apperance on stage

Rating:
Summary: Gangs of New York
Review: Thrilling ! no thought of popcorn.Imagery was dramatic costumes superb,the actors beleivable ,tension throughout.Bill was a lovable baddy,Leo as Amsterdam was charasmatic and very convincing .You felt empathy for the characters .You got a feel for the harshness of the times and power struggles in which things could easily go one way or another .I liked the confusion and sense of being lost in the struggle .I think it ambitious . Certain things were weak and could have been left out but overall it was very exiting and memorable.I can't wait to see it again. Don't trust reviews ,everyone is different, see it!

Rating:
Summary: Third-Degree Burns of New York
Review: One can only ignore a few details of a film before they overcrowd the goods the film can offer. Gangs of New York is a textbook definition of this concept.

Rather than explain the plot, I invite you to read other reviews that explain it more detail - but truly this film can be summed up with: Boy witnesses father getting murdered, disappears from neighborhood for years to get himself an education, comes back, vows revenge on the killer by infiltrating his gang. Not much more to it than that, other than a silly sub-plot involving a too contemporary, overacting performance of Cameron Diaz.

Let's start with the goods: the movie looks great. Gangs of New York is truly a spectacle - and does deserve its credit for the recreation of mid-1800s New York. I could only wish that truly overrated films like Gladiator relied less on computer graphics (which, by the way, look more like a cheap video game's graphics rather than ancient Rome) and more on craftsmanship. The film does a great job of creating mood and atmosphere, no better than in the film's opening battle scene. Daniel Day-Lewis is also great as Bill the Butcher, creating a memorable character here, portraying a man who lives in fear yet creates the fear in his neighborhood. Worth mentioning is the film's cinematography and costume design - stovepipe hats are coming back into style - I can feel it. The action is worth commenting on, as well. The riot battle scenes at the end are truly amazing. The film also has a brisk pace (though to someone who loathes this movie it probably feels longer).

Here's the problem: these factors don't make up for much. Day-Lewis is one character, which does not make up for the double-whammy overacting, out-of-place, awkward and just plain silly acting portrayed by Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio. Cameron Diaz doesn't prove that she's much of an actress, and if she is, it certainly can't be portrayed here. She's out of her element - playing a character that just plain doesn't fit. It's like asking Grace Kelly to play a 1990s punk rocker. Can't see it, right? Leo doesn't do much better with his come-and-go Irish accent and his desperate attempt to play the tough guy. He comes away from it just looking like he needs to shave. Forty-five minutes could have been easily cut from the film - none more painfully wanted than the love story between Leo and Diaz. Much like Jennifer Connelly in last year's A Beautiful Mind, the role could have been cut from the film - and would the viewer truly know of it? More than likely (as with Connelly), the Oscars will just award Diaz to spite the intelligence and respect of the audiences. Another substantial complaint is the usage of contemporary music during key scenes such as the cutting of the initial battle scene and the very classy finale completely ruin the impact the scenes are attempting to display.

In the end, Gangs of New York is a disappointment from Scorsese, though would probably be regarded as a true achievement from another director. Gangs of New York is still an achievement, it just doesn't feel as good coming from a master like Martin Scorsese.

Rating:
Summary: Gangs of New York
Review: As someone else put it, this film has no soul. It would appear from the detail in the sets and costumes that a lot of money was spent. But the film was too long and the plot roamed around aimlessly. I came away not really caring about any of the characters and then at the end of the film as it finally lurched to the "final" confrontation between Bill and Amsterdam. Bill is essentially killed by shrapnel from cannon fired from the harbor. Except for the great sets and "atmosphere", the movie was a waste of time.