Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: Easily the best of 2002
Review: I honestly can't see why so many reviewers on this site seem to dislike this film. While it's apparently getting good reviews from critics, it seems as though quite a few people who have seen it think of it as nothing special. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I wasn't let down at all by "Gangs Of New York". In a year rife with movies that were hardly worth seeing, "Gangs", for me, is a welcome break from the typical, light hearted, "feel good" movies, that have inhabited the theaters this year. "Gangs" was worth the wait.

I've heard people complain about various elements of the movie (it's too long, too violent, has an uninteresting plot, boring characters, etc.) but I thought it was fantastic. I didn't find the movie's length (about 2 hours and 40 minutes) to be bothersome at all. I honestly don't think I would've enjoyed the movie half as much had it been significantly shorter. The violence isn't nearly as gruesome or frequent as some would have you beleive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that it qualifies as one of the more violent movies of the year, but it's not like someone walking into this movie would be shocked to learn that people actually die in it. Taking into consideration the nature of the movie, the violence should be expected. As for the plot and the characters, I suppose it primarily depends on your own personal taste, but I thought it had one of, if not the, most interesting stories of any movie in 2002. While the premise is somewhat basic (a man trying to avenge the murder of his father), the story manages to be quite original. Without giving too much away, the story focuses on Amsterdam Vallon, son of Priest Vallon, the leader of an immigrant gang known as the Dead Rabbits. In the opening of the movie, young Amersterdam witnesses his father's death at the hands of Bill the Butcher (leader of a rival, anti-immigrant gang of native New Yorkers)in a gang fight. Years later, Amsterdam returns, set on killing the Butcher. There's obviously more to the story, but I don't want to reveal too much.

As far as the performances and directing go, Daniel Day Lewis gives one of the best performances I've seen as the villian of the movie, Bill the Butcher. I wouldn't be surprised to see him taking a few awards for his work. DiCaprio doesn't do a bad job as Amsterdam Vallon either. Not being a big fan of DiCaprio, I wasn't expecting much, but he did turn out a good performance. Cameron Diaz does a great job in her role as a pickpocket, not to mention the romantic interest of Amsterdam. But, the highlight of the film for me, was the direction of Martin Scorsese. One of the most talented directors in history and arguably the best director ever as far as his visual work, Scorsese demonstrates some of his best work here. While I've yet to find anyone to agree with me on this point, I feel that this is his best picture to date. As I understand it, "Gangs" has been a personal passion of his for quite a while. Watching the movie, you can see the care that went into every detail of the film. The set and costume designs are excellent and, while I don't claim to be an expert on 1860's New York City, appear to be true to the times. The camera work is incredible, as is typical of Scorsese films. It's nothing short of visually stunning.

Out of all the films I saw in 2002, I can't think of one that's on the same level as "Gangs of New York". One of the best movies I've seen in a while, it definitly ranks as one of my favorite films.

Rating:
Summary: Dittos: Nihilism + Revisionism + Goth
Review: I totally agree with the previous reviewer (science fiction). I walked out of the theater feeling like I wasted my money and time. And worse yet it left me depressed. By its gross distortion of reality and history, this deconstructionist movie embodies director's worship of evil and hatred for true heros.

When I got home we did some research into the time period and found that a lot of the history was inaccurate. For example: The Irish poor hated the Negroes and feared that emancipation of the southern slaves would cause the blacks to take Irish jobs. This was the main motive for the Irish poor opposing the Union cause and the draft. One of the main buildings attacked by the Irish during the Draft Riots was an African American church and orphanage. Furthermore, the main character, Vallon, played by diCaprio, never existed. Nor did diCaprio's acting talent.

Rating:
Summary: To The Reviewer Paul McGrath
Review: Dear Reviewer Paul McGrath,

All of what you queried upon and then so self-righteously set to fire, as would correspond to your Puritan ancestry, was explained quite blatantly in the film.

1, The opening street fight: Have you ever been to the ghettos, friend? When there are gang fights, the cops try to stay the hell out of the way and let the thugs kill one another, and save their own hides. Look what happens later on in the film as well. Bill the Butcher controls everything! Every the police guy walks around, under his orders and payroll.

2, Why DiCaprio-Amsterdam waits so long to kill Bill the Butcher: He explicated it in the voiceover! When you want to kill a king, kill him where everyone is looking! Maybe you slept through that part of the film.

3, Diaz's character has a love affair with Bill the Butcher because, as she tells Amsterdam before she makes love to him, Bill took her in when she was young and had no where to go, and she never let him 'lay a finger' on her until she 'asked him to'.

4, "Day-Lewis, hates the Irish--he goes to the docks to curse at them as they come off the boat--yet nevertheless employs dozens of them as his closest lieutenants." You've never seen this happen before? Didn't the southerner hate blacks but still employ them as slaves? You're making ridiculous assumptions.

5, Your description of New York as a hell-hole: no, NOT NY, the 5-points! The quote unquote ghettos!

6, And how do the characters have no redeeming quality? Bill is evil, but he's also a patriot, respects his enemies - he commemorates the 'great man' Priest Vallon, he takes Diaz's character in, doesn't rape her. And how about Monk, the Irish Sheriff? Instead of settling for just money as he wanted initially to join in the gang fight, he actually scavenged the Priest's body to safekeep and item of his. And he did lead his people, ran for office. And Diaz turns from Bill's woman, (tramp), and thief, to lover because of Amsterdam. And did you see the regret on Amsterdam's face on the last battle scene? No Redemptive quality?

Rating:
Summary: My Very First Scorsese
Review: Yes, hard to believe that I've managed to miss "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull", but "Gangs of New York" is truly my first foray into the films of Martin Scorsese. If this is any indication of what goes on in them, it may just be my last.

I had only just "heard" about this movie, and that it had something to do with 19-century New York when Marion asked me if I wanted to see it. As an amateur historian of NYC, I had no problem with that! First word that comes to mind after having seen it? Violent. Second? Disgusting. It only gets worse after that.

Once upon a time in New York, the Irish were trash living in a filthy and dangerous section known as the Five Points. Irish gangs battled Nativist know-nothing gangs in riotous situations. While it is true that 19-century Five Points was a hotbed of crime and debauchery, I seriously doubt whether Boss Tweed would kowtow to anyone like Daniel Day-Lewis, the de facto king of Five Points. DD-L is indeed the best part of the movie, sounding oddly enough like an imitation of Robert De Niro. Yet, much though his performance is a tour de force, I cannot truly recommend this movie to anyone, because of the excessive violence depicted in telling the story. For instance, when DD-L becomes angry with Leonardo DiCaprio for doublecrossing him, he proceeds to stab him, brand him with a white-hot knife blade, and fairly beat him to death with his own forehead! And this wasn't even the climax of the movie.

For me, this was just a question of endurance as to whether I really would be able to stay to the end. Gentle Marion had long ago buried her face in her hands to block out the images on screen. Concluded with an incongruous and ugly rock music score over the end credits.

Bottom line? Vicious, overly violent movie, not much fun at alll.

Rating:
Summary: Aimless, helpless, ultimately pointless
Review:

I went into this movie with high expectations. Because I expected it to rock like The Godfather, I avoided all teasers, spoilers, and even refused to watch the trailers or commercials. With Daniel Day Lewis, DiCaprio, and Diaz, I thought this would be a total blockbuster.

This movie stunk. This movie is a good example of huge aspirations with the budget to back them, but no coherent plot. Who were the heroes in this movie? What was their goal? What about DiCaprio's lower abdomen puncture? I guess it miraculously healed in the catacombs. But why was he scarring himself on the cheek later in the movie? There are so many loose ends in this flick that it drove me nuts.

This movie is supposed to be about the gangs that ruled the underworld of old New York City, circa 1860s. Anyone who's read about New York knows that the street gangs of that day and age were pretty bad. In a city of about 800,000, you had close to 50,000 gangsters, 30,000 prostitutes and white slaves, and about 20,000 pickpockets. It was definitely a colorful and dangerous world about which a cool story could be told.

This movie attempts to do so, but it first has to disregard the fact that it doesn't even show the gangs in a positive light. If you're going to root for the gangsters, you have to show how they're at least the good guys, right? But no, all it shows DiCaprio, Lewis and Diaz doing is robbing, stealing, killing, smoking opium, and fighting one another. How could you possibly care about these folks? They're the worst kind of scum imaginable. And what was the deal with Diaz's abortion? Why did it happen? The movie never explains that, only that she has a big scar from a back-alley type abortion.

I suppose you could root for DiCaprio, since the movie was ostensibly about him getting revenge for his father's slaying. at the hands of Daniel Day Lewis. But by the time you get to that point, you like Lewis's character more than DiCaprio's. So, the movie implies a bunch of stuff about the corruption of America, how politicians and rich people are evil, and how the country exploits immigrants. Granted, there are lots of ways to show the underclass rooting against oppression and corruption, but you first have to make it look like the underdogs are worthy of triumph, which this movie didn't do. By the end, you're just glad they are killing themselves off.

At the very least, you'd think you could get some good violence out of the movie. But, no, it's all implied violence. You hear the knife hit and the actor starts choking. This gets annoying, because you don't actually see what's happening. A point in case is when, in the bar, people are betting on some type of match between a dozen rats and a terrier. They throw all the animals into a pit, but they dont' show what the dog and rats are doing? Is the terrier supposed to kill them all in some amount of time, or you lose the bet? Well, it doesn't say, it just distracts you for a minute.

Throughout the movie, it shows the rich people of New York as being a hundred times better than the underclass. Yet, I guess, we were supposed to root for the underclass. The rich set up missions and charities in the impoverished areas, the rich are clean and reverent and civil, so, when the gangs start killing them during the draft riot scene, you only feel bad for them. I'm not sure this was the director's intention. In fact, the director's intentions were totally lost in this mess.

There was also something in this movie about the US being bad, and the American dream being corrupt and, ultimately, dying. But this was dealt with so loosely and ineptly that you couldn't help but laugh at the cliches and overt symbolism. Daniel Day Lewis, a rabid American 'native,' had a glass eye with an eagle in it. After federal troops and ironclads blow the hell out of the rioters in the end of the flick, and Lewis' eyelids close over the eagle eye, I think I was supposed to feel like our country had lost something great. But what was lost? This guy was a total barbaric gangster, I was glad he was dead. But I would have been happier if DiCaprio died. He's a good actor, but the only expression he was allowed to give in this movie was the furrowed brow.

Speaking of acting, Daniel Day Lewis did a great job. But his efforts were totally lost on this mess. DiCaprio really didn't have much to work with.

Another thing that was unintentionally hilarious was DiCaprio's 'maiming.' Lewis was supposed to have disfigured him so he would walk among the poor of Five Points in shame for his betrayal. In the next scene, DiCaprio is healing in a catacomb, and it's all shot in shadow, so you expect DiCaprio is going to be totally deformed. Well, the only disfigurement he suffers is a little burn scar on one cheek. He still looks better than almost all the guys in the flick! Weak. Also, he somehow miraculously healed from a knife wound to the lower abdomen, which, even in these days, is almost guaranteed to provide you with a colostomy bag for the rest of your life. And at the end of the movie, he gets hamstrung on each leg by Lewis, but is somehow able to walk without a limp. Hmmmm.

Also, if you were wondering how he got so many scars on his chest, yes, the ones that Diaz so poignantly kisses during the love scene, well, that's answered almost at the end of the movie when DiCaprio is caught inexplicably cutting his own cheek with a razor. This makes almost as much sense as Lewis walking around wrapped in an American flag and talking about all his evil deeds.

The worst part of the movie may have been the riot montage, over which there was a 1930's style radio announcer voiceover. This is intercut with images of men tapping out telegrams, so you know the voiceover is by people reading the telegrams. This almost works, but it doesn't.

This movie was a total waste of celluloid. I guess you could give it stars for set design, casting, and costumes, but the lack of a coherent plot and the total inability of the director to develop any semblance of good guys or bad guys in this movie takes away from that. If you love Scorsese and were hoping for a great film, you won't get it. Definitely save yourself a couple of hours and a couple dollars by waiting for the rental release on DVD, which, given the unpopularity of this flick, won't follow long after the theatrical release.

-- JJ Timmins

Rating:
Summary: Coping with the propaganda
Review: Let me suggest a couple strategies to cope with the overwhelming propaganda surrounding this awful movie:

STRATEGY 1: Don't see this movie until somebody you know personally gives you their feedback - preferably somebody that does not tend to consider themself a movie sophisticate. Be suspicious of reviews that dwell on Martin Scorsese and his resume (like many of positive reviews here and elsewhere). When you pay to see Gangs of New York, you will not actually meet Mr. Scorsese, nor will you see any of his previous works - you will only see Gangs of New York, which is terrible.

STRATEGY 2: If you can't resist the propaganda and you're compelled to put your money down, only see this movie in one of those multi-theatre complexes where you can walk out and see something else. If you don't thoroughly enjoy the first 10 minutes, leave immediately. For the most part, you'll only miss an additional 158 minutes of knifings. True, the filmmaker later adds-in gunfire, and even some cannons toward the end. Also true, the blood-moisten snow later becomes puddles of blood, and eventually a spurting stream at the climax. But theses desperate attempts to distract you from the broken plot, unbelievable characters, and their even less believable relationships will ultimately fail. You'll just find yourself increasingly annoyed at the film's historical pretense, as well as all its other transparent attempts at manipulation.

EXCEPTIONS: Consider seeing this movie if:

(1) You're profoundly A.D.D. and frequently enjoy violent video games.
(2) You're a very close relative of Daniel Day-Lewis. For almost everyone else, his exceptional performance is insufficient consolation for the embedding failure. When he wins his Oscar, the propaganda will crescendo. Just stick to the above strategies.

Rating:
Summary: True Or Not, It's Still A Great Film
Review: There's been a lot of flack directed at Gangs of New York for it's supposed "Historical Inaccuracies". I can't add anything except this: If you go to the movies for your History Lessons, something's wrong with you. If you go to be entertained, Gangs of New York is just the ticket.

Based on Herbert Asbury's turn-of-the-century book, Gangs tells the epic tale of the Five-Points section of Manhattan, and the colorful gangs (The Dead Rabbits, The Plug Uglies, The Swamp Angels, The Nativists, etc.) that ruled her mean streets.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Amsterdam Vallon, who witnessed his father "Priest" Vallon 's murder at the hands of Bill "The Butcher" (The amazing Daniel Day-Lewis) as a child, and in typical movie fashion, swore revenge. Amsterdam is released from reform school sixteen years later, and heads off to kill the Butcher. Along the way we get the usual romance, with Cameron Diaz acquitting herself well as pickpocket Jenny Everdeane, despite the fact that she isn't really given much to do in the film.

Like other Historical epics (Titanic, Pearl Harbor, Saving Private Ryan), Gangs takes the central topic and places fictional characters into the action. Although there really WAS a Bill the Butcher, he died well before the draft riots that end the film. Director Martin Scorcese deserves high marks for bringing a piece of seldom-seen American history to the screen. Despite it's nearly three-hour length, Scorcese keeps the film moving briskly along, and the opening battle, an exquisitely grotesque symphony of violence, is worth the price of admission alone. Only Scorcese could make such savagery seem beautiful...

The performances are all good, but Daniel Day-Lewis is a revelation as the charming and deadly Bill the Butcher; He blows everyone else off the screen. If he doesn't win Best Actor at The Academy Awards it'll be another black eye to their selection process. Hopefully Scorcese will get some long overdue recognition as well. While Gangs isn't his best film, it's still head-and-shoulders above most of 2002's movies. Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Don Scorsese, eh?
Review: There are many notable things about this - a powerful movie, by a very adroit person called Martin Scorsese behind it.

But the most important thing to note is that, this movie places the emphasis on the camera work, which creates a real effect suitable to the nature of the script. Compared to this, the cast is pushed behind, and the force of the tale is really spellbinding.

Both Leonardo DiCaprio and Daniel Day-Lewis were terrific.

Don't you miss it.

Rating:
Summary: You know what's great about this movie?
Review: You KNOW there's going to be gang members from New York walking out early.

Rating:
Summary: Gory instead of Story: A terrible movie
Review: This is a horrible movie. There are only two good things about it: Daniel Day-Lewis and the song by U2. I don't blame the other actors; they tried. They just had nothing to work with. The director and producers should be ashamed of themselves. It's a total mess. You don't know the characters, there is no story worth talking about (though you know there is one somewhere in there) and from what I understand it is filled with historical mistakes. In fact, the biggest one was all the fighting, which was agonizing to watch. It has more blood and gore than anyone could stand in a lifetime, let alone in an overlong 3 hour movie. Do yourself a favor and take the money you'd spend on this and go see almost anything else. Or better yet, donate the money to someone needy, like the real poor of New York.