Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: A wonderful work of ART....
Review: Salmon Rushdie wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times last week that helped me frame my thoughts on why this is a great film. He said that unlike the 2nd RING film currently playing in theaters, where the "good" and "bad" guys are clearly drawn, the GANGS OF NEW YORK has no good and bad guys. Rushdie went on to suggest that all wars are gang wars, and that it is hard most of the time to determine who is good and who is bad.

There are those who think the U.S. Civil War was a "good" war, but the GANGS OF NY goes a long way to show that the victors had a dark and sordid side. Towards the end of the war, to defeat the South, the Union threw Irish and other immigrants at the Southern cannon like so much fodder.

The Gangs of New York have always been as varied as the culture of New York. As a major port of entry into the New World, most immigrants passed though New York at some point (even before Ellis Island), and many of them migrated on to other parts of what became the United States. In 1864, when most of the action in this film takes place, there were no Italian gangs in New York as another reviewer suggested. The Italians came to the United States in great numbers later in the 19th and the early 20th centuries. They formed gangs to fight the Irish who by that time were the "natives" of New York City. The Catholic Irish began arriving in the U.S. early in the 1840s when the Potato famine kicked and they came and they came, millions of them.

Earlier waves of Scots-Irish Protestants came before the American Revolution (in droves and droves) so the "natives" in this film are largely of Scots-Irish, English, and Dutch descent (and hence Orangemen). So, Daniel Day Lewis' character, William Cutting a.k.a. "the butcher" may very well be descended from the Protestant Irish/English/Dutch mix. The film does not tell us. And, the gang fighting may be a continuation of the fight between Protestants and Catholics started in the Old World.

Several million Catholic Irish died in Ireland before the mostly Protestant English began to export them to the U.S. The Catholic Irish came in such huge numbers, the mostly Protestant "natives" were overwhelmed and terrified. Many of the Protestant natives had ancestors who had fled religious persecution in Europe (for example, the Huguenots and the Puritans). Most of the natives were very afraid of the Catholic church, a religious power that crossed International boundaries, and under the control of an Italian Pope.

THE GANGS OF NEW YORK is an important film because it is relatively historically accurate, in spite of omitting much of the contextual material. The Catholic Irish had a hell-of-a-time both in Ireland and in New York, where they were conscripted by the (Protestant) U.S. government and sent to fight the Confederacy. Hence the "Conscription Riots" in New York. Hence, the hatred of Southerners for Catholics who were listed along with Jews and Blacks as the "target" groups for the Ku Klux Klan. The descendants of the groups who formed the gangs of New York are now intermarried and blended into a latively "homogeneous" melting pot that views other sorts of immigrants with "different" religious backgrounds with suspicion.

This is a bloody, bloody film. Young boys who like violence (and belong to gangs??) should thoroughly enjoy it. Historians will appreciate it to some extent. The rest of the public will be horrified to think that Americans have such a bloody past.

Rating:
Summary: 25 years and $100 million in the making...
Review: Scorcese originally planned for this be shot in 1977. It never came about. But here we are in 2002 and this film finally sees its release. Maybe that was too long to put this on the side and keep thinking about how it was going to be made. It's a wonderful film with a solid cast and some truly amazing scenes (however I'm not talking about the battle scenes), but I feel like it should have been more of an epic. It didn't necessarily come across that way.

Several version of this film were put together ranging from 2.5 hours to almost 4 hours and the final cut sits at 2 hours and 48 minutes. I certainly don't feel like I missed anything or noticed something requiring more development, but I just wonder if this film was too short. Should it have been over three hours? Give one time to truly feel like they are a bystander at the Five Points in New York City who can almost smell what's going on? I'll never know since this is the "director's cut". There won't be any other version that comes out on DVD.

Again, the acting was truly wonderful. Danial Day-Lewis plays a marvelous perfomance as Bill the Butcher...he's scary, ominous, makes you act on your best behaviour around him...just like Leo's character does.

The production quality equally impressive. I mean, they built this city in Rome to shoot the movie and the attention to detail is near flawless. It's elaborate, it's grand, *it* is epic, but the movie still isn't....

But it is Scorcese. No question...it's bloody, it's magnificent, and some scenes you watch in amazement wondering "how did he....?"....in particular, one scene where in one shot you live the life of a new immigrant fresh off the boat coming into the country, enlisting in the service, getting suited up and you're back on a boat again to go fight....it's a memorable scene to watch and my favorite by far. The battle scenes were too short in my opinion. The opening sequence was good but it stopped short of where it could have really gone. I didn't feel like I was connecting with the characters just yet and needed more time to truly feel saddened by the loss of Leo's father played by Liam Neeson.

Regardless it's well worth a watch. Miramax could use a new marketing strategy though. Releasing this film on only 1500 screens initially was the worst thing they could do to a film of this magnitude. Why deny so many the plesaure of what they consider an "epic"?

Rating:
Summary: A Spectacular Film!
Review: Martin Scorsese has directed a moving and impressive film. He has captured the "feel" and "look" of New York City in the 1840s and 1860s, with incredible sets, a terrific script, and wonderful performances (particularly by Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher). The focus of the story is on the relationship between Bill (the nativist leader with a "patriotic" glass eye that he taps with a knife, and a butcher of animals and men) and Amsterdam (the young Irish-American, played by Leonardo DiCaprio). Bill kills the youngster's father, a priest (played all too briefly by Liam Neeson), then later makes Amsterdam his right-hand man (giving him pointers on maiming and killing), and finally becomes his enemy. Day-Lewis is magnificent in this role, which he plays with gusto, humor, and a wonderful accent. DiCaprio is less dynamic, but nevertheless effective as the son bent on revenge.

In the background, for most of the film, is the Civil War and its effects on the people of the city, especially the young Irish immigrants who must serve in the Union army.

I was forewarned about the violence in Gangs of New York. I am pleased to report that it was not excessively graphic. These were, after all, violent times, and draft riots and gang wars could not be shown as tea parties.

This was one of the best films that I saw in 2002, along with The Pianist, Frida, Adaptation, and Insomnia. Go and see it!

Rating:
Summary: There's a lot of noise out there....
Review: for Scorsese's epic (and it is an epic)new film, "The Gangs of New York", and I'm not sure what all the noise is about. Given all of his skills, his vision and the budget granted to this film, Scorsese has indeed done a fine job. The sets and costuming are phenomenal. The screenplay is odd...too long and rambling prior to Amsterdam's inevitable split with Bill the Butcher, and perhaps too short afterward. The screenwriters deliver some excellent dialogue, but definitely did not do justice to the part of Amsterdam, who is somewhat of a lackluster hero. By contrast, the part of Bill the Butcher is perhaps one of the finest roles seen in recent films, or is it just the incredible skill of Daniel Day Lewis, who undoubtedly should take an Academy Award this year (watch for him to be nominated for Supporting Actor, so that Hollywood can save the top award for someone who undoubtedly cannot match Day Lewis' skill)? The other performers are just shadows in the film by comparison, although John J. Reilly shines in the brief moments he is given. DiCaprio does well in his role, but cannot shine because it is underwritten. Compare his presence to the Braveheart character, and you will see what I mean...he seems a reluctant, "smaller than life" hero.

Given that the film rambled unnecessarily, the bulk of the cast was adequate, the screenplay flawed (Yes, this compression of several decades of NYC history into a short period of time was indefensible, but nevertheless enlightening. History books treat this time as all Civil War and the struggle for slavery, never showing all the other political dynamics of a 50 year period.)...this film is still visually stunning and awe-inspiring. You must be able to stomach Scorsese's brand of violence, and still find the great city of old fascinating, despite the squalor, but you will still leave the theater dumbstruck by the spectacle you just witnessed.

Is there an academy award here? Yes...for Day Lewis, and special effects and costumes. For Scorsese...probably a nomination, but definitely not as good as his efforts in GoodFellas.

A landmark film, but could have been better.

Rating:
Summary: Gangs of N.Y.
Review: Gangs of New York is one of those movies that could have been a lot better or could have been a lot worse. Martin Scorsese, the director, is arguably the best in the business and under his belt are already some of the greatest movies in film history (Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Kundun... etc) This film is not up to par with those previous movies.

"Gangs" starts out with a battle in the Five Points of New York with Priest Vallon (Neeson) and the Irish immigrants against the Nativists led by the terrifying Bill the Butcher (Day-Lewis does a great job here and should earn an Oscar). Through a (rather cheap) manuver, Bill kills Vallon and leaves his son orphaned. The rest of the movie is relatively scripted and offers little surprise; Amsterdam (Priest's son) returns for revenge. This movie is filled with buckets of blood and gore and nudity (At times seemingly unnecessary).

Despite its stunning set pieces and glorious violence, I felt disappointed by the heaviness of the script. With the exception of Day-Lewis, I felt the other actors were constrained by their roles and were not able to deliver their best performances. And to all who have seen the film, I think it is fair to say that the last "battle" between Bill and Amsterdam was a huge disappointment. Although this film is richly atmospheric and beautifully shot, I still can't comprehend why under the direction of a maestro such as Scorsese, this ambitious epic did not assert itself as one of the greatest.

Rating:
Summary: Gangs of New York was superb
Review: Gangs of New York was just as I expected it to be. The movie was full of action and the actors gave excellent performances. All two hours and forty-five minutes was worth it. There was not a boring moment. Everyone got their fill of blood and gore for awhile. Leonardo DiCaprio and Daniel Day-Lewis were superb in the film. The acting was superb except for DiCaprio's Irish accent which was extremely horrible and sounded like a cross between an Englishman and someone from the South. He did a great job playing Amsterdam Vallon even though the accent was off. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a lot of action, blood, and gore.

Rating:
Summary: Epic, Flawed Gangs Needs Big Screen
Review: The 168 minute GANGS OF NEW YORK is a huge epic combining fiction and fictional characters with a few historical ones (Boss Tweed, Horace Greely), real places and events (the 1863 Draft Riots) with tall tales, and legends all being driven by a simplistic story of revenge. It's a flawed, depressing film, filled with brutality and bigotry. It contains brilliant sequences and memorable acting and should be seen on the big screen.

The film has a lesson to share about progress --what it is, what it means, and how little progress has taken place in the last few hundred years. The U.S. definition of progress has always been one fueled by money and greed that says the ends justify the means-even means that include murder, and racial cleansing. Time and some whitewashing will cause unpleasant historic events to fade away. GANGS OF NEW YORK pretends to be the warts and all history. It's science fiction actually, or as Scorcese has said: "it's like a western only set on Mars."

Martin Scorcese last indulged himself in the works of Italian filmmakers, particularly the neo-realists to create one of the best documentaries on film you'll ever see, MY VOYAGE TO ITALY. The influence of him revisiting the films that made him fall in love with film in the first place is evident all over GANGS OF NEW YORK. He has borrowed from the Neo-Realists he loves, and also from David Lean, Sergio Leone, Sam Peckinpah, Fellini, Goddard and others to create homages to the filmmakers he loves .

The film has among the best production design work you're ever likely to see. It seems no detail, no matter how small has been overlooked or short changed. Fingernails are dirty, teeth are not always white, several characters have greasy unkempt hair. The costumes, props, set dressings, the infamous jar of ears...great stuff. Huge sets were built to allow for big wide shots that one rarely sees in period films. We see a coach spraying people to help fight lice and cholera, neighborhood fire companies brawl with each other letting an apartment house burn and then raid the building next door for goods before it burns down. A theater production of Uncle Tom's Cabin is created, complete with a levitating Abe Lincoln character. These are all-memorable and colorfully realized sequences showing us another world, another life we have never seen before.

One of the most glaring flaws is how the period feel established right from the start of the film is temporarily derailed when a modern driving film score music is used in the first battle scene. Perhaps we're dealing with a concession, a battle that Scorcese lost with Harvey Weinstein-but I doubt it, it could be the work of Howard Shore or Robbie Robertson we are seeing.

The best reason for seeing the film is to witness one of the most colorful, riveting and daring performance you're ever likely to witness. Daniel Day Lewis delivers the kind of performance people will talk about for decades. It's a balanced tight-rope without a net performance, but Daniel Day Lewis never falls or conjures up a safety rope of camp or self parody. Daniel Day Lewis' exaggerated way of walking for example is about his character navigating along sometimes slippery and muddy streets with fancier shoes than he should be wearing and not a ham actor's affectation. His energy allows us to enjoy being in the presence of malevolence and so makes the character believable as a powerful leader. The trust that both Scorcese and Day-Lewis must have had for each other is remarkable-it's the kind that allowed DeNiro to create his Travis Bickle (Taxi-Driver), Jake LaMotta (Raging Bull) and Rupert Pupkin (King of Comedy) for Scorcese two decades ago. You can also be assured Scorcese is not softening or playing it too safe when you see this performance.

Leonard DeCaprio doesn't ruin the film by not being in the same league as the other actors. The rest of the cast treat him as if he is their equal and so he fades into an every man kind of blandness. His character should be intense and full of confidence and resourfulness. Since he spent 16 years in a tough reformatory he should be hard and cunning, perhaps bitter and cold. Instead DeCaprio seems naïve, innocent and too frail and angelic to witness the cruelty and brutality he sees constantly. One thing that drove me crazy is how DeCaprio's Amsterdam, often looks away from unpleasant things. His father had told him to NEVER look away. Yet, he is constantly looking away and Scorcese lets him without using it to make a point. It's hard to empathize with someone you want to slap. Johnny Depp would have been a better choice.

Cameron Diaz has taken on a role that could have been particularly thankless. She doesn't let DeCaprio drag her down into blandness, but allows her energy and spark to reflect effectively off of him. She is the only strong female character in the entire film.

The rest of the supporting characters are colorful scalawags for the most part and played by interesting actors who have big voices and charisma to burn.. Jim Broadbent is positively Shakespearean in his portrayal of Boss Tweed a powerful political force (and based on a real historical character). Liam Neeson isn't around for too long, but makes the lasting impression he needs to. John C. Reilly and especially Brendon Gleeson are perfectly cast and know when less is more. Few actors seem to understand their charisma and use it as flawlessly as Gleeson does.

--Christopher J. Jarmick co-wrote the critically acclaimed The Glass Cocoon with Serena F. Holder. His reviews, articles and interviews are featured in Cult Cuts Magazine.

Rating:
Summary: A New York Story
Review: Daniel Day-Lewis was coaxed out of a 5 year self imposed exile from screen work, to play Bill "the Butcher" Cutting in Martin Scorcese's epic of gang warfare in Civil War era Manhattan. This film is about a hidden history of New York. It is the story of Boss Tweed's (Jim Broadbent) struggle to wrest power from the tribes and clans of Paradise Square in the now defunct area of Five Points in Manhattan. Five Points became a settlement of Irish "rabble", newly freed slaves and Asians in the mid-1800s and became a painful and bloody theater of resistance to attempts by Tammany Hall and Abraham Lincoln's administration to impose order upon an area as wild as any in the wild, wild west. It is Scrorcese's beautifully, but brutally coreographed scenes of gang warfare and the sprawling street life in Paradise Square that will make "Gangs of New York" a classic film.

Daniel Day-Lewis' Bill the Butcher simply overwhelms all of the other actors in the movie. Liam Nesson's Irish patriarch is the only character that comes close to Day-Lewis's performace and he is killed in the opening scene of the movie. Daniel Day-Lewis' return to the screen may be the best role this talented Oscar winning actor has ever done. Bill the Butcher is a cross between Patrick Buchannan and Don Coreleone but I would imagine that the Italian mafia would be promptly "whacked" by Bill the Butcher's cudgel and meat cleaver weilding minions. These gangs are really tough, and getting "mid-evil" with their opponents is not a figure of speech from a Quentin Tarrentino movie. Lewis is at once a street wise philosopher, a smiling sociopath and a loving father figure to members of his anti-immigrant gang members. He carries a code of integrity to his street warfare but and at the same time he will hack and butcher his enemies like USDA prime pork. Lewis clearly revels in this role and some would say he is "over the top", but Manhattan in the mid-18th century was about as "over the top" as any place has ever been. Leonardo DiCaprio clearly isn't up to the task of creating a beleivable rival to Lewis' Bill the Butcher. Mercifully, there are few scenes of the wispy DiCaprio wielding a cudgel, because those scenes are almost laughable. Scorcese had a dilemma in casting the 20-something lead in this movie. There are few young Hollywood actors that are classic tough guys...DiCaprio certainly didn't have the right stuff. Cameron Diaz's role as a tough but vuneralbe pick-pocket displays more moxie that DiCaprio's Amsterdam character. Despite these flaws, the Gangs of New York is a masterpiece and shows that a lot of blood was spilled in the streets to build America and gain freedom for all citizens.

Rating:
Summary: Sorry--spolier alert-dozzzzzze
Review: I saw Santa Trap with Robert Hays on tv, and then the older movie Airspeed with Elisha Cuthbert; then at a theater a worthless movie: Gangs of New York. It had enough interesting material for a 15-30 minute slide show on history Chanel. Why are these people supposed to be interseting? Do I feel empathy and compassion for them? Hardly. Day-Lewis may have been historically accurate vocally and in costume but he seemed to have escaped from Popeye starring Robin williams. Cameron D. was not attractive here.

Rating:
Summary: Mindless, but inspired.
Review: Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese, 2002)

To start with the obvious: while this is not, unfortunately, the role that puts Leonardo DiCaprio back into the good graces of the avant-crowd after six years of turning out [bad material], it's certainly better than anything he's done since 1996's Marvin's Room. Scorsese also managed to pull Daniel Day-Lewis out of a five-year retirement to sit opposite DiCaprio, so how bad can the movie really be?

Depends on what you're looking for Gangs of New York is two hours and forty minutes of purely mindless action film, a must-see for people who enjoy large amounts of bloodshed, things blowing up, etc. Those looking for such things as historical accuracy or emotionally engaging characters, on the other hand, may want to give it a pass. The liberties taken with the events surrounding the 1863 draft riots have been much-discussed in the press already, and there's no real reason to recount them here... The emotional lack of the characters, though, has been oddly absent from reviews of the movie. Perhaps no one was expecting any in the first place, more fool me.

Scorsese does give us a fine story to work with; the son (DiCaprio, doing his best Johnny Depp impersonation) of the leader (Liam Neeson) of 1840s gang The Dead Rabbits vows revenge on his father's killer (Day-Lewis) after spending sixteen years in the infamous Hellgate reform school. DiCaprio's character, known throughout most of the film by his alias Amsterdam (I'm not sure his first name is ever used; his last name is Vallon), goes about his revenge by getting close to his father's killer, and most of the film's drama comes from Amsterdam's crisis of conscience as he grows to be the favorite protégé of the man familiarly known in the Five Points as The Butcher.

Scorsese has always been an inconsistent filmmaker, especially in his longer pictures; he's capable of turning out movies where the time flies by (The Last Temptation of Christ is exactly the same length as Gangs of New York, and they fly by with equal speed), and others where the viewer is likely to wonder if a second ice age has arrived during his time in the theater (the painful three hours of Casino being the most recent example). This is, thankfully, one of the former. Things blow up and people stab one another with enough regularity that the supposed love story that develops between DiCaprio and hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold Cameron Diaz doesn't make the thing drag all that badly.

One other critisism: the soundtrack is Howard Shore's worst work ever. The end title from U2 should never have gotten out of the can. bad, bad, bad.

Now for the good: the casting was almost perfect. Depp might have been a better choice than DiCaprio, despite his relatively advanced age (Depp is eleven years DiCaprio's senior). Brendan Gleeson is woefully underused, as he often is when cast in an American film, as is Paul Sorvino. Still, they and the rest of the cast (which includes Henry Thomas, whose career is finally getting back on track after years of obscurity) do the best job they can with a script that seems to've been written by folks who believe in great ad-libbing, which was then handed to a crew who mandated that the cast stick to the script; there's just something missing. Still, as far as mindless action films go, this one's a bust-up barrel of fun. *** ½