Gangs of New York

Rating:
Summary: Yawn...weak movie,
Review: The original premise and the truth of the matter is very interesting: people so xenophobic, they hate their own countryman. Unfortunately, the movie couldn't maintain any type of intrigue and fell to dreadful banality. Ultimately its storyline goes... "A young man's father is brutally killed in front of him, and he grows up and becomes a vengeful beast, oh and in the background there is a lot of injustices, crime, and war among Irishmen."

With the exception of "The Butcher," all the other characters were horrid on several levels. Ironic, the most malicious character in the film is the most liked. I just couldn't get over the horrible Irish accents it was comparable to watching a high school play. I didn't buy into DiCaprio's character or Diaz's. The only good acting came from Daniel Day-Lewis, who was brilliant in the film portraying a brutal man with moral integrity.

Furthermore, the storyline was predictable and laughable. There were no borders to chaos arising from the wars of the 5 corners, the war scenes were horrible, all made up of multiple 5 second clips. There were multiple minute climactic events which led me to believe the movie was about to end, unfortunately it didn't.

The only positives from the movie are the variety of camera angles and shots of New York, which make for some creative cinemography. Although the film does no justice to the history of the Five Corners, it does give the audience some idea as to what went on.

Overall, don't buy it, don't rent it; don't even watch it on TV. For the amount of money and time invested in this film, it fails miserably. The only reason you oughta' watch this film is if you're a Daniel Day-Lewis fan, here he is at his best. I don't care much for brazen costumes, superfluous fight scenes with mediocre acting, so I can not recommend this film to anyone. I Honestly I can't see how anyone can enjoy it.

In My (not so) Humble Opinion


Rating:
Summary: A plague hit the city, and then it died
Review: New York is renowned for being a tough town. Only, in the mid-19th century it was more reminiscent of hell on earth. In the midst of it all, natives and non-natives (mostly Irish) fought for their land, culture, and their home of Five Points.

Scorsese, renovating the modern epic film, chooses New York as the backdrop, and the life of the gangs as his story. This is all well intentioned, and as you might see, the film was pretty good. However, this movie was limited by context, and in the sad story of it all.

Leonardo DiCaprio (as an Irish immigrant) and Daniel Day Lewis (as an already victorious kingpin) played the two main antitheses. Both did extremely well, and Leonardo was successful yet again in breaching out to a new and exciting character: the underdog immigrant.

Now, New York history has never been my interest, and although this movie sparked that in many others, and me there seemed to be an incredible lack of reason for this film's existence. Now, I realize that this would never be an issue for an awful film, because there would be just a short brutal critique. So maybe extra scrutiny is not justified, but Scorsese just never seemed to bring home the plot, the moral, or the point of this film.

If anything it is brutal is as brutal does. For the townspeople's lives (for they were that more then gang members) were built in blood, and although their farce of a society seems peaceful, one of the two leaders, or both, will have to do die in blood.

Summarily, this is a nice timepiece for New York history. Drawn out like a History Channel film, yet vivid and piercing as an action film. A gory immigrants tale if there every was one.

Rating:
Summary: A little disappointing, but a worthwhile epic
Review: This movie may take a while to find its proper place in critical thought, and I'll have to watch it again in a year or two to see if I've changed my opinion. It's a huge, sprawling epic, loosely centered around the story of Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio), the son of Priest Vallon, who was killed in a gang war by Bill the Butcher Cuttings (Daniel Day-Lewis) in 1846. Bill, see, is jingoistic and hates the Irish immigrants; Priest Vallon's gang the Dead Rabbits was about the rights of the poor new Americans.

All of this takes place in a squalid part of New York known as the Five Points. When Amsterdam gets out of the reform school where he's been for sixteen years, he promptly returns to the Five Points, finds Bill who now utterly controls the area, and ends up working for him. He also, somewhat against his will, falls for Jenny (Cameron Diaz), luminous and the most skillful "bludget" (pickpocket) around.

This is a long movie, and at times it's hard to know what the central thrust of the story is-- is it Amsterdam's search for revenge? the first part of that story ends halfway through. Is it how Tammany Hall actually helps the Irish elect a sheriff? That for me was one of the more fun sections of the movie. But that too, ends abruptly. The big gang showdown is intercut and interrupted by the antidraft riots that erupted all over the city (Lincoln's draft for the Civil War).

I found myself wondering what Scorsese's point was, here. It's clear he's somewhat sympathetic to the rioters, but not to their violence. Nobody likes a draft, but protecting the union was a pretty just cause (and the Irish sympathies for the blacks among them as opposed to Bill Cuttings' attitude suggests a latent abolitionist sympathy). So it's hard to feel any sense of exhileration for all the violence and blood thrown in our faces over and over and over again. Most of what we see in the Five Points is sheer squalor-- there must be people paying rent and living in houses, but the only one we ever see is one burning down (everyone else seems to scurry around in underground caves).

All of the acting is good, and it's true that most Americans today have no idea how hard Irish immigrants had it. They were caricatured in cartoons, treated as subhumans, faced with signs that said "No Irish need apply." All true. But Scorsese never succeeds in showing us how the Irish were the Hands that Built America (the title of the U2 song that ends the film). There's little payoff for sticking with Amsterdam and Jenny all the way through-- the movie just seems to end, without letting us in on what will happen to them in particular. Sure, we see shots of the city growing enormous but heck, don't we all know New York becomes a major metropolis?

So while there's an awful lot of historicity here, as a narrative, it's often confusing and lacks payoff. It's well worth a look, but don't expect the rush of identification you get with epics like Braveheart (admittedly, that was not historical at all!). All of the performances are really terrific. I just wish they were in a slightly more coherant story.

Rating:
Summary: The More Things Change...
Review: Five stars - but for reasons you may not care about. As I watched this, I realized that the star was not any of the charactors, so much as it was Tamminy Hall.

And I thouught how well the affable and cheerfully corrupt Boss Tweed would have fit right in with the politics of today; at home in the Republican Long Island machine or perhaps enjoying the warmpth of florida.

As entertainment - well, purely speaking, it's not all that escapist. It's more "rub your nose into it." But to the extent that I can be sure, it is a faithful account of the truth, and I'm willing to give more credit to DiCaprio than others seem willing to do, and to Cameron Diaz as well.

I think she handled a tiny, but critical role damned well, and if she was "invisible", I'd have to say that is true both to the dialogue and the charactor. A fiercly individual woman who nonetheless survived by wits and a talent for invisiblity.

I also think that DiCaprio managed well with a damed difficult role; it's easy to be noticed with a scenery-chewing bit of villany; Bill the Butcher is probably one of the tastiest roles to come down the pike since Iago.

But "Amsterdam" is more comparable to Hamlet. And if DiCaprio did not do so well as one would expect of one more "worthy," neither did he miss the critical note - that while Butcher Bill was his father's killer, he was also one of the few to truly respect him - and do his best to be a father to yong Amsterdam.

The final death-match between the two would have been easy to hambone; in playing it as straight as possible it almost passes without drama. But, then, I don't think anyone involved was out to show you a good time. This is an actor's vehicle with a trenchent point, so the emotional subtitles are left out.

Rating:
Summary: Flawed but fascinating
Review: Martin Scorsese's film about the struggle for supremacy between Native white American and Irish immigrant gangs at the 19th-century New York slum district of Five Points give an authentic, fascinating but at times bleary, even oddly (for Scorsese) "Hollywoodish" feel to this big-budget project. The costumes and sets (the latter built in Italy) are mightily impressive, and some of the period details make for riveting viewing. The film starts with Irish American Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) as a boy, witnessing the killing of his father by Bill the Butcher (Day Lewis). The story gains momentum with him making his way back as an adult to take revenge on Bill the Butcher incognito, who is oblivious of his identity. Scorsese takes some liberty with history and changes the name of "Bill the Butcher" to William Cutting. The real Bill the Butcher never lived in Five Points nor ever could (Five Points was reserved for immigrants), nor did he die in 1862.

Daniel Day Lewis's acting is inspired, and DiCaprio and Diaz both act well enough to acquaint themselves beside him. However, it is doubtless that it's Day Lewis's portrayal of the bigoted, dandyish "Bill the Butcher" which holds the day. Scorsese's ambitious script starts like a familiar revenge story, but gradually interweaves history as it delves into the milieu and feel of the 19th-century lower-class New York, from the amateur fire departments to "Boss" Tweed to the climactic showdown between the two in the amidst the New York Draft Riots of 1863, making an entrancing parallel viewing about a forgotten segment of New Yorkian life. With a fairly predictable storyline, Scorsese's eye for detail is mostly unerring, always bringing our attention back to period concerns and preoccupations. The cinematography is outstanding. In the final analysis, Gangs of New York may not be Scorsese's best, but for the money it's still a colorful, visually lauable effort at depicting the seamy underbelly of one city with its social rivalries and political tensions.

Rating:
Summary: Bloody, meaningless, gory, no plot, PLAIN GARBAGE
Review: I cannot really believe that people actually like this movie. People nowadays only like movies when they are violent, bloody, and without any storyline worth watching.

I went with a friend to the movie theatre to see what people were calling "a masterpiece" and we left a little over half way through because the movie made us both sick. The only interesting part in this movie was the first 15 minutes with Liam Neeson. After that scene, the movie went downhill fast.

First of all, there was no story or plot. The film just went from one blood and guts scene to another. We stayed as long as we did because we thought, "this movie has been such a disappointment, it HAS to get better by improving and having a storyline." After discussing it with friends (after we had left the theatre), we learned that the storyline got no better whatsoever -- it was just more scenes of carnage all the way to the end. Why would anyone call this a masterpiece? A masterpiece would actually have to have some sort of intelligent plot or storyline. UGH

Daniel-Day Lewis was laughable in his fake mustache and unbelieveably fake accent. He is a terrible actor and has never been good in anything I have ever seen him in. Why do so many people think he is good? I cannot imagine why.

I do not write reviews trying to say one director is better or another director is better. A good movie may have a totally UNKNOWN director. The reviewers for this movie are all fixated and obsessed with Martin Scorcese. Who cares? Just because he directs something, it doesn't make it a good movie. Steven Spielberg has made some DUDs too. I have no respect for a director who cannot even come up with dialog/storyline worth making into a movie.

Leonardo DiCaprio is awful, as usual. I suppose that is not saying much.

Nothing makes this movie worth watching. It was boring, uninteresting, gory and without any redeeming quality. Why did anyone even bother? It was a waste of time and money. If I could give this movie a "negative-5 stars", I would.