Rating: 
Summary: The Moose Hole - 'Gangs' of Disappointment
Review: The idea for Gangs of New York, a film about the oppression of the Irish immigrants in 1860's America, had been floating around the head of Martin Scorsese for nearly thirty years and after continuous production delays and release date changes, his dream film is finally making it to theaters. Most of the buzz generated for the film had been created by the film's problems both on and off the set. Such rumors included fights on the set and Leonardo DiCaprio delaying production over money issues. Whether or not it was over money, the film was delayed several times over the course of a year being moved from December 2001 to July 2002 only to receive a release date on the week before Christmas Day 2002, one year after it was originally planned. If the film is truly another masterpiece from the famous director then all these headaches will be worth it. But could all these problems overwhelm the $100 million budgeted film?The story for Gangs of New York focuses on the oppressions of the Irish Americans forced upon them by the "native" Americans. Amsterdam Vallon returns to the city of New York after spending nearly sixteen years in jail. New York was once his home before his father, leader of the "Dead Rabbits" gang, was killed by Bill the Butcher, the leader of "natives" who opposed immigration in America. Amsterdam returns to the mean streets seeking revenge and joins the "natives" in order to get closer to Bill. Bill forms a special bond with Amsterdam and treats him like the son he never had, not knowing that Amsterdam is secretly plotting his demise. Along the way, Vallon sees the horrible conditions the Irish are living under and decides to raise up a gang not only to fight against the "natives" but the corrupt government of New York. The story of Gangs of New York may seem great on paper but when it is brought to the screen, it just becomes too confusing by the end. The main focus should have been the historical aspect talking about the time period and political corruption but by adding the Amsterdam subplot, the two stories get too jumbled together to find a clear perception on what is going on. The Martin Scorsese flick is impressive for its large assemble cast alone but the main characters are well done as well for the most part. Gangs of New York is the first of two films Leonardo DiCaprio opening around Christmas Day 2002 but both roles show that he can't boast his acting ability outside of Titanic. He does a pretty good job at making the audience accept him as an Irish immigrant but the main problem is with the character's story involvement. Amsterdam is way too complicated to fully understand that the plot never fully clears up unanswered questions about him but that is not DiCaprio's fault. Daniel Day-Lewis was excellent as Bill the Butcher. The accent he gave the character as well as the stirring emotions sets the mood for a "native" New Yorker in the 1860's. The only character in the film that seemed out of place was Jenny Everdeane, played by Cameron Diaz. Once again it is not the actor's fault but the fault of the script. Diaz does a wonderful job with the character but there just seems to be no point to her outside of being attractive eye candy. Overall, Gangs of New York, as good as the buzz tries to make it out to be, is a big disappointment. The story of the film is the most noticeable problem. The era of the 1860's is a fascinating time to set a film against but the problem is that the film fails to remind people what is going on at this time. When they join the historical aspect of the script with the Amsterdam revenge plot, the whole thing just becomes too jumbled together to get a straight story out of it. How the historical aspects were handled was also a problem. The fact that the Union and the draft were shown in a bad light was probably the most upsetting part of the entire film. The three hour time length of Gangs didn't help the story as most just seemed drag on. When one part of the story seems to be going in one direction, it ends up just being turned into another direction. Scorsese could have saved at least a hour and a half of the audience's time by cutting out many unwanted scenes to direct us straight to the ending instead of dragging it out. Speaking of the ending, this has to be one of the most disappointing endings in quite awhile. They built all this emotion and intensity into the characters but that is just ruined with this ending. There are good things about Gangs of New York but they are so few and far between that they can be mentioned right now. See the film by all means if you really want to see it. If not then wait for the rental on DVD.
Rating: 
Summary: Immigration at the Crossroads¿
Review: Gangs of New York is an epic crime story about the son of Priest Vallon, Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio), who looses his father in a street brawl. Amsterdam returns to his neighborhood, the Five Points, in the year 1863 during the peak of the Civil War when masses from Europe are immigrating into the US. Amsterdam is seeking revenge on the killer of his father, William "The Butcher" Cutting, however, he is approaching cautiously. Despite Amsterdam's lack of interest in political issues, he is drawn into them anyway through his fathers murderer who is highly engaged in such issues. Gangs of New York offers a brilliant cinematic experience through the supreme mise-en-scene, the exceptional cast who performs very well together, and the complex story telling that will engage the mind.
Rating: 
Summary: Uneven movie
Review: Like it was already mentioned in some of the reviews the first 2/3 of the movie is great. Very powerful, stylish, logical. It's Scorsese in his best. The rest of the movie seems to be created by different authors. It is totally out of the rhythm of the movie. It does make an impression that the movie was cut and all the cuts happened in the end. The end of the movie leaves you very disappointed. So why four stars? The main reason is the first 2/3 of the movie plus the acting by Daniel Day-Lewis, which is incredible. Both Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz were adequate (I was pleasantly suprised by Diaz, which is quite organic in this movie). This and very interesting subject.
Rating: 
Summary: OVER-RATED
Review: In Brief Gangs of New York follows the story of Amsterdam Vallon (DiCaprio), a young Irish-American immigrant, who after 15 years is released from prison and returns to the Five Points - a place of debauchery and corruption and home to the lower classes of Manhattan. His return is motivated by revenge, as he seeks William Cutting a.k.a. Bill the Butcher (Day-Lewis), the powerful anti-immigrant gang leader who killed Amsterdam's father. After infiltrating Bill's gang, things become complicated as the Butcher becomes the father figure that was so sorely lacking throughout his years of growth and to add an unplanned spice to the mix, he meets Jenny Everdeane (Diaz) an enigmatic pickpocket whose fierce independence and beauty captivate him. Yet like everyone in the Five Points, Jenny is not all she seems and her past, like his own, soon begins to complicate his plans. Review Martin Scorsese is one of the great auteurs of the past thirty years, and while some have disliked his recent efforts that came in the form of Kundun or Bringing out the Dead they were still recognisable as Scorsese films. He is responsible for some of the defining classics of cinema and the iconic images of Taxi Driver, Goodfellas & Raging Bull are consistently featured in Top Movie polls. Gangs of New York however is barely recognisable as sharing any cinematic traits that the great man has employed to date. The entertainment provided here is very similar to Titanic and like the glossy reworking of that film, Gangs is a tin can with very little content. The only weight lent to the film comes from Neeson who unfortunately bows out early on and the momentum he provides is not enough to fuel three hours of a simplistic revenge story that would be more at home in a TV movie. DiCaprio doesn't fail to produce his standard annoying youth, as he continues to craft a persona that he inflicts upon audiences with a regular basis. Diaz is strong throughout though any scope for her to fully engage with her character seems to have been stifled in its growth and this is nowhere near her pinnacle performance seen in Being John Malkovich. Giving Day-Lewis the benefit of the doubt, it appears he realises the type of film he is within and builds a solid two dimensional performance around The Butcher, who like Alan Rickman's Sheriff in Robin Hood and the Prince of Thieves, is a beautiful mixture of the camp comic villain complete with tilted top hat and bloody clever. Opening with a shot of The Priest (Neeson) shaving his face with a blade that smoothly slits the rough mask of hair from his face before accidentally slipping into the flesh of his skin, one recalls Scorsese's early avant-garde anti-Nam short The Big Shave (1967). Yet any hope that this brief homage held quickly evaporates; like the Priest's words to his son, "you always leave the blood on the blade" and Gangs of New York left a bad taste in my mouth. It was a production shrouded in secrecy and little has been mentioned of the reasons for it running over schedule and budget. A project that has been 30 years on the shelf for Scorsese was first heard of entering pre-production over 3 years ago. The pacing is jumpy at best, and one can't help but feel that there is a lot more of this film on the cutting room floor rather than in the film proper. Watching the finished result there is definitely a feeling that this was a movie that was constructed in the edit room rather than in its planning and one can't help but wonder that the story behind the film maybe more interesting than the film itself. The Verdict
With a sigh there is something that sinks to the pit of my stomach when a period film uses modern music to score and motivate the narrative. Like the abysmal Plunkett & Maclean I knew there was something wrong when Gangs opened with some bass beats, yet I lost all hope when it closed to U2's Hands that built America. So much had been riding on Scorsese's opus magnum and unfortunately the worst crime will be that mainstream audiences may associate him with this rather than his earlier work. Hopefully people will take it as an enjoyable though sorely lacking film that once seen is best forgotten. This is what Hollywood excels at: laminated history in all its Technicolor glory.
Rating:
Summary: Mr. Lewis, what can I say?
Review: I agree with csymphony in the fact that Leo was hugely miscast, Depp would have been ideal for this movie, he has a presence on screen that is unequaled. I also agree with wtdk in that there was obviously a lot of film cut out in the last part of the movie. While the first part of the film was very well done and a good example of Scorsese (did I spell that right?), the ending sceen was disappointing and pathetic. So why three stars? It was all Daniel Day Lewis, he earned every one of them in my opinion. If I could rate the film based soley on his performance, it would get 6 out of 5 stars. His performance was riveting, completely convinvcing as "The Butcher." He (along with the production design) is the only reason why I recomend buying this DVD. Ms. Diaz, nothing. Not a good performance, but not a bad one either, she could have been played by any attractive actress. It seems her casting was just to use a big name to help sell the film.
Rating: 
Summary: This "Native" was disappointed.
Review: I don't even know where to begin. I gave this movie one star because the only thing I liked about it was the fact that there was a movie during the civil war in the New York. That never happens. I'm a history buff. I love period films. I love movies that take place in New York. I didn't like this movie. First off. DiCaprio was miscast bigtime. Should have been Depp or someone else. I have no feeling on Diaz. She could have stayed or left. Whatever. Day-Lewis was good for whatever that was worth. The title was wrong. Yes, there were tons of GANGS in NEW YORK but that was NOT what the story was about! The film was long for nothing. a chunk could have been cut out in the middle and we would have not really skipped a beat as far as the story was concerned. Scorcese was trying to tell too many stories instead of sticking to the main one. Not usually his style. Characters weren't developed. Overproduced. Sloppy. Uggh! I couldn't wait for it to end. I was exhausted. Skip it.
Rating:
Summary: Gangs of New York, Warts and All, Is Still a Masterpiece
Review: Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York is a flawed movie, but is still a masterpiece. It is Scorsese's most imaginative and boldest work. And the minor flaws that find themselves in this film make it even more endearing and show just how daring Scorsese was trying to be.
New York City and the rest of America is built on blood and every one in it is part of one gang or another. Gangs displays the virtuoso directing skills of a master creating a time period that is real and surreal at the same time. The movie is set in the Civil War era, but one discerns from the outlandish costumes and the sets that this movie isn't just America as it was then. It is America as imagined by Scorsese. Our vision of the past is distorted by time, and why not allow that to come through.
Scene after scene, Scorsese discribes how America as we know it was formed, much like an archaeologist, laying layer upon layer until you see just how much his thesis that everyone is in a gang is true. The politicians are just as corrupt as the Natives and the Dead Rabbits. Every group is an amalgamation of hypocrisies. Bill the Butchers Nativists call themselves Native Americans but everyone in the group is of European origin. The older generation of Dead Rabbits fought for their rights to the death in the beginning of the movie, but all but one of the key members became a willing partner with the Nativists. And the government jumps ship from gang to gang depending upon who can get the most votes. Everyone is corrupt.
The movie ends gloriously bringing all of the different gangs together in one great battle. Cutting from one group to another you realize just how much each gang is like the other -- America's future just depends on which one is the toughest not who's the most morally correct. And in the battle you realize that the U.S. government is the largest gang of them all and the most ruthless. The others use arcane weapons like knives while the American government employs cannons and guns.
There are some flaws with the movie. Daniel Day-Lewis gives one of the finest performances any actor has given in the past five years. It's an outrage that he did not win an Oscar for this -- but, then again, they gave Ron Howard the Best Director over Scorsese. But, Day-Lewis' performance is tarnished by the lack of abiltiy of his two co-stars. DiCaprio is passable, but he loses and regains his accent throughout the movie. Cameron Diaz, who may be great in a comedy, is miscast for this role -- she has the look but not the talent. Her character seems flat and predictible.
But, this, in no way, tarnishes Scorsese's achievement here. His work here reminds of you the brash and instinctive director who made such landmark films as Mean Streets and Taxi Driver. He is paving new ground and reaching for higher plateaus. Whenever you are wandering through uncharted territory, there are going to be some mistakes.
This movie, like most of Scorsese's movies, is one you have to watch more than once to really see what is going on. The long, uncut scene, where Irish immigrants are taken off of ships, signed up to enter the army and sent to war on ships while there are coffins being unloaded off of the same ships is visual storytelling at its best. Watch the movie and relish how Scorsese will cut from scene to scene to draw parallels. Watch how he uses a fade towards the end of the movie to show just how the blood spilled is wiped away by history, but it's still the blood that built this country -- all of this with images without words. Scorsese is a master and this is a masterpiece. It's flaws should be relished rather than criticised because the movie is by a visionary conquering new territory.
Rating:
Summary: Stop the presses...Dicaprio does a movie I actually like !!!
Review: Still reeling from his past projects of teeny-bopper fame (Titanic) I initially cringed at the thought of voluntarily watching something with Leonardo Dicaprio in it. Unless you are a 12 year old girl, his acting does not offer much, and I always feared my brains turning into mush as an inevitable side-effect of watching any of his projects. That is until this film.... Dicaprio plays John, the member of an Irish immigrant gang, who are earnestly trying to make their way in turn of the century NYC against insurmountable odds (including anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiment). Juggling basic survival needs against resources, he sets out to avenge the death of his father himself killed off by one of the street gangs Boss Tweed (Daniel Day Lewis ) is only open to these afforementioned newcomers to the extent they will maintain his power structure exactly as it is. The actual provision of social services as myself and many other 21st century Americans understand them (even in the era of goverment downsizing) is non-existent. Mutiple fire departments spend more time amongst themselves arguing who should be privlleged enough to put out an inferno (and receive money) than saving lives. The Civil War is roaring, but the North is just as suceptible to racism as the more doccumented South from liberal usage of racial slurs throughout the film, and scenes of one pro-slavery rally. For individuals such as myself who were students of American policy and had fancied ourselves educated individuals, complex reality was very jarring. The working class youths volunteering for Union Army conscription do so out of realization this may be the only practical way to get food than racial justice as myself and others currently understand that concept. Eeerily foreshadowing the Flordia 2000 scandal, Boss Tweed's political coruption is a centrail theme of life for many imigrants. Personally, these same people do not like him, but understand a working relationship is important for their survival. Individuals who do not vote when and how the machine wants can expect swift retribution and vote counters themselves wield inordinate amounts of political power. American society made some important advances since the Nineteeth Century, but in some respects we are dealing with the same issues because they were not properly handled the first time. For all of it's mentioned pluses, this film has some serious limitations. The realities of abdominal surgery (dangerous/fatal until development of antiseptic surgery and antibiotics during the 1930's) is repeatedly ignored in several storylines so the characters can make medical recoveries commonplace with Twentieth and Twenty First Century medical innovations. Only once is the procedural-historical seriousness remembered (Cameron Diaz's Cesarian Section) but even this scene only dwells on the risk temporarily instead of treating it as a running theme throughout every person's life. Overall, this is a good film which will readily entertain political and party animals alike. The long run time is compensated by the lively plot and characters throughout the entire film.
Rating:
Summary: Major Disappointment from a Major Director
Review: This material would seem to be perfectly suited to Scorsese's talents. Unfortunately, the result is a big disappointing mess. Set in the slums of lower Manhattan during the early 1860s, the movie is supposed to chronicle the gang warfare that plagued mid-19th-century New York City and the political machinations of Boss Tweed, who played hardball ethnic politics and cleverly pitted the Catholic immigrants against the native Protestants. As I said, right up Scorsese's alley. Instead what we get is a tired, trite, overlong cornball melodrama about a young man (an out-of-place Leonardo DiCaprio) attempting to avenge the murder of his father by infiltrating a rival gang and "befriending" the leader (an over-the-top Daniel Day Lewis) who killed Leo's dad. Leo waits (and waits, and waits...) for just the right moment to strike. But complications ensue when fatherless Leo begins to develop filial feelings for his nemesis. Will Leo ever work up the nerve to slaughter his new surrogate dad? Will new surrogate dad find out Leo's secret? Meanwhile, the Civil War and the New York City Draft Riots are brewing. Although the costumes and set designs are impressive, and some of the scenes are spectacularly shot, the movie bogs down again and again in fifth-hand melodramatic plot devices and outrageous ham acting. Particularly egregious is the usually outstanding Daniel Day Lewis (as the arch-villain Bill the Butcher), who must have decided that this movie was so ridiculous anyway that the only thing to do was stand out by giving us the hammiest damn performance ever put on celluloid. Twirling his waxed moustachio, sporting a garish glass eye, and chopping up everything in sight with his trademark meat clever, Lewis is funny as hell, but not remotely credible. The ending is so bogus and strained, it would qualify the movie as pure camp, were it not for the offensive way it turns the horrendous 1863 race riots and mass lynchings into just another plot point--and a particularly ludicrous one at that. What a missed opportunity by a great director! The growing pains of 19th-century New York City is a great subject, and the story of Tammany Hall and the Draft Riots is one of the most interesting and important in American history. Scorsese would seem to be the ideal director to tell this story. But he decided instead to make a turgid, corny, anachronistic, flashy (and flaccid) three-hour music video & costume drama. What a waste! If you want to see a good movie about generations of gang warfare in the slums, check out the 2003 Brazilian film "City of God." It should be coming out on DVD soon. It's what "Gangs of New York" should have been.
Rating:
Summary: I Love This Movie!
Review: I think it's amazing that "Gangs of New York" didn't when any of the 10 Academy Awards it was nominated for at the 2003 Awards.
This film is awesomely done,I mean we have wars,we have blood,we have great performances most notably by Daniel Day-Lewis who plays William Cutting or Bill the Butcher.But the movie is about
an irish immigrant named Amsterdam(Leonardo DiCaprio) whose father was killed in battle by Bill at a battle called "The Battle of the Five Points".After getting shipped away he comes back to New York to take revenge on Bill.He meets up with an old friend named Johnny and then befriends Bill,as well as meeting a local pickpocket Jenny played by the beautiful Cameron Diaz.
After Bill and Amsterdam get closer as friends Amsterdam has to decide if he wants to kill Bill.There is awesome performances by Daniel Day-Lewis and Leonardo DiCaprio.I love this movie and would recommend it any day.Buy It.
| 
