Genres

Visitors Review

rdambroso 2013-06-16 09:35:26

Daniel Day Lewis was incredible. The movie itself was good

I think that the character that Daniel Day Lewis portrayed was amasterful piece of acting, and perhaps one of the best dramaticperformances I have ever see on the big screen. How versatile is thisguy anyway? He can play an Indian, a Brit, and an 19th centuryscoundrel, as well as a handicapped person. I thought the movie itselfwas very good from a cinematic standpoint but a little slow at times.Unlike some of the reviews, I thought Cameron Diaz did a really goodjob in this. I was very underwhelmed by Leo DiCaprio's performance. Itcame off kind of stiff and uninspired. So..to summarize, I think DDLshould have gotten at least a best actor recommended for this. Themovie overall was good to very good, Cameron was very good and Leo wasa little flat.

ulyses 2013-06-16 00:54:59

Not the worst movie I have seen, but it is over-rated

I am the first to admit that I had doubts about this movie before I sawit. Hollywood never does well with a story "based" on historical fact.After seeing it, my fears were not allayed, even though the film isshot well and the acting was above average.My main problem is the story itself. New York during the civil war wasbad enough without having to embellish the story. Contrary to the themeof this movie, most of the rioting was caused by immigrants whoresented the loss of jobs to freed slaves or feared would cause theirwages to fall. Most of the violence was against blacks, including theburning of an orphanage and the killing and lynching of any unfortunateblack caught on the streets.This is definitely liberal Hollywood's view of history. It may beinteresting, but it definitely isn't factual. Also, all the slobberingabout how great Daniel Day Lewis is in this character is over-rated.His is the kind of brutal, troubled character that doesn't appeal tome.See this movie if you want. Remember it is fiction of the worst kind.

Dale Haufrect, M.D., M.A. 2013-05-31 06:46:36

Good but not Great

This film is advertised as an epic, but it is more of a bloodbath in thestreets of Old New York. Leonardo DiCaprio does an acceptable job in theheroic role. The absolute winner in this Scorcese film is actually thecinematography, done in a muted, foggy fashion throughout the movie. Thiscinema is not as "good as it gets".

2013-05-30 18:06:16

Not great, but satisfying.

Scorsese works his excellence in yet another film that is going to beremembered. Jay Cocks, the story writer of this film, should be blamed forits flaws. The screenplay is also too slow with a lot of unnecessary andtime consuming scenes. The cinematography is fantastic and breathtaking,theset/costume design is beautiful, the acting is excellent (Day-Lewis in hisbest role ever) but the true star is Scorsese and the trademarks heincorporates in this film are constant reminders of his previous works.Although the film isn't exactly the greatest, it is still a satisfyingwatch. This film would've been perfect it had an improved script andstory.7/10

jwinters-2 2013-05-29 23:33:47

Disappointing

The talent and money available should have resulted in one of the greatflicks of all time. But instead the film is a jerky, often difficult tounderstand parody of a time in America's history that while certainly moreviolent than one can imagine could not have been so cartoonlike and so fullof frankly bizarre and corrupt characters. The violent scenes were nothingspecial and actually for all their brutality failed to convey the violence. Compare truly believable violent scenes from Saving Private Ryan;Braveheart, Gladiator, Pulp Fiction, etc. and Scorcese did nothing specialwith these scenes. There was so much potential for a visually stunning film-but even this opporunity was wasted until the closing. We see hardlynothing of the spectacle that New York must have been in the 1860's. Thinkof what Coppolla did in GFII with New York of the Italian immigrant. We aregiven no real flavor of the time and the incredible variety of cultures thathad to exist at the time. The acting was superb, and some of the scenes were incredible to see, butoverall I left the theatre thinking of only one word "waste".

jordonmcconnell 2013-05-29 09:05:04

Pound for pound one of the worst movies ever

I am amazed at how people seem to be bending over backwards to find waystoappreciate this film. Gangs is essentially a shopworn story of revengewrapped up inside a History Channel documentary. Trouble is, it fails onboth fronts. The classic 'prodigal son' story having been covered so manytimes before, Scorsese starts at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, saveDanielDay Lewis's predictably fine performance, neither the script nor theactorsprovides us a reason to care this time out.DiCaprio is typically mis-cast and is given surprisingly little to workwithfrom a script excruciatingly long on character development but yetalarmingly devoid of nuance. Anyone who has seen Gilbert Grape or TheBasketball Diaries knows that he has good acting in him but we don't seeithere. Cameron Diaz is about as believable as you might expect in ashallowrole that might have provided some of the missing nuance but is ultimatelyadistraction to what passes as plot. Mostly she just comes off likeCharlie's Angels with red hair dye. Lewis rules the film but he is forcedtolabor through an excessive series of scenes where he does little butsharpenhis meat carving tools. His character's sadistic qualities areestablishedin the first 15 minutes of the film which renders at least 30 subsequentminutes of film dull and redundant. Did Scorsese edit anything?Mostly every scene in this film is 50% too long. When Scorses wants us toknow that these thugs play poker, for example, he makes us sit throughwhatseems like an entire game to make the point. When DiCaprio follows Diazacross town we witness almost every step from 5 points to uptown. WhenScorsese wants us to know that Lewis and his ilk participate in Dyonesianorgies, he forces us to participate in almost every pair of bare breastsandpeyote pipe puffs that his characters do. Please, Martin get to thepoint.This movie could have been 1 hour 30 mins. Easily. Better yet, it couldhave been just as long but with substance.In the end, Scorsese gives us a worn out rehash of filial revenge andlittleattention to the interesting historical aspects of the setting - althoughtthe scenery and costumes are impressive. A more intelligent treatment ofthis film would have paid close attention to the socio-economic aspects ofthe time first and the characters second. This film works for hours toestablish character and fails. In the end, the audience struggles tocomprehend a New York in chaos.

pmep 2013-05-28 21:46:46

Better with "Special Features"

I didn't think the movie sucked. How's that for a rousing start for amoviereview?Daniel Day Lewis was great. DiCaprio was OK. Diaz wasn't superannoying.It took a LONG time to get from "Hellgate" to the actual revenge attempt,but that was well-used time that really got into some interestingstrugglesand character development, esp. for Amsterdam, his growing affinity fortheButcher, his becoming more like the Butcher, etc.The opening fight scene's MTV music was a terrible way tostart.The DVD format has really revolutionized movie viewing, as I found myselfskeptical about the open warfare portrayed in the city of that time.However, the Discovery Channel material included on Disk 2 of the DVDrelease answered alot of those questions and some. In fact, the closingriot even seems rather mild compared the historical reality of thattime.I would give this an 8 out of 10.

2013-05-28 04:09:22

East Side Story

This film has just about everything - violence, blood, murder, hookers,sex,drugs, betrayal, revenge, and salvation. The only thing it doesn't haveisa strong plot. Still it is worth seeing as a `slice of life' of urban,lower class white society in the mid-nineteenth century.Set against the backdrop of the corruption of Boss Tweed's Tammany Hallandthe Civil War, it depicts the social struggle of native bornEnglish-Americans against Irish immigrants. Forget Leo! DanielDay-Lewis,who plays the bad guy, steals this whole movie and is a shoe-in for aBestActor nomination.The thing I loved about this film - and any American history buff will -isthat it brings attention to an event that "the authorities" have kept inthecloset , The New York Draft Riots (June, 1863)!After the costly victory at Gettysburg, the Union needed fresh cannonfodderand established its first draft lottery. However, you could legally buyyour way out of it for $300 - much to the chagrin of poor whites. Thissingle fact p***ed them off worse than the draft did and for almost aweek,over 100,000 demonstrators rioted . Forget about Southern lynching.Moreblacks were probably hung from light poles in New York than were oaktreesin Alabama. The police and army responded with equal violence.PresidentLincoln was so horrified by the reports, he ordered that no officialdeathtoll be kept.Interesting to note that 100 years later, the govt. still hadn't learnedtheir lesson when another unpopular war resulted in a draft wheredefermentcould be obtained even easier - just by enrolling in college!BTW, even the Twin Towers get a cameo in this film.

Spencer Bownes 2013-05-18 05:10:47

Disappointment.

I waited to see this movie on DVD so that any unanswered questions I mayhave about the movie would be answered by the "Special Features". Sadly, Ididn't even waste my time watching the "Special Features" because the"MainFeature" was already waste of time enough. The only question I was leftwithwas "Why did I just spend nearly three hours inside on a sunny Sundayafternoon watching THAT?" Honestly, there are admirable parts of the film(notably Daniel Day-Lewis' over-the-top, near-comic portrayal of Bill "TheButcher" Cutting, the art design, costumes, etc.), but only ONE largefightscene at the BEGINNING of the movie? And an anti-climactic ending? Iwouldn't watch it again.

2013-05-17 10:52:38

a give away

this film was very dissappointing. a mediocre tv movie is the result of the hard work of many people.the story is boring, a stupid revenge plot. the setup could have been interesting - new york/americas in its childhood - but the makers give it away. well, maybe the artists behind this work are simply overrated?

Nipi-y-k 2013-05-16 19:15:07

Greatly directed "history"

The story of the movie has been greatly directed by Scorsese which tookthisscript and turned it to a almost look alike history.Great performance by Leonardo DiCaprio which has been greatlyprogressedas an actor since his appearance in The Beach (which was terrible as wellasthe movie) but he is still having problems expressing his seriousness inthemovie.Daniel Day-Lewis had for my opinion get the oscar for hisactingwhich was remarkable great! his cruelness in the film is shown almost totheedge of insanity as well as his knowledge in politics and control of thisside of town. Lewis also showed great acting in the more humor parts ofthefilm.Despite the blood and cruelness this movie got it all almostright1. Great script(not too much bulls**t in the more silentparts)2. Great acting3. Great directing by Martin Scorsese4. Nicely composed music5. Almost looks like a real historyThis movie got from me 4 out of 5 stars due to some goofs i noticed myselfduring the movie without searching in IMDB.4/5 Stars in the Nipi-y-k ladder.

Jim 2013-05-16 04:18:53

Not very good, fair at best.

The movie made me think of 'Hook' with Dustin Hoffman. The children had allgrown up and no one was fooling around anymore. This movie was a realfantasy. I can't complain about the acting. The actors all played theirrolls quite well, especially the Bill the Butcher character.The story was just ridiculous. The scenes were just too fantastic. It justdidn't resemble reality to me in any way at all. If this was supposed todepict American history, I don't think it was done verywell.I think it was too big a production with too many hands in the mix. Itended up a big mess. I couldn't rate this more than 5 out of 10. I'msurprised that the overall rating is as high as it is.

trackchris1987 2013-05-08 15:55:39

Absolutely Amazing

I went and saw Gangs of New York this weekend and it was wonderful. It wasone of the best movies i have seen in a long time. It was by far the bestmovie this year. It should be a serious Oscar consideration and shouldhavebeat out The Hours for best picture at the Golden Globes. This is a mustseefor all movie goers. A+.

2013-05-07 22:22:08

drifting and lifeless

yes i agree daniel day lewis was amazing and i did like the fact that leonardo brought had the fire of revenge in his eyes but ultimately this movie was too long. it was a story i was not a part of. i know the point was to document a certian period but there was so much going on and so many sub-plots that i was lost and never really cared about the action going on. movies are supposed to draw you in and make you become part of the plot. (good movies anyway) so that you leave with a sense of having been a part of something. you get so drawn in that you feel your on that roller coaster ride with the characters. this movie never did any of that. i was bored and indiffernet to the whole thing. the story is about new york city in the 1800's. Irish immigrants were pouring off the boats in droves and the "native americans" (white folk) were up in arms about the foreign scum invaders taking their work, their country away from them. there was one point in ny city that held a large amount of business potential and out of said point were five roads. named the five points, it was the center of corruption, power control, slum life, gangs and gang war. daniel day lewis plays "bill the butcher" (so named for his skill with a knife) who is at the top of the players involved. he was well connected and had good muscle behind him to maintain a good deal of control. leonardo plays amsterdam vallon, an irish immigrant who see his father killed when the irish rise up against the native americans for a gang fight. he vows vengence and set on the road against bill the butcher and his "federation of native americans". good idea for a story but the movie failed to execute it accurately. as for the dvd, i did enjoy the real history channel special about ny city during the 1800's. that was quite interesting. there is also a tour thru the making of and thru the various sets but for me the movie itself was a waste of my time.

The xX 2013-04-30 23:40:00

Amazing film...

I can only say that I'm sorely disappointed at myself for not seeing it in the theatre. Story: Wonderful and TRUE. My ancestors were Irish thus making the experience that much more enthralling. Acting: -DiCaprio: Good. I think Colin Farrell would've been a GREAT fit for this role, but again... a good performance by Leo. -Day-Lewis: Amazing. He made the movie... TRULY. -Diaz: OK. Nothing special... but, better than I thought. Direction: Excellent. Of course, there are a few things we all differ with... but, I can't say that I could've done it better. Visuals: Uhm... go watch it! See for yourself! Verdict: If you haven't seen it... see it now! Don't listen to all the nay-sayers, this movie is spectacular. I cannot even comprehend the fact that people actually rated this movie lower than a B+.

Corky1984 2013-04-30 20:49:24

De Niro or Pacino would have made this a classic

This was a film that given the right cast could have been ratherimpressive. It didn't, so it wasn't. In short, the film suffers fromthe presence of Mr.DiCaprio, a man so utterly devoid of actingabilities that he should be prohibited from ever starring in anythingagain. He stumbles through the film looking less like a man and morelike a delinquent paper boy. The script is fairly self-righteous andjust a bit too dull in my opinion, making Gangs of New York one tomiss. The much hyped battle scenes are also a tad pedestrian and reallyshould have been much more violent and gritty. Somebody like Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino could have taken this film and made it their own, butby having such a poor leading man this is not one of cinema's bestofferings, far from it in fact! Day-Lewis should not be so smug either,he didn't put in such a good performance in my view, over the top butnot funny, a poor combo. Overall this film is a waste of time.

werefox08 2013-04-21 18:00:29

Lewis----The Only Shining Light-----in Martins Mess

A big mess of a movie. The performance of Daniel Day Lewis saves itfrom being ..a very bad movie. Its only ..bad. It must have been hellfor Leonardo Di Caprio ..trying to "mix it" with a REAL actor. If itwas Martin Scorses s plan to make everything appear fake....imitation,he succeeded. The viewer always painfully aware he is watching a movie.Perhaps Mr. Scorsese tried for too much. The big grizzly, bloodyopening sequence is ...ridiculously contrived. Almost funny. Any scenewith Day Lewis is worth watching. He makes Bill the Butcher a hugelycolorful character. His command of the role is brilliant. The less wesay about "the others" the better. All of them appeared like lab ratsrunning around big sets----hoping no-one was watching them. Di Capriomust have been praying to be back on the Titanic. Sinking here musthave been .. embarrassing. The end sequence was like the Keystone Cops(only funnier) Calling it the end is being nice. It wasa............HUGE..............cop out. Don't try one of theseagain...Mr. Scorsese

2013-04-21 11:14:10

^^

Always there are important movies, movies that we approach with a sense of deep thinking and wondering what is the message beyond it , fortunately (Gangs of NewYork) is one of those movies.As a fan of scorsese's movies, i have always liked his ideas and perception about NewYork city , he seems not considering NYC only as a location of many of his movies , but as a living entity , entity that has dreams,fears and hopes , an entity with past,present and a future , and as we have seen NYC during the seventies and eighties as filmed in hismovies , why not take a look at the past of the city?The movie's opening battle between the irish leaded by Priest Falon( Liam Nesson) and the American natives leaded by Bill the Butcher(Daniel Day Lewis) , the battle scene was one of the most breathtaking moments of the film , it introduced us to NYC in this dark age , with every blood that is shed and every limp that is chopped we become more and more prepared for the incoming viloence throughout the movie , and as the little Di caprio watches his Dad gets killed by the hands of the Butcher he tries to run away but he is captured by the gang's members and sent to a prison like assylum , where he spends 16 years till he is being released , and get back the city to seek revenge agains Bill the Butcher. may leads youTo consider this movie a revenge movie is sort of missjudgement , the revenge story is running alongside the real story , the story of NYC itself , how it was evolved , how it was built on lakes and lakes of fire and blood , and as the movie goes on you you become more and more engaged into what Scorsese is intending to do , the analysing of the present based on the past .Daniel Day Lewis is magnificent in every aspect , great performance that captures you from the very first scene you see him , and that may leads you to miss him during the scenes where he is not present , and i think he should(And must)Have got the Academy award for his performance , and actually he deserve it .Leonardo Di caprio did a good role , although i have seen a better performance from him in (catch me if you can) , but may be the shining of Day Lewis was overwhelming and that may affected his performance .Cameron Diaz was very charming in the her role , and that's an extending for her good performances during the past period like her role in (Vannila Sky) .Martin Scorsese did a very good job , he is a master as usual , and his vision for NYC in the 19 th century was surprising in every sort of the way , and very convincing aslo , you get the messages beyond the movie easily , although it needs some thinking to get the full message , and the rhythm of the movie was good in general , although i think that some parts needed to be faster , but that may be due The carness from Scorsese to build his charachters carefully and accurately , so you can accept the moves of the charchters without inquiring why this or that has happened , and that's ofcource is an important corner of directing a good movie .Gangs of NewYork may not be the best movie directed by Scorsese , but sure it's one of the best in his career and one of the best movies of 2002 or 2003 (depends on the release date in your country) .

R. J. 2013-04-17 23:09:01

A genuinely impressive, striking and powerful epic

Martin Scorsese's pet labour of love, a project he'd been trying to set upfor nearly a quarter of a century, finally reaches the screen after tales ofa turbulent year-long production and rumours of constant arguments withproducer and Miramax head Harvey Weinstein, namely over its length(Scorsese's first cut came in at over three and a half hours). The endresult, however, is more than worth the wait, since Scorsese, shooting in amassive specially-constructed set in Cinecittá, has really given it his alland comes out with one of his most striking and powerful films, even if it'sa bit too early to say if it's his best. Sharing the recurrent theme ofpeople caught up in the inexorable march of a history whose symptoms andsymbols they are, the film is set against the little-known New York urbanriots of the mid-1850s, when the city's slums, an explosive ethnic mix ofimmigrants from all over the world and resentful first-generation Americans,rose against the tony uptown over the newly-passed conscription law ofcompulsory military service in the Civil War, setting up an urban civil warof its own. Against this heated political backdrop Scorsese plays out thestory of the revenge of Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo di Caprio), son of anIrish immigrant gangleader, on Bill "The Butcher" Cutting (DanielDay-Lewis), a first-generation nationalist and head of the Natives gang whokilled his father on a gang fight. The tensions between Vallon and Cuttingare used as metaphors of the havoc around them but also of their ownspecific codes of honour - a son without a father, looking for one in theman who killed his own, but also a father without a son looking for someoneto call a son, both of them willing to sacrifice what they hold as sacred toensure the survival of the bloodline. Breathtakingly directed by Scorsese ina sweeping, operatic flow, "Gangs of New York" is an old-fashioned politicalepic that seems strangely attuned to our days and confirms Scorsese as thequintessential American director of his generation and one of the few ableto harness material of this scope and size into a film so genuinelyimpressive.

2013-04-17 12:17:46

Looking for a plot? This is not the one for you!

If you want to see a film which shows what New York City was like in the 1860's, the background scenery is for you. History buffs might like it for that reason. But the plot--if it can be called that--very quickly descends into one long, bloody, gory beating. Granted, mindless violence is quite popular these days, but I think filming a boxing match would have provided more of a storyline than this epic actually managed to churn out. The only parts I found remotely noteworthy was the portrayal treatment of the Irish immigrants in the turbulance of the Civil War era. So, in brief, the only way I could see this picture even being considered for "Best Picture of the Year" would be if the only other contenders were "Ishtar," "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or anything else by Ed Wood.